20060309 Ver 1_Complete File_20060224

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
??e
Cy
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 17, 2006
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John T. Thomas, Jr.
NCDOT Coordinator
060309
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide Permit 33 Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 28 on NC 801
over Withrow Creek, Rowan County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-0801(3),
WBS No. 33597.1.1, State Project No. 8.1632201, T.I.P. No. B-4255: Division 9.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE), Pre-construction Notification
(PCN), permit drawings, and design plans for the subject project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 151-foot Bridge No. 28 over
Withrow Creek with a new 3 span bridge approximately 165-feet in length. The new structure
will be a 3-span box beam consisting of 1 span at 55-feet, 1 span at 75-feet, and 1 span at 35-feet.
The bridge will be built utilizing top-down construction. A temporary causeway will provide
access for construction of the center (75 foot) span section of the new bridge. A temporary onsite
detour located east of the bridge will maintain traffic.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Yadkin River Basin (sub-basin 03-07-06) in Rowan County. This
area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03040102 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region.
Withrow Creek is the only water resource in the project area. The project will result in
temporary surface water impacts of 42 linear feet (0.008 acres) to Withrow Creek from the
placement of a causeway. The causeway will be used to set the center span of 75 feet which
spans the creek. There are no permanent impacts. Also, a temporary onsite detour will be located
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE.' WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

east of the bridge to maintain traffic during construction. The detour will span the creek and will
not result in any jurisdictional impacts.
Withrow Creek is a perennial stream, approximately 30 feet wide and 1 foot deep at NC 801.
The substrate is composed primarily of sand. Withrow Creek has been assigned Stream Index
Number 12-108-21-3 (8/1/98) by the N.C Division of Water Quality. Withrow Creek has a best
usage classification of C. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
implemented.
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply (II), waters occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor.
Withrow Creek is not listed on the 2002 List of impaired waters [Section 303(d)] for the Yadkin
Basin. Listed waters do not meet water quality standards or have impaired uses.
Utility Impacts
Portions of an existing 8" diameter water line, located near the bridge end bents on both sides of
the creek, will be relocated. However, it will not be necessary to replace either the 16-inch
diameter casing or the water line that crosses over the creek. There will be no jurisdictional
impacts due to the relocation of portions of the water line.
There will be power poles set temporarily within the construction easement on the eastern side of
the bridge to allow for the construction of the new bridge. There will be no jurisdictional
impacts due to the placement of the power poles.
Bridge Demolition
Existing Bridge No. 28 is a 4-span structure with an overall length of 151-feet. The average span
length is 37.5-feet. Bridge No. 28 has a clear roadway width of 24-feet. The superstructure
consists of a reinforced concrete deck with concrete rails on a substructure of timber piles with
concrete caps and spill through abutments. There is potential that components of the bridge deck
and rails may be dropped into waters of the United States during construction causing 56 cubic
yards of fill to be temporarily placed into Waters of the United States. All guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters.
Restoration Plan
Following construction of Bridge No. 28, the onsite detour and all construction materials will be
removed. The impact area associated with the bridge is expected to recover naturally, since the
natural streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any
additional planting in this area. Class 1 riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization.
Pre-project elevations will be restored. NCDOT will restore the stream to its pre-project
contours.
Schedule: The project calls for letting of July 18, 2006 with a date of availability of August 29,
2006. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in August.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation for the
removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use
2
excavation equipment for removal of any earthen material. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes,
and various other pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and
bridges will be used on site. All material placed in the stream will be removed from the stream at
that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer
deems suitable in the construction of the project. After the erosion control devices are no longer
needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Despite the minimization strategies employed for the proposed project, the resulting temporary
surface water impacts will be 42 linear feet (0.008 acres). Consequently, the project will not
require compensatory mitigation, but avoidance and minimization practices will be implemented.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION: 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) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the
project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by
NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization:
• The proposed project includes complete bridging of Withrow Creek with no bents in the
water, unlike the existing bridge. Reducing the number of bents in the water will allow for
improved stream flow that will maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow
regime.
• The new bridge will be built in the same location as the existing bridge.
• No deck drains that would drain directly into Withrow Creek will be placed on the bridge.
• Stormwater will be directed to grass lined ditches.
• The design of the new bridge is such that backwater elevation will not encroach the current
100-year floodplain or modify flood characteristics.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs).
Mitigation:
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed construction in jurisdictional waters of the US and that the proposed action includes all
practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional stream impacts that may result from
such use. Project impacts are temporary. There are no permanent impacts. Therefore, no
mitigation is proposed.
3
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. As of January 29, 2003, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Rowan County, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii).
Field surveys were conducted on September 19, 2005 for both species. Although appropriate
habitat is present within the project right-of-way limits in the form of regularly maintained
roadside shoulders, field or pasture edges, and utility easements, no individuals of Helianthus
schweinitzii were observed during the September 2005 survey. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, updated on March 31, 2005, revealed no occurrences of this species
within 1 mile of the proposed project. Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed project
will have a Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for Schweinitz's sunflower.
The project area was also surveyed for bald eagle. No water bodies large enough to support this
species occur within 1 mile of the project area. No nests or eagles were seen. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the proposed project will have a Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for bald
eagle.
Table 1. Species Under Federal Protection in Rowan Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus T No No Effect
Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii E Yes No Effect
Sunflower
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 for the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing for the above-described activities and the use of
a temporary causeway in the stream for bridge construction.
Section 401 Permit: We also hereby request a 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC)
3366. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of these WQCs. Therefore, written
concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a)
and 15A NCAC 2B 0.200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as notification.
4
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.nedot.or /g doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Ms. Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincerely,
?:'-Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. S. P. Ivey, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, P.E., DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
20 0 60 30 9
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW33
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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, 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
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 9
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: Replacement of Bridge 28 on NC 801 over Withrow Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4255
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Rowan Nearest Town: Salisbury
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From 70 travel south on
NC 801 (Barber Junction Rd.) for approximately .75 miles
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.7078°N 80.6422°W
6. Property size (acres): 1.98 acres
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Withrow Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin River Basin
(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.ne.us/admin/inaps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area consists of a mixture forest, agriculture and
private residences
Page 2 of 9
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Brid,ge No. 28 will be replaced on existing location. A temporary causeway will be
constructed for use during construction of the bridge. Heavy duty excavation equipment will
be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway
construction. An onsite detour will be used to maintain traffic.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The bridge is functionally obselete
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. NA
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.
NA
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: see cover letter
Page 3 of 9
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se aratel list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
NA

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
4. Individually list all intennittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Intermittent. Perennial Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
1 Withrow Creek Temporary Perennial 30
42 (temp) .008
(temp)

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 42 .008
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

indicate on ma)

Name pplicablle) Watee)
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake' pand estuary' sound bay'
ocean, etc. Area of

Impact
(acres)
NA

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 9
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): .008
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres : 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) .008
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 42 (temp)
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. 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.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
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. Please refer to the cover letter
Dace 3
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
Page 5 of 9
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 January 15, 2002, 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 NCEEP 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/newet]ands/stnn?l,,ide.htinl.
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.
Compensatory mitigation is not needed. The project only has temporary impacts.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.cnr.state.nc.us/wm/indcx.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Page 6 of 9

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. 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 ?
3. 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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", 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 NA 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0244, or.0260. No mitigation is required
Page 7 of 9

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. NA
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
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. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Page 8 of 9
XV. 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).
None
2v 16 t-,
Applicant/Agent's Signature 'Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

1957 1959
B( ber
. , . l0 3°ker M81 Rd
,? 7957
70 1958
1 ? ?? TO Cle I `1• l //?? ` ,
and i \,4n ?.
1741
Redmon Rd. P
Y 1740 \ o-
-Protect 0 Hill
°
8-4255 \

rt°?? Lt
ao
'
µ ithro+•
W. Rowan ?i
High Sch.
Ebenezer
Ch.

VICINITY
MAPS
o \
,1957
l
1526
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROWAN COUNTY
PROJECT: 35597.1.1 (B-4255)
BRIDGE NO. 28 OVER
WITHROW CREEL: AND
APPROACHES ON NC 801
SHEET I OF 10 418.rq 05
,d Rd.
1739
(NOT TO SCALE)
NORTH CAROLINA
c
Q
Z Q
g p o
v W z
W
lJ.! J r O
Z Z p b co W z "y
® O
O z z
z; U D U p
r
O «6'a'. A Z O
J Q w @ \v
Z
O
co I
Z o
r
W
F-
N
WITHROW
CREEK
A s?
4®
Z? II
-o
w cd I I
mCL.
11 ?
\\y°GO\
\\O

- E425'5"
t ? / '1 ?, ?- ? ? :+'?, _ ? \;? `aim'`-??.`•?\/ -
63 2
tip. ? ;•,1 ??/ ii - ?,
?rr?= ' -`r_ Ll/ 1??' `$St3aCn X525
' f -1 . ! ! i'• I+.... j- "T ??;_ .fit -_ _ ) / - ie, ? _Y- /?,_,, .
NCD(O 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROWAN COUNTY
T ©P © MAP PROJECT: 33597.1.1 (B-4255)
BRIDGE NO. 28 OVER
SCALE: I" : 1500' WITHROW CREEP AND
APPROACHES ON NC 801
JJ-i
I • __ / ti
r yo j t ?..
'774
?? J-- t, L-'•Ct1-_ ? - ?'?. ? ?., - II III -I
SHEET OF 10 4 / 8 / 05

Z m ? I?
N 7N-? W
t
3 6 ° v
i

g
Lo
ti
az
0
9 $
0.
m
I

0
Ll-
-Nd
u"w
ZL,j
Cie
Ws ,Y Z
Y: j e' jz3o
0 0400
m ?
3LLj, 1-4
W
°g:m '
o
Grp
a?
I-u
?N
G
Iz
?0
oz
zo
R
0049.7
004 L :I

,off ?lc
1

oof SI
?I
J
3
>g-
3

I W

o ?
/? r S
O (?Lif
O` bm
i
0 0
09
$I?
I?
I?
1

D
'3`?OMB 03SOJOIJ 13MLISNOD 01 AYYSM3N OYOA If1YH d0 NOIL3R ZMW NO! MOTTI Ol I *ON 1DW NO 1N3W3SY3 NOILDMISNOJ AT"Odffu 03S"
SOW NOISIA3M AYM 30 Word
SNOISIA34

o
67
4Q
?QO
i .
t
?N
U9

5 m?
=?f
rl?
{1
W'L,b3
W'20-:
1
1
u1
I?
1
I
i
i
1
?N{
O ? v
O = F. C reRj?
tin
~ F N
Jw? 4--- m a
? o m
F-m? ? F
W -I
a
1 C33emu.. .: r r
t`
N ? O O Q
try ?
..'
(6 ? Y
m
m6k'6 G
} ?> * O? ZLL Q
1 J 4 LL LL LL 1'
o a
ti O O m D
C K
L F m ml ??
1 al ' o
W L W 1
1 F.F
W
Z
> 3 ?F„ Ox
p o+
oW=
o
? o F
` I
L
oeq
i

$31111
/3"116 t31V01

00493
o
Z
m

z
a
w
a? N

W
C3 N
V
?
? ..a r
Q
g I
m $? ag
? a
>J J
?
f U-
U°-w
H
w Z u
?P

Jg
` z
o0 0
?
t
u Go .

(j
?-
OO
j
W
0
°Cm
i
C
o
CV
at a
m
O?y
5v 1
s
0040

9.
.9
>3!
O ??I
a
V
v
a
oa
ad
s`
I lu
00#51
3
i?x
V)
?Z
?0
In
ZO
eL
b

0o s Rll_ W',
x i uz-,-? ?h
x55 ?3 ??q
W
\\Q\ N9f5,?yE
W I - tjr l+ 1 O
N1 M
Flu
1 u ?
W? I I 1 a3 ? ?<
Z? O Y?J
R 33 S
? N
w ?°? I ?B I I i2?Itl
? ?1 I I I ?a?7?i 1 J"ya
?? ° I I ?n? 1 \6r
I' I 4? f,5 1 001,51
o. ro I ? i 1 "' ,
v x I I E
, I 2e
1
II I I I r0 ..
1 I 1 wM
T W
O ( I ? .
Fi<z?
joi±
=330 NOMIIIN
.G
?1W
I ?
' I n
9^ e ZrI I // / ?
V
<? It
n
\ : W
1 I / '
\
I I /
N \ 4 I i
\ I Y ° x

1

I

O J O a I \
of
n ° x I G I

.
?
I
n
? I .
I g
?
3
L l
I
i
I
I I
I I I
I
r '
Y 1
1 L 1 1
1
s
• 1 1 1?

i
F
F ?3F
`+ Q V
n ml
I _
R>-
nab
L
N
N
JQ
= b ct
U N
I-: J

VOO
?? 'o f

m g u
a
Fm«
w
4
emu- n

r
ti
w
N W
LL
LL {
o v m t
C x
j G
m
-R N
V

U C 4J Z'i

1-
co
a
w `
0
-`
J
i 1
J u ?,.. w
o
Q ?:

w -" o r
b

? } 4
LL
ti4 n D n

a
o 7,

LL?
u
2 b
s e ° ?
??
+?

? 20f
a
w
owl °e€

Q o
r o ?
A 1?.
1'•
11'
1 1 ? tll"

$311A:
f3nilf f31V0:
3`JU[MB mSOdOMJ i:)n=NOJ O1 AMYS53D3N QVOM iny" Jo NOU:)rCU.SHW Vol AAOTT/ O1 l'ON 13D WA NO 3N3W3SV3 NOLIOnXMN0:) AMVMOJWU Q3SWN
MTL'1 NOIS" AYA JO iHOM
SNOTS"
0
Z
0?

?8 W
LU
g g
r, Z (4--
Ln
v
? r?
az o
m mS
g m J
0

H
Uw
Wi

J° =Z,
oco
u

OR,
°
mo
a?
00}9.7
ff.w W '
2? { 1
W
„.z h.
?Ya?f t<!?^ W I
OK TV??
¦ I
m ,
O?W? 1
2W
O ?R ?mm vo I ?I
I
00402
Z3 ^3! in
3 -4 ? It
ti°! 00?0?0 y? /? w
on ? 7Y/
+ w!
:Q 4444

Rua
01
o
I
o? \
I za\ (a
00491
6
-gwms mSOdONd 1:)nx 5NOO OL ANYSM3N QYON VMN TO NOL OMBNOJ N03 MOTM Ol I'ON 13ONYd NO DUMSY3 NOIIOfA M403 AraOdWU O3SIA3tl
Mt1 NOIS" AVM d0 .Word
SNOTS"
0

J

o„ W ly

q

? I
,oo \ 4, Sam ? i
:?o L O n
0
a`N1 c-,. , 6qm-?/
I ,'O woo
r'? ? ? a y
m c\8 3?
vi
z; m T
?? W
a p??
b t ???i-6
o
_w
I I
Vo'Q^Q
JwJS
am«
0
Lj?i
W
4! 4
N ( 1?
° a
LL LL
J
c
\ C W?f?
I o o,
a
v.
W Z N yt
O_ 4
W,
, .41
Owl
a-
1
> II
till"
069 I
1 O©
mL
o
m 67
V a 6 \

$3112!
f3R11f 43 1 VCf
f .
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
1 John E. Gray & Wife
2 Earl W. RoonEz & Wife
2 Rebecca Jane Barber Floyd &
Joyce Ann Barber
7655 NC Hwy 801
ME. Ulla, NC 28125
7285 NC Hwy 801
Salisbury, NC 28147

0 cn
D -' o
•
r

O Cl)
W

Cn

r Q
1
p 1
30

+
m o
0
°
+

1 J
W U7 Cl)
N

m W
a m
3 C1
x 0 ?
(9 (D -
02

N
G) v
cn
G
D CL
J 0 CD
C
O
c CD
w
1 112
T
V
O O O 0
6 Q. 21
CD C) CD 0
O 0 O O Q 7

O O O O T? N
O O O O n
0 0 0 o P
CL
N m
m
o p o o z
0

° 0

° 0

° 0

°
v v
o o o o CL o
N ?

O O O O n 0 Cl)
O O O O N (D
= Z
v
O 0
0 0
0 0
0
? 7
C
-o
Ua (D
CL m

0 0 0 0 _
0 O O n
O 0 N ?.
O O O O CL
N to
.D
D
.D n
0 o O O
1
`D
/n
C
0 0 0 0 n
N 7
D

0 0 o O 3 c _

O 0
O C)
O C:)
O cn CD
n N 3
ZT]
w co 0 0
m D
n
m
v >
? X D
o = ? v
:3 =3
> >
(D n CD (0
?

.D
i3 =r x C>
o N o o 3 m>> -+
I I I I I I I l
N
CD
O O O O CD
C
??
i
•n
?3°J
09/08/99
anvmm eaeae eu
.oi.eass
CONTRACT: 0201474
TIP PROJECT: B-4255
eu i
?e ¦ o
F n
=Y j?
OY ¦r
J ?
N
J p ¦¦?
Y Z
O ¦
rm
O
?'O
o?
L
?l
-a
O
n
v
"
j BB
?Lb .ei
? lnv,

J•
rTi
? f

Q
• `d'am 11.9 .
?a,v° .
o
/ ?
a+
oZ ??g ern` ",- v -f? `-;
V

?
a
oo y
:.a s
i g"
??
/? r

l R
owde Rd, ? ,
d

/ S
O
Q
m C)
O
'71 O
z
p03
Z
.. ?
nrn
v z
CO
Z ao
00
C O
z
C
D ?
G1
m
n
Z m
v 7?
N
70
C
C
X
m
ro
?S
?z
D>
a?
?ro
r
>
z
N

?I
pd

a
W
W
ul W
W
In W
W
.

'o
•o LA
a C

V
V
V €
W N -?

tm to
o b b s

O h m V? ??
p

Z
O
-?
c
m N N
•a
D
D
i
?
D
?
D
9
--1 C3
D
?
A
?
mD
?
D
m
D
m
m
M
X
m
y
i
-
-I
-
i
-
i
-
-17
o
-I
-
i
-
i
C) H 9 D o 0 o D o 0 0 0 0
m z v a v n v D v zvD•n D •D v D v D D v
z rz• Z z rz• Z •
-i

m c7 D m<D <
•
v =om37 m •v m v m3) m y v mao v
m m y
O
cn
-u
m
m
M

U)
r
0
U v z 'o -G D D D S -G D D -G D D
m G7 -
w

D o v v7 o v o v o v o v 0-0 a
S z-n= •n v -n x z•nS •n S z•nS •n x •n cn
'
D
M D D O D D o D D o

1

J

c
z cn n u7 z cn n cn n tn n x tn n cn n cn o z
r
M S m m m S m m m m m
O
to 7mm m -1 m m zmm m m vmm m m m m U)

U)
S
O

z z m n n

0
-?
M. c
o
c
v
v
?-
S
-
m
z
m
m o w
-i
Smm H37
z cn U)
m m v D
'o m --I D
-I vo
'n m c o
c
0

H
N M D
m O -1 -G O .O O
? (/7
M v x -G v w c c m

I

?

D3. • ` ? m -i- -i -1 cn o cn m

L

Q`
W
? O
O

-
1 O
r O -'' G7
a°. :3:
? Z
N
1 N N -
I i 1

?
w w I N
- C? I O _ N
'40 m m D ja I O N LA ?-

cn o
-n
r-
v
I
N m
Z
C
?
00 0 0 •d m I z N s
0
pO ?C, m O 0 0
^ v
? m
'z - - I - - - z
`
,

A P
r
Z
O = I
r Z
pn
Z V1 I °
c" ° D z r I
A O z
o 0 o p Z I O m
N N T
00 m z m " I 11
O - I
I
O I O ? ? r
_
z
o v
N N N m

N O. _
O O O

`O z N
OD z
0
rn
v

a
•. N
? W 0-
M 7
: IA
` z
Py ;r
c. i•t to

POINT
i-I _ ?
V
F
CUTS

-?
o

10
°s

L" Z
Ow> z
a
0
o
N?
-c
m z

n N
V)
O
? -I m
W m
N m
-1 v v
--? n
W n n
1

c7 cn -.I v
H -? S • • r z • z • z •
z {-
D A
i
c z ? ?nD< DD DD c
'7D< DD cD<
7 DD DD
v <v m<D <v m<D <v <v

3]
•
31 37
37 3)
z 31 •
9 9
? •
37 3]
37 37
HH
A O
D O
D
F-+
D D O HD DO Do
? ? zz
c?v c7x c7x z
c?v
v c7x ZOO cox cox
m n mm M. M. m mm M. mm M. M.
m m r-
m
m
D
m
m m ? -I
D 9 - S -? S cn 9 -
i
•-1 S ty S •
-I 9 w m
-?

-- --I m --I --1 = -•I m -I -I m -I -I
-1
H =37mD m mD =M> mD 37mD mD m =
z u7 cn D U) U) cn cn U) to to
-
c7 o o p

o O S
m -i-+r rnD tnr -1 -•r .r>r -•r -:c C
-I 1 -I N r -4 -I ? --I to -1 -• --I rn -i a) D m
D r? ?+-i o r? a) --?N co mr
H m n n m n n o n n -4 Fm
r u7ro rc7 ro cnro ro ro ro r m
tnmz mo mz cnmz mz mmz mz mc7

-I • 37 n 37 -i • 37 37 C7 • 37 37
?
n-o-i vm v-I D'v? v-i m -u --I -u-4

m S m 37 m S 31 37 37 -I

w m
m
N H
H
1 CA
Cn
m ?
_cn D u) m
? v7 D cn z
? to z ? cn c to C u7 =
p[n OD Oln O-I O -1 N O9 p37 Ow
H• M CA m =• m m =• •tl •T7 ? m
? s ?
-G C7 •G -G n H -C -C H ? -? -G ?t
vvo vn vo zvm vm zvm om v? C
•
v S c m v H H v
e7 "o m
. m

37- m - =37m m =9N ? C
0 m Y
-• -I -I -?n n -? m n m
S
a-G - S-

mvm v m vz m v-? o-i -
m m o m c7 m cn U) m -G •n -G
D?7m 'n m 37vm m vv v -?
N N y=- =m ?m ?
TSC
7i n
-IN c

o o• o m -? -G co m
-gym o m 9-?v v -?• r• cn
o- r m - o m m o cn D cn co
D- m -< m

m X ca
m co co u7 -
cn
• o 0
m m
?I

N

ol
W

O
N
J
p 00 DD 00
?00 `` l O A
O? ( O
O N ? ? N N ?
?N N r
_
o c 0
vom D O N
m ()
O N o°0 0- r v
wo
?' O r m N Z0 00? m o N
N
-5i 04 g (A 22 I
z zm E; OZ
G1 " + Z r ° v
pN 0Z O - p I7?? 00 Qp Z N N rt? N
-i ° m
N
rn O N C7m N I `gy' N Z
-"]? ?0 m
Q O
-1N 0 W Z .O NOa z Q z
0 (A O Q + z IJ -I
?m z 14 O -
Gl W -'? 0 0
co
Z O N °? N t?l1 00
P, ? ?N 'O O
O
,000 W -
9-1 ?
W
°
V
N
I? HINGE POI
FOR CUTS
o? ?
J f
?D
O;u
° D
m m
N r
m
I-
a
v
N
N
O
°
0
a
V
O
O
rn Q ^ R
m ? In
m
v
n
r
O
-n
W
0
0
55
v
X
v
m

r
N
o?
0
00`
C3 m
0
v
W
N
J
o I
!005 2,5427 PN
- ' I I
I I 1 ! 1 01
0,
0% 01 0, 0, 01 -4 14
L11 01 I V 00 I 'O ' O V 10 1
i O O O O O I Q O O O O O 1
} + ! ! !! ?rn 1
O n .( ;.; :;? { ,II ! ! _P i +} ..t ! t I i f l J I I i { 'I +1 l I ?' ; 1 } 1: i{' {
1 +
it
{
r, I ! ?1' i 1 } ' !4 I ( I 4. t 1. 11 ,! r rn
I ! I :! II, t I ! t I }. , ? ` :II .?I .} I, , _. I ? 1 ?? .I 1
l1 { ? II, I r-
_1-. rn a u !
1 r' I I I . I I ! . ,..? 1 , { ? I,.{I I: { : jl' I I 'I; I I f ?I I' ! ! roN
I i I, _1?j?? I ?_ 1 } E 1 ? I1f, , [ _f'?_ ? ' 1i_ f t(_ ? ? !! 1 LI!I? ! ,> ! ? 1 ?:? . a ,1?1 jl?kllll r,?? . , ! fI. { ; 1t1; I l ,? 4? li a1 ? I?:11 ,-,jll1?., _, ??
, :_ . t ff tt
( 1 I I F ,IN
GR DN I .? 1 f { I } ( _1 I .; I f i ( ! } 4 _ I I I } { ..
i
I + } 1 }.;_Tf,IO 6/1.7
'!
.t..:. i .4..-.. 1...+. j..l . ,..•. ,+:}. r (:1:?. a l I.I I _, f 1. -. .: li;. ( ji, •' y ! ,.. '! ,
I { i t It'i l_•!1 l I{ I :! ;'1? ?L!i 1; ?!:I?,:+il}! .1 .1i if =frl. , LLB! I ';! :!i j1.11i 11
( L1._1.f I I_l ( 41;?' ?I{?? }1-(I!1 II1(jj ' I?,( Iff(11I_.? _.I. II :!(} lf'M'j ;( 'tl.L I ? (L.?
1 I l `III Ih:. I I (+! 1.1 I{II ?II rI .II I II
I I I I I 4 f ( ? _L i IW' `I . _11 U } ii u ? l i i i I I? ( 5 .,. +. ? ( i 11 + .1 t i i t ; ? i ? , I ?.., i- , I ? 1 .1 ? I I ! i ? I t l l_ ( _ ? 1 f , I , '! I cq ? ?
I } , }t . j .:f 1 t :i ? 1'v-•:? ii ? f 1 ? ? ? i ..k ( 1 ?! 1}t ll' {: I' .f i 'I' ? f I
{ I +. r r ?•?? t + i t •+ i ! :1 {la 1 _,. 1 ' 1.! .' fl '' ill i ? t 5 I ( I 'I;iJ !LIlilll :, L j I f 'ji ' } ??
-!i I I ? 1_I {.??:'.}_,._. {jI 1'•!.1??1 }Ii(( _ IIIi L}i!??'L I!,j... ?I? I?? ???!! '11:11; 1'ii::1? l;.j.?rl a. a''
N ( ( L }.1 } { iJ l t a + .I W , 1 i } ! f I ?.. .I +.i 1. ( Ifl i! t?? ri?I Ifs n
11
, t
! r
t
, I
i ..
?I r I 1 5: }I L 1 !,- r k 1
j {
II .1}}I{i I ? r !I! .III !;? ?f.f l .,
t
1
imp 1 I r. I. , -l f I{ ' , !. r a ! t 1: ! l 1 ? I. 1 t ; GI-+
! + i , } I ; +.:I , _,. • I11r ,_ } ! { r - , I ka: I t}' I•i f a: '.f }..'_;
r'
I If {{f {j ? I ? :.I. ? It
L..
J.! 1
f
I I I I. ! 1 E I ,1; fl i t f ?I? ?. I, !t ? ,
? I `o I I I
W I 1 i I } I ! " I I ; , I ; , I f + + ! 1 1 ,I I I. i +;t +,1{. j1 i , ,1{ tF, ?;k tl• , lli ogNyw
'
la + r 11. mm. f
I } .I R11111i
f } .1 . , {. , {(AC L 1. I{ ! ,i(I j.. l 11 al+ } II: {f ;. j...
L. { k _ .,1 L:; !_?.} it I I } I l I +I Ii11 - li 11.1....1.. 2°?,yw
I }? 1 tI 1 !I. }#.,' :' 1 it
( 1 I I Isii 1_ {Il._; _l t li_ t 1jt ! I 1 r l 4 I I. }?' r ;+ I Ij i t: ,111 .:II+ mm a
I ! I f + t a ? :.Ii I I?I?' RID,F_}.l I! I ! ._ , +. ? 1..?: ; i 11111 } i ", r 1 I i ?.+ Il( 1: 4 ?•I 1. t {. I ii:;S ?i?t ?t
_, f l ? I I f 1 I } ? I .t ? i 1:1: ! , I. (.! -f.1?T ? 3 f8? } ] ?. I ? J _! { } I .? 1 ? ? I ' ?I t ; I r } 1 • ` Gl J!?CI?NS ?,' 71ON ? } ? ? 1 ? I , 1 1 I- ?'?
I ,
No.
?_ I ,- r f I{ t
{ a I f _. 11.1. l I ( L .a _l.. G I 1. .. 1 !.. { l ,1 1 (i 1 1 .1 + I I I( i. 1 r
t r I r ; { ( } j ! ! i j ! +t t.. _L. I L?:1..:.: 11 1.._i. I ? .'. 1' 11 _6.1' 111 + ! 'lir ? j.! L! L,I I 11 i ? 1) t I L1 1 III 111
o f l l l ? } S I i.l ? c { 1..1. I i 111 ; { i.
GRAD
5t
?. ! I l I} 1 I?? } I I 1 f( , , 1 , ? I }. , .. I ., ? +-: +S ! -r: r I I u ? I' I I I
.D
F I I I l 1 l A 11-t I ?I! Ii, ? i ;1 1 ?18 •11 ;} !• li+I I' j !' j'.;I', i
I
r 4'
,I
, I I
' ? I I ; ! :I? t I ,I i !I! ! ! 111 t , ? I } ! :!rll I ? II f ' { f ?il III j; L
1 I , P II } ( ? , j i ! I! ?:. I ? a:l1l! ! Ll 'I lf?l 1111 ', I II' Ij. ,' I II, jil 11 i L' A
I I iI, ?I 11,1 ;_ ? # ! { ?+ + 11: f 1 I t I I ? 1 4? II_? ? ? ,.
1 i ?!I! ; 111 ! ? i }.:? III ' I I! t i I f.l.' 1 ! I I ! _!I. I.Lr . i l Il.l Illy i?L j i:j 1.1
I .+-,???
f 1 1 II I ! 11 ?m~ r r
1 I 1 j ,_ +!: 1 } l,, I + i t_ ml j t !It , I I r fl' I ? t, t,II I I ! ; I 1 I -I
4 1-1
t I k .. ? 1 t 1 t 1 i t: ' vlo •I k! l I I !; ! l 1 1
L..a I I L } I nt.a 1 .
+}1:11 , It? 1 II i' t 11
:. I 4 1.. , a r I I I ?.. ` i 1. l:.l , , t f I I.!. 1 ! ' { _:?Or? ' + ;..}:, t 1 L., I { f ! I {?? . I ;1 I ' r I
4 ? !, 1 ( 1. ran _ rl ; i c Ij I
I I , y !t ! { hl ! ..•. 1 i ; ,_n?? Il: 1'111 I ! li; { i} i.!: ?. .a
c 11 .I 1 , { I,+( } 1 } ;{1 , aI ?, } I! ?
kIi I i I' t t I
t r ,.. i (:,:: ! :.::.! ? ::;:.. } ' _i .:: :.. '..1 :.?; ; ! rnip? t., ? l ? I ! '..i.7 ?1t { ! ! I ( •:I I I f 1.?: I I ; 11:'.:. ,
1 a .,_ _. 1..,2 a7 ? . , -{.;_ I r.. ..}.I n.? i , L....? .;.. .i... , -1. ..,..:.... _
1 r , ..{ } -,. I., l 1 I I I .t i ! 11? 1 ; r,tn?r,; } I (l I t '1410 I I t I}. ! 111.1(1 iI I I11 I I `I??f
.}.. _'.. I i I L.. .,...I... ' .,.. (r ... _........ } ._ .. _ ...}-. . ',C??I _.:Rj,.. .... _..... :_ +. _.i. .I I I I ....... , _ , I i.
w ? ? ?_I i I I I ..1.1:1 I ? { ! ! I I ! ?
Rl It
°` I I I i- is ! 1 it { !? ?: , ! k L 1 _i v I°DL, !; I f # { ! , 1-1 1 'l !
!
tl
! arN D CrR I ;'
j I ! ?. ? ( I 1 111
I E r I i ',? ( I i I tf I I I f ! { .1.. i. f. L._I I {....!..I ! I 1...! !, i :J.} 1 { l' l ! .I !..i..I ! _ I I I , ` I !III I
! L....:.. II? }I;.Ii } I L} ( 1...1 II. I.
I {
.f..:..
RtD
{ l Cr Rr t t ti 7' i I 1 ?I f f 1 } _ !, { - - T 2.0171 f. C1i 1 I I !' I Itl { ?. IL:
??t 4, 7 I ? ny i 1 ?, 'U1 k ! Il I ? ? :7..11 111 1.1 1 ,! ? t '' 1:` I k :? { f..l 1 , ,. }'f '{ 1; III I: II?i I;
I ? ! .?; a ? L ti. :f?i f C i 111 ,,?} t 1 4 ; '; t ! ?. ., { i1 r ?- {{.f ? 1 ? i } !! 11.1::1 1 f:: .. } I ? :! I 11 !
}_. 1_, 4, It; ! 1 } l I f }.j I ;I} r, 1 J, } 1 t L.., Ir j !i I i i' I
V . !.i;,llly. .. ..I ,_ ..I .. 1• , ,. ?. k...,.?! , I ,--}. ?. ,I..,.. .., -.,.. i {..,.:k I.. i..1.. ...+ I, , .: a{
+. I (..,.. r
it t
1. __ t l L:?_ rTl { I_ 1! L! t L :.! CO Tr I 7
1 I (I I I f i 1 1 1
{r 1 I ? ? ,? Iij; f LI
91
I I i I ? ?-I II I '-i I i ! t ,?,?. I ,. _1:1 t.1 1-..i. , + r{I r +11 ? y Ii ! I ! ( I ?11 I I ?11 ( ( {f,lll(
+ I I I I :-, 4 ) / t+4/2 9! :. ; 44.i : ,. t ? !. j , I. f • ' 1 I.. : ?. ? ? {.. , I J !1.....{ I ? ? : I ! 1.f:: l I r t +?..1? ?t f i'?I i I f 11 I I ! :f
87 II f. t t F ?_ j I f11_ jI f. !1 1 ;I
( ? I'8 I I I I i I ( I!? j I I I i I I.j if I L?? ( 1 I I 1 1 I I• _t ( I ,I ?.. j I ..l t {! ii
,-
-. {
t t i( i t I
Co I l?R ,F L; f I1{.i f' 111 Ii. !+( 5 1? if
.1
11
( ! t ? ? ` I ?tI_ I ? ;_ t '. k : ;I 1? l L:t i ? 1 + (: .[.:! 't:: ..,I I .I:•( _ -(' # 7. ? 111'; I ,' 11 i( " 11 I 1
i + 1 (_} 11 ? 1 ? , I y , , ; I,I ,•? ,• ?, y 1 Ili. I ! Ili i I I ! I 1 if 1
I G I -1 l ? (11, I L?_ 4 I,, i; ?.L.} 1 . 4rl , i?? 1
I ! ! i :; 't I I ! 1 ! I 1 I i ! ; Icy { j.if... `I I ! I Ij I I I .:LI !.. I II ,tr..' 1.1
i ..l ! { _1i } BN RAD f _r t 1 9? i { I t I? 1 i.. I , .
!. 1 1 ! PIII .IR I I / ?tJ i r r?IlNn?tl 1?'._ (._ Jl 1 j I .a1 1. f.1L.:} ?'...;.? }r ?..I it 11!I 1 -14 ....
H
1 FDA ; ± , ?:3 1L. 1 1 1 } 1 ; , N!1 , ! ? 111 I I I , , 11:1 14-? 1..1..{ I.5.I L....I! .{.
_. 1 1 r 1,? r , I':+ I ! ?{ t l r I}+{ , r
10 ! 1 ,_I t { O , IP,'jf i' 1 1 1 ll?; ?? ° `z?@@ggmmm
! }.1.. - ? I L.+.. ?? 1 I ?:: ., , I ! I 1 . ' ; ' 7 I `aa{' i l { 1 l ZS :. I I 1 , 1 -I • ?. ; _I ?i m rn m 1n rn ,n
1 1 t':Nh Ir It-Rr I("? 1 I 1 t I f {I'jI 1 1,11 I }! o m rnmm ????,
i ? _ I I??? IJ t2 .3 j ? ?I I 1 } ? jl i I {I I I ? ! II' II g.f + I ?xf?tnl , I'' I m°1 b°m°?????,o t??
; - I I I i I I ,. ?i1 I L.i I? ++1 I I - II ; '.off v, i'zi?ozAv4 Op
- I 1 ,' -I 1_ - . _ ?,o c cJ c? d x rn n k G7
.. 1 , t- i I r v,
I L. I ? ? .{ ( L { II I I4 } I .1 (1 } 1 ? ' i •1 4. I ! ?1 ,`c•un ?I` k I I I 2 ? a° m2m om
!} l i t ! I i {a ' , t I 1 I t f :? {l' , ! !II?'ug 1 I+; l ? x??,ti? o
{{ ll I r
a
N
O tl 2 mz ?g
?....} 1 It ! `II 1 1, 1 n } 1 1 } .l 4 m n
I } ( I I ( ( I j 1 1 I ! { I .1111 .. { ?. _{ f } {. J. (.. } i S $? ?°Ja °,oF c?0
f !.
eg?'
t 1 I 1 G, tl + 1{ I '; I; !I I _( ,.. .+ I ,. }II+ ?i.; r+ ?r I j O w
I I t
1 1 1_ I ! ,
n? o mrnm$$°°o `I I I I 4(rk688S !I?1 j I i l? Ij I ji 1 1 I.
t I I } i _ + n mrnmI I
L.I._1. I j o^ o ???MmzZ9 z to 1 k f..? t I I'
3FG/, t 11?. ?..... 1: 1 1 I 'I Iil .1..
L f r+_ .4 I ?_ I I
N t I ....I. i + ... m m m b } ! ? / ?f T 1 II ,
n n iaa3° ) 1 1, 11 1. r ;? 1 .1.111; 1
0 ,I ili 11". , 1 1 f_ Il } !11 ? 11 II 1'1?1? ';I??I?
rn ?1 {
t j r 1 ? ? c m ? rn x ? i ? c7 I iI ?I? {- ? t ? 4% ? ( { ,1.111 f?I l+? , ? ? t ( I {I ? 1'ii ' ` jlr? 1;!111 rl `j?' "? t;?
f I l_5 ' 1 g x rn rn o o },1 } ?'?r ' ! ; ?, 1 ! ;:_tIP irCti:cr- ;Ir
I ? rn ? z '? I, i . 1 , r -! Zd50 '? -I I ,! r II• 1 !
1. ... z m2 t1I--I T.
I 1 1_ I f I 1 48 11.! ! I ?. 1 1 1 ` I.c. .
L_ .?. 1 ..}.. , I C I i ?( 1 rI? I I I } 11 1? I ?tI 1 II 1 I L?:
... , 4 r Y r Y u r Y Y Y n ! l I 1_ t l. _ L. _L .I ; . l_{ C r. i ?;' . 4 I 11 f { l I 1. _ -l. .f 1 t, 1 1 1 i6 '
o I I {: #
1; } 1 n r I I { I f
N ? t_ $ oJu w ;m
GAO 2 I I I! +_ N !1!1,=?. DITCH. l1 1 1 L I j: II! ,, II11.,, :;'lll 111; 1?
1
N 1 I I + + i w` ?? my ! !,I it ? i +, I W r,;1 L Z 0 Jr*t 1+ ! i I i i I! f., it I I I ?! .'..
I
it
f' :; I I ? ? r l :.f °a -<n n -c ''? Ill l •.:?1?1 l I'llt. 11 1 ''I lr LI !?.69p5 i'N-:S, ! ?_.1 j, fj:l I ! i?,jil{ 1 1,.jlil I??I I
T l t. 1 r I
, ? ttt
I 4 i I
•,?_. 1 ?. Ii ? ? yb1,?T???j ; ; f 11 :' ;I ?'.I I'j ! :.I I ?.,, ?, 1 ?? ?1. I:I I,I 1' , I,,i ', '. }i'1 111-
?
1
_t......{. ..,...... .,..+ .. :. 1 I I h i Ir.CH i +, I i+• r I r I t
t3V --
k
92.
I. fl {I It 1
1 {. . , . ,I? i ' :!? r i. •!. Intl a. 1 I'I 1.`11'. i , -I{, 1 11 1 j?li al { Ill ? i ;1 r?.Ill III ?r I.jLrn?,21. ,d b o
?' I 1, I I ?1 I 1 1• 1 , L1 I ? 4
N L.k. ;.. I l 1; ?- ? ,L,'_l 1 _,f ,,. 5 ? 14,1 I ' I ? , , t 1. 1i 1}. j N !1(I Jb/rcNl? I ,! I t I} ?f L, 11? ?? }?' ?? m ?
W i i 1 i; 1' i I i I t -! 1 I ! i ( t 1 : j A t Z-? ?'fra,7 I I ,' ?_ I _ N (iR $? ? o !?
:
1 I I , _. 1 i i I 1_ I I ? t I} L b99. l I j H 11 t '° 1n ? N?
ill 1 i I ?. . I } _[ 1 i llf'lil' 1} 7! }.. t 1. i I I [ i}+..jlfl ll 1? rn11{ ?L 698.511 I I..+_ 1 5 Z U
3
1 t .} { ! 1 } .'I k 1?' i :. l ,fl r 'll } I 1f 1 I to ?{ f I!`rl::' 1 n':
...I. , .... ... ,
Itt r r1r1: ,END;D1( !RTi• II I ?. t) tlt Ht tl-i1 li, 1? z o
,; I 1 t ! I 1 1 , 11: ill! ,f 1?1 t{ ! i Ir. f !;11f trL?-, h4+ 1 I?+, I ?;1 1 I ? ?C?7 1'' .? a? o
1 I I +?_?- 5 L,k, ! ..I L?1I?f?i•i t I ,L11? II111 „ 1 I EL 11697 0iI' t 1; II 11 ?. t MT ?II
I 1 '_. ; t I I f 1 i j: i f NO U11 (A ??. ?I f ( G I ?. + 1_{ 1 [I(. ' 1 li 1? i f L ! I ILI_ ?.;! I I:r 1 k i IC
N? }.. I ,... i_ I , ! (..r +.,... } ...,.1. LL x~697 I 1 1 {. m
Zz ZC {"
o. 01 ON 01 01 -4 ?_ o` v o. ! 01 01 ( 0. j LL I z
O O 0 0 O O 00 O 0 O O I i °

I
fi l !! f j ! I I
I .? {
iI I ;:: l (I

i M i mi
.
.
a ,

,

'
1 I- i t

II
1 j
'L 1 I
;
°

1 l t
i l
I 1

o, I ! I._ _ I j I
t
l
i
;
4 l i t ll
.

t { ?
. j q f; ;; . f I }
j

I

11 I

'
I

I
I I
" I
'of f
I j , I 'i i ( 1 I i t I ? i i. I ,
11 t M R
? 4 1 i H I ? k M ..
R
t: 1 1
i I ,
,,;-
I ' L i
1 I }..l 1 ..,
?f
°L t
1,I I
111 I' oil,
II?-.lt
11.
pi iI I
Ili
I l{etl L
oil
i !I.l! Q! At ..
I ll
1.?1 f l.11 1111 ?' 1

I
?1 1 '
t
}1
?j

I.
K

.

i
I i
1
1 l
l i.
t ! i

? ; r
!? r , 1
l 41 ;
i
' `
`
? I I I ? tI, I

i
!
l
l r {
t <
i < Ili
X11 ?L
L 1
Ij r
. 1r ll

...

.
,
I l ,, ? r ...,1 11
i

LIE I
r - I 7
1
' i
-
1 } , + I } I

1 1 I 1{ t

?
?? ?i-

I
r
JI i I j r? l{ 1 jl l i 1
r N 0 1 w ho

111 ?_, i

1
i
l
I
1
1
) {
1 1 'O t
l
1
t
1::
? l
t 1.
I? l
? 1 (
II 1+
II
l I
l
l 1
l }
l 1?
l ? j
. tl.
4.. 1
i
?1 ' r .i i I I I i 1 I r? ? I p 1-+

? } L 1
? .j
]l i I I I 1 I I? r 1 i ,

NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road)
Bridge No. 28 Over Withrow Creek
Rowan County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0801(3)
State Project No. 8.1632201
T.I.P. No. B-4255
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
,3)10fbq ?q" ba0Wt,-,-)
DATE Gregory J. orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
0-
3/10/0f ?
DATE P'rJohn F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road)
Bridge No. 28 Over Withrow Creek
Rowan County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0801(3)
State Project No. 8.1632201
T.I.P. No. B-4255
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
March 2004
Document Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Cary, North Carolina 27611
???IotN u I I I I I,,,,
?N CAROZ
????0? ?ooeooooo /"9 eue°
- ° ??OFESS/pN?:
t? SEAL
Date J. A. Bissett, Jr., PE = 14842 c
Branch Manager % 1l NE%e: •' Q
D 3 D
Date all
iams
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Y
Elmo Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road)
Bridge No. 28 Over Withrow Creek
Rowan County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0801(3)
State Project No. 8.1632201
T.I.P. No. B-4255
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 Guidelines for
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds,
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 byNCDOT:
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 28:
Structure Design
Deck drainage will not be allowed to discharge directly into Withrow Creek.
B4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
February 2004
Green Sheet
NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road)
Bridge No. 28 Over Withrow Creek
Rowan County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-0801(3)
State Project No. 8.1632201
T.I.P. No. B-4255
Introduction
The replacement of Bridge No. 28 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the Federal-aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location of the bridge is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. Purpose and Need
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit's records indicate that Bridge No. 28 has a sufficiency rating of
49.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer, more efficient traffic operations.
H. Existing Conditions
Bridge No. 28 is located on NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road) over Withrow Creek in Rowan County. The
project is approximately 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) west of the town of Salisbury, 0.3 miles (0.48
kilometers) south of the junction of NC 801 and SR 1739. Barber Farm, a historic property listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, is located on the northwest side of Bridge No. 28.
The existing bridge is a four-span structure with an overall length of 151 feet (46 meters). The average
span length is 37.5 feet (11.4 meters). Bridge No. 28 has a clear roadway width of 24 feet (7.2 meters). It
was constructed in 1948. The bridge consists of a reinforced concrete superstructure with concrete rails
on a substructure of timber piles with concrete caps and spill through abutments. Bridge No. 28 has a
posted weight limit of 33 tons (29.9 metric tons) for single vehicles, and legal gross weight for truck-
tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The approach roadway consists of two 10-foot (3.0-meter) travel lanes with 5-foot (1.5-meter) grass
shoulders. No utilities are attached to Bridge No. 28. Aerial power lines and a natural gas pipeline run
parallel to NC 801 on the west side. A 6-inch (15-centimeter) diameter wastewater treatment discharge
pipe is located on the west side of NC 801, approximately 30 feet (9.2 meters) from the bridge. A buried
fiber optics cable and an 8-inch (20.3-centimeter) water line are located parallel to the roadway on the
cast side. It is anticipated that utility impacts will be low.
NC 801 is a two-lane facility classified as a rural major collector in the statewide functional classification
system. NC 801 has a posted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (90 kilometers per hour) in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 28. Land use in the project area is generally agricultural and woodlands. West Rowan High
School is located approximately 0.57 miles (0.92 kilometers) south of the project on NC 801.
The 2004 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) is 5,200 vehicles per day (VPD). The projected ADT for
design year 2030 is 11,200 VPD. The percentages of truck traffic are 6% duals and 3% truck-tractor
semi-trailers.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 1

C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and closure of
NC 801. This is not desirable due to the service provided by NC 801.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that the bridge
cannot be rehabilitated due to the deteriorated condition.
Replacement of the bridge at its existing location with an off-site detour along SR 1743, US 70, and
NC 801; or NC 801, SR 1526, SR 1728, US 70, and NC 801, for a distance ranging from 8.0 to 9.3 miles
(12.9 to 15 kilometers) was considered. This alternative is not desirable because of the increased time
and expense that would be incurred by the Rowan County-Salisbury School System in rerouting the 30
daily bus trips crossing the bridge, and the increased response time for emergency medical services.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative B, replacing Bridge No. 28 at the existing location using a temporary on-site detour located
just east of the bridge, is the preferred alternative. This alternative was selected because it minimizes
impacts to a historic property in the project area and provides continuous service along NC 801.
The Division Construction Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the preferred alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
A design exception is not anticipated for this project.
IV. Estimated Cost
The estimated costs of the bridge replacement, based on current prices, are as follows:
Table 1. Construction Cost Estimate
Alternatives
A B referred
Structure Removal $ 35,330.00 $ 35,330.00
Proposed Structure 372,000.00 372,000.00
Temporary Detour Structure 134,550.00 134,550.00
Temporary Detour Approaches 67,880.00 83,000.00
Roadway Approaches 237,130.00 265,880.00
Traffic Control 13,600.00 13,600.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 224,660.00 244,400.00
Engineering Contingencies 164,850.00 201,240.00
-ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 80,400.00 101,000.00
TOTAL $ 1,330,400.00 $ 1,451,000.00
The estimated cost of the project as shown in, the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program is
$1,190,000, including $90,000 for right-of-way; $900,000 for construction and $200,000 in prior years.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 3
Chewacla loam, 0-2% slope (ChA) is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained hydric soil found on
floodplains along streams and drainageways in the Piedmont region. Permeability is moderate with
frequent flooding and depth to the seasonal high water table is 0.5 to 1.5 feet (0.15 to 0.45 meters) below
the surface. Chewacla soils contain hydric inclusions.
Enon fine sandy loam, 8-15% slope (EnC) is a very deep, well-drained soil found on narrow ridged and
side slopes in the Piedmont. Bedrock depth is typically greater than 5 feet (1.5 meters). This soil has
slow permeability and high shrink-swell potential.
Poindexter-Mocksville complex, 15-25% slope (PxD) is an equally proportioned combination of the
Poindexter and Mocksville series with steep slopes. Both soil series are found along very narrow ridges
and side slopes in the Piedmont and are relatively well-drained and moderately permeable. Depth to the
seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet (1.8 meters) below the surface. The main limitations of
this soil are related to steep slope and potential for erosion.
Zion-Enon complex, 8-15% slope (ZeC) is a combination of the Zion and Enon series commonly found
on narrow ridges and side slopes in Piedmont uplands. They are moderately to very deep, well-drained,
and have slow to moderately slow permeability. Depth to the seasonal water table is greater than 6 feet
(1.8 meters), with no flooding. The limitations of this soil are related to moderate slopes and slow
permeability.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-06 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (DWQ
2002) and is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit No. 03040102 (USGS 1974). Bridge No. 28 on NC 801
crosses Withrow Creek, a tributary to Second Creek, which drains into the South Yadkin River. Withrow
Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 12-108-21-3 by the DWQ from its source to its
confluence with Second Creek (DENR 1998). No other streams or tributaries occur within the project
study area. No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project study area.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Withrow Creek originates at its confluence with South Fork Withrow Creek and runs approximately 10
miles (16 kilometers) to its confluence with Second Creek, east of the project study area. The creek's
drainage area is approximately 45.1 square miles (72.6 square kilometers). At NC 801, the creek is
approximately 30 feet (9 meters) wide and one foot (0.3 meter) deep. The substrate is composed
primarily of sand. A 6-inch (15 centimeter) wastewater treatment plant discharge pipe is located
approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) west (upstream) of the project.
a. Benthic Macroinvertcb rate Monitoring System Rating
-One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates. The -- - -
closest benthic monitoring station, B-30, on Withrow Creek is located on SR 1547 approximately 4.0
miles (6.4 kilometers) upstream of the project study area. This monitoring station received a bio-
classification of Good-Fair in 1996 and 2001 (DWQ 2002).
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 5
include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff and the
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be
revegetated with herbaceous cover after any temporary construction impacts. If revegetation is required
along stream banks, tall fescue (Festuca elatior var. arundinacea) would not be considered appropriate
for use.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project flows in Withrow Creek,
thereby protecting the integrity of the waterway. Long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting from
construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, the NCDOT
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the life
of the project.
6. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled "Removal of
Existing Structure." This section outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the
creek resulting from demolition. The superstructure of Bridge No. 28 consists of reinforced concrete rails
and deck. The substructure is composed of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The bridge consists
of four spans totaling 151 feet (46.1 meters) in length, with a total width of 25.3 feet (7.7 meters). The
potential exists for the concrete deck and caps to be dropped into Waters of the United States during
demolition and removal. Although no fill is anticipated from removal, total maximum temporary fill
associated with the removal of Bridge No. 28 is approximately 56 cubic yards (51.2 cubic meters).
With respect to bridge demolition guidelines, this project would be classified as a Case 3. This requires no
special restrictions for in-water work other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters. This conclusion is based upon agency comments, and classification of waters
within the project area.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities occur within the project study area: disturbed/maintained, floodplain
forest, upland forest, and agriculture. Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the
project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present
land use practices. When appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from
the NBP classification system (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local
variations within the project study area. The characteristics of each plant community are summarized
below.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSrP-0801(3)
Page 7
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities (acres/hectares)
Disturbed/ Floodplain Upland Agriculture Aquatic
Bridge No. 28 Maintained Forest Forest Community
Alternatives acre/hcctare acre/hectare acre/hectare acre/hectare acrethectare
A 0.84/0.34 0.20/0.08 0.34/0.14 0.19/.08 0.02/0.008
B 0.57/0.23 0.36/0.14 0.40/0.16 0.29/.12 0.02/0.008
- Terrestrial impacts were calculated to the pavement.
- Aquatic impacts were calculated by using the length times the additional width of the proposed bridge over water.
- Actual impacts may be less than those indicated. Calculations shown represent a worst-case scenario.
3. Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
Maintained/Disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while
the forests provide additional forage and cover. Common mammals and birds associated with the plant
communities in the project area include least shrew (Cryptotis parva), southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gay squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), northern mockingbird (emus
polyglottos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted
titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), European starling (Stun= vulgaris), and common grackle (Quiscalus
quisula). The agricultural community provides habitat for mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and
bobwhite (Colinus virginianus).
4. Aquatic Wildlife Communities
Withrow Creek, a jurisdictional stream channel, provides the only aquatic community in the study area.
Limited surveys through visual observation of the aquatic habitat were conducted, but no aquatic species
were observed. Dragonflies, damselflies, and snails (Elimia spp.) were observed in the project study
area.
5. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of Bridge No. 28 is expected to involve minor impacts to the terrestrial communities
located within the project study area. Impacts resulting from bridge replacement are generally limited to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. The use of on-
site detours will result in temporary impacts to terrestrial communities adjacent to the Withrow Creek.
The area of the plant communities within the project study area is presented in Table 2; however, actual
impacts will be limited to the designed right-of-way and permitted construction limits. Due to the
anticipated limited encroachment on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial wildlife populations. Wildlife movement
corridors will not be substantially impacted by the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the
project study area are generally acclimated to fragmented landscapes.
B4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTR0801(3)
Page 9
2. Permits
a. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the preferred alternative. Potential impacts to surface
waters may be avoided if bridge demolition does not result in material falling into surface waters.
The proposed project will be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under FHWA guidelines.
Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)) is typically issued by the USACE for CEs due to
their expected minimal impacts. It is anticipated that this project will fall under NWP 23.
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
This project will require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ. Section 401
of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the United States. Written
concurrence from DWQ is not required unless one or more standard conditions of this certification
cannot be met.
C. Bridge Demolition and Removal
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 need to be considered during the.
permitting process. A worst-case scenario should be assumed with the understanding that if there is any
other practical method available, the bridge will not be dropped into the water. Permitting should be
coordinated such that any permit needed for bridge construction should also address issues related to bridge
demolition. Since the deck and substructure are composed of concrete and steel, there is potential for
components of the bridge to be dropped into "Waters of the United States" during bridge removal.
3. Mitigation
No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated as a result of the proposed bridge replacement
project. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing upon jurisdictional surface
waters. These impacts are expected to be temporary in nature, with no permanent placement of fill
within the stream. No modifications to the stream channel are proposed.
The preferred alternative, Alternative B, minimizes permanent impacts to Withrow Creek and its
floodplain by replacing Bridge No. 28 at the existing location. Utilization of BMPs in the design and
construction of the replacement bridge will also minimize impacts. An off-site detour to further minimize
impacts was considered but not chosen due to hardship placed upon the Rowan County-Salisbury School
System.
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of the anticipated
project impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated with construction activities will be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species and through removal of temporary fill
material upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.8 linear meters) of
stream channel or 0.10 acre (0.04 hectares) of wetlands may require compensatory mitigation in
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSI?-Ml (3)
Page 11
(5 to 17.8 centimeters) in width, lance-shaped and usually opposite, with upper leaves alternate. Leaves
feel like felt on the underside and rough, like sandpaper, on the upper surface. Flowers are yellow
composites, and generally smaller than other sunflowers in North America. Flowering and fruiting occur
mid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and along the edges of upland woods, thickets, and
pastures. It is also found along roadsides, power line clearings, old pastures, and woodland openings. It
prefers full sunlight to partial shade.
Biological Conclusion: May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along roadsides, power line rights-of-way, and field
edges throughout the project area. The project study area was evaluated for potential Schweinitz's
sunflower habitat and extensive field surveys were performed in September 2001, which is during the
flowering time for the species. No populations were found within the project study area. The NHP's
database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed on May 9, 2003. No populations of this
species have been reported in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result
in an adverse impact to this species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list of federally-protected species includes a category of species
designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso and Finnegan
2002, LeGrand, et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for the FSC listed for
Rowan County. This data is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Rowan County
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Present?
Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis collis SC Yes
Georgia aster Aster georgianus* T Yes
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri C Yes
Robust redhorse Moxostoma robustum SR (PE) No
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica C Yes
Notes:
*This is a federally listed C1 taxon, a taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
information to support listing.
Threatened (T) - any native or once-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Special Concern (SC) - any species which requires monitoring but may be collected and sold under specific
regulations.
Candidate (C) - any species which are likely to merit listing as E or T if present land use trends continue.
Significantly Rare (SR) - species which are rare in NC but more common elsewhere.
Proposed Endangered (PE) - species formally proposed for listing as Endangered.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 13
VII. SECTION 4 (f) RESOURCES
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."
Since it is anticipated that the proposed project will require the use of property from a National Register
eligible historic resource, the Barber Farm, a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation is required. See
Section XI for Programmatic 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 a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT 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 construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a field review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly-owned recreational facilities or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 15
X. Agency Comments
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality
Comments: "DWQ prefers that the bridge be replaced with a bridge, particularly if a Categorical
Exclusion document is being used... Storm water should be directed to grass-lined
ditches, vegetated buffers or other pre-treatment method before entering the stream."
Response: The preferred alternative involves replacing the bridge with a new bridge in the
existing location, using a temporary on-site detour during construction. Storm water
will be directed to grass-lined ditches. No deck drains will be placed on the bridge
which would drain directly into Withrow Creek.
M. Programmatic Section 4(t) Evaluation
Part 23 CFR 771.135 Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) states that "The Administrator may not approve the
use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge, or any significant historic site unless a determination is made that:
(i) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and
(ii) The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from
such use."
Three alternatives, which will avoid impact to the historical property, were evaluated in this document.
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic site, have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing;
(2) improve the highway without using the adjacent historic site; (3) build the replacement structure on
new location without using the historic site. These alternatives were not found to be feasible and
prudent.
No Build Alternative: The No Build or "Do-Nothing" alternative is not considered feasible and prudent
because the bridge will eventually deteriorate beyond repair and necessitate closure of the bridge. This is
not prudent due to the traffic service provided by NC 801.
Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge: This alternative is not considered to be feasible and prudent due to
the age and deteriorated condition of the existing bridge. In addition, the existing bridge deck provides
only 24 feet (7.2 meter) roadway clearance and is functionally obsolete. The NCDOT Bridge Policy
requires a minimum clear roadway width of 32 feet (10.4 meter) based on the traffic volumes and design
speed.
Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on New Location: Replacing Bridge No. 28 downstream of the existing
location will impact additional farmland, introduce additional curves in the alignment and increase cost.
Therefore, this alternative is not considered feasible or prudent.
In accordance with the criteria set forth in the Federal Register December 23, 1986, the following
Programmatic Section 4(f) for Minor Involvements with Historic Sites evaluation was prepared:
B4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 17

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS WITH
HISTORIC SITES
F. A. Project BRSTP-0801(3)
State Project 8.1632201
T. I. P. No. B-4255
DESCRIPTION:
Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on NC 801 (Bear Poplar Road) over Withrow Creek in Rowan County.
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the
operational characteristics, safety, and/or physical
condition of the existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location?
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration
of historic buildings, structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place
rather than to recover for archaeological research?
6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) site considered
minor (i.e. no effect, no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation object to the determination
of "no adverse effect"?
7. . Has the SHPO agreed, in writing,.with the assessment
of impacts and the proposed mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS?
YES NO
-X--
X_ 1:1
X 1:1
F-1
F-1
-X
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 19

Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmental, or
economic impacts
or a substantial increase in project cost
or engineering difficulties
and (iv such impacts, costs, or difficulties of
truly unusual or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize ?
harm necessary to preserve the historic integrity of the X
site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in ?
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FHWA, X
the SHPO, and as appropriate, the ACBR
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described as follows:
Utilization of a temporary detour on the east side of Bridge No. 28.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
B-4255 Rowan County, State Project Number 8.1632201, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-0801(3)
Page 21

J a au ?
°?
.t
\
•a J• Barber

/k i3?
SO?Jh a a
ern C F"
70 ! O y?l

? au

70
\ TO Clev
r
l 1
e
and Q.
Sralesvlle , 1?"e
r=+, ?'\ . Blvd. i - tesvA\e
,I ' •Sta P v
a j0 i
? ~. Sp n0 //
O
?
." ? `?I ' AI J
39 B idge No 28
\ C

MTHR GPEGS j

`
?- BOt
High Sch-
v so

\ rE nezer Ch. ul

a heRd\ • un
?
SR 1526
801
i

'r Cool m?e• \
. R
Tie W00 d1 al/ _
iLCl?vel d / S II
1 ?o \?' e 601 NC •__
, _,
? ]o f r,oorpo,roro? 70
• d5 _ 6? nluseumo? g 1 • _
S
en
+
P
t n
Bear POPI
y• ° Ea
ds allibllfy:_. f
a '
I Pence
,
'? un1Ul
H
? ,c
/
LO AI?? _
IIDntlIIe 9 7. ?. iGranlte
aN"ycra /
,
S
G
R O W
{
t 15 Nina row % Faith Crescent MrO:
Jack$$bb`
Rockwell
7lle s
l
Tuckrrfou?f
52
ie ?ndi? ? ? 9 ?5 L°ka
?
chville of Go 6 Kill
'
la
v North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
ROWAN COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON NC 801
OVER
WITHROW CREEK
B-4255
FIGURE 1
J
Q W
Iwo

> LN
O
l'
O G
sin:) 's0
1NIOd 3 NIH

O
(7j
r ?
-? O
O
--l
N ',
N
co
N O
. N
-,q T
O
Z
O

N N-
O r
o U Ln
a
-- - - 0 O C7+ -
N

E

o a-
a
°-

N Q"
N
r r
O CL

r Ln E
N p W
0
o
00 N o (D -
0
o
ce) W
F-

O ce
O
L] r
M Oi .O

{Y J
7
? 0

D

W

E
C7
M

x

E
N

? N
j
O
i
0
L C'l
O

o
l

E
N
r

Z
O_
t
LL,
N s
w
CD O
-'- j:j D-
0
ce
mce
Qv
Z U
O CL
CL
W
I (?
Q
0
U
Z
u..
h-
Y
LU
w

U

w O

n h •'.
f" LO
Z Lo
A w -? N
00W
U co
-S 41
o tl LLJ
U>
Z
O
nwq O
Z Q Z
rn??
. h o'a oo
N LL
O P
?00.W 0
Z
W
U'
0
w
co
U p 0
N N
In
O O O
O
O --'? N
V) Ln _
Z
I? II II O?

Q UC4
Q Q
Ln
O cy)
C) N C4

O
N O
N N

o J
B"
Uw
_
?- Z0
O
Z F-:
Z N Z
U
J P:
Uce
O
N
w N Q
o ?- Z
a r- uu-
M
w
V
LL
"s
s

$To
c
CQ
m)
01
O

Z N
O
1=
W
N O
? r
V?
- 000 -

1 a
O
Z Q r
O -
a
.
w
N
(D -
0
0
r O
l
O
P --
U -
O
O O ?' o
r

I 00
F, o
0

CO L
W
H
O Z

N

7

;? C7

W

E
0
M
0

O
C)
N
? O
O
N
? O
O o
?i
O
Z
O
V
W
N g?-
w:)
O O
\ ?w
[n ?
J
I ?
Z U
~
O CL
C
w
D
d
(D
Q
?I
V
M
LL
Y
w
W

V

O

N
4 Z Lo
b r
O

O N
°a
-t3 00W
uj V m

o d
a
? Z0 Z O
v
q
y ? Q Z
C
0 co cV Q H
ZOh~W C;
Z
w
V
O

in
V o 0

Q N
O
O

O
N O O

LO N
r=
r
Z
O;?
< U?
Q " •j Q u. I
C) L
0
0 N?

0
0
-71 O
N N g
UW
} ^ pC O M J J
>- Z O
O O
- N (D U
1
N Z N
UJ J
Q ZO
W O a V,
O r- ?
Q
Cl)
w
O
LL
s
B-4255

h J I a?
1
I ? j r
I
l
FIGURE 5
FLO.
eru,cn
J.,mb r s,;kbn Gorier 110" rdwuJ Berber 11owa
oil 12 0 13
y r, X10 1
d4a 10
rws
Oz
?7 n6
?s
C! 4
Icncc
Pond
(16) T CLCiCCd 1'ICi(15
_t A%p
?`o? (1? Chak Ualn dz GuBy
a?aNa (16)Tczraccd Fidd?
9
Farm Road avl.44A
(17) Chrtk Doan tz GUUY
(15) Farm Landscape
Bridge No. 28
NATIONAL REGISTER MUNDAS
Wooer
h?
c
? rka
U tiG
y
?a
r
I:
SER SYEELE TWP• MAP H0.75?
Eli-
G
311-
O ?
bl 11: FLAN
Darbcr Farm
223 Re4=n Road
ClcvclanJ vi;;., Rowan Count', NC.
?Cortribusiag Raourcz
13 Noncontributing Rcsaurce
R=urcec arr keyed to iamnrcry
Soi=c: Ronan Counry Tax 0lfica
ticale 1'•480'
1. JxnAFr-Ahka ParbcrH=v Ia. Cmirt pii-s
2, Linn B.ua IL xbol
J. Nmp Hcuar WcU 12. Edward Barba
4. SmokrMure fl=c
3., Wheat IlowwGraiury 17. Edward Barber
Q Mad Grautiary WcU Hnnte
7. D--Nc Cnh Ina 6rm 14. NC bti,llaad

8. Stvnc Well 11aue Asiknad
Riot•,+Way
9. Lc Crib 15. Form L:vdc:apc
Ia Trrract*
17. Cbcck Dom -J
SEL' MAP NO. Z70• I
Figure 6
APPENDIX
u r/10/eUUID Ie; Ob NU 1)L11 F'UtH -i? ytblly18 N0.299 D02
? N
G?
t S
2
9ACN ? 10
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDL YE SERVICE
Asheville. Field Office
160 Tllicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 11, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ivfr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Three Bridge Replacements in North
Carolina-B-4103, Bridge No. 416 on SR 2554 over Beaver Dam Creek, Davidson
Caunty, S S ri ge l`io;: $.on: ?i? er w???r„1tlizo , r bk,Rol ui Cott !, and
B4282, Bridge No. 54 on NC 66 over Pinch Gut Creek, Stokes County
As requested by Mulkey Inc., engineers and cotlsultants for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, we have reviewed the natural resources information and biological conclusions
for federally protected species for the subject projects. We provide the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
•? •. •• .B-4X03(Log Number 42-03-332)
According to the information provided, three federally listed species in Davidson County were
considered. These include the endangered Sehweinitz's sunflower (Helianfhus schweinilzit), the
threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and the threatened (due to similarity of
appearance) bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergit). The report considered these species and
concluded that there would be "no effect" on the bald eagle, Schweinitz's sunflower, or bog
turtle. Given the results of the field survey, we concur with the conclusion of "no effect" for the
Schweinitz's sunflower and bog turtle. In view of this, we believe the requirements under
section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled regarding this species, However, obligations under section 7
of the Act must be reconsidered if; (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
07/16/2003 12:56 NC DOT PDEA 98511918. NO.299 904
' spinymussel has beea found only in the main stem of the Dan River, other native freshwater
mussels have been found in Big Creek. Given the difficulty of surveying for the James
spiaymussel and the relative lack of surveys in Big Creek, we strongly recommend an additional
mussel survey from the end of the previous survey downstream to Big Creek prior to project
construction. Similarly, the small-anthered bittercress, while not located in surveys conducted in
2002, could have relocated to the project site from an upstream location during recent high flows.
We also strongly recommend that a preconstruction survey (at the appropriate time of year) be
conducted for this species. At this time we cannot concur with a conclusion of "no effect" for the
James spinymussel or small-anthered bittereress and recommend further surveys as described
above.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms: Marella Buncick of our staff at
8281258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
- reference the log numbers assigned with our comments about each of the three projects. '
Sincerely,
Cku "
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Cc: .
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, 6508 Falls
of the Neuse Road, Suite 120, Raleigh, NC 27615
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wicle, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621

Bridge Number Project Number County
No. 416 B - 4103 Davidson County
No. 28 B - 4255 Rowan County
No. 54 B.-4282 Stokes County
Group 11 These- projects have the potential to affect fishery resources and their associated habitat
for which NOAA Fisheries has stewardship responsibility:
Bridge Number Project Number County
No. 12 B - 1382 Sampson County
No. 26, B - 1382 Sampson County
No. 72 B - 4031 Brunswick County .
No. 24 B - 4214 r Onslow County
No. 21 B - 4223 Pender County
Bridges 12, 26, 21 and 24.are located in the Cape Fear and New River basins and in areas which
provide habitat. for anadromous fishery resources including American shad and river herrin,;.
Bridges 72 and 24 are located in areas with brackish to saline waters that also support estuarine
dependent fishery resources such as spot. Atlantic croaker, and blue crab. In addition, these project
may affect Essential Fish Habitat for Federally managed species such as red drum and shrimp
which-are managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and summer flounder which
is managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Accordingly, we recommend that
an essential Fish Habitat Assessment be included in any environmental document for these projects.
Spawning and nursery habitat for anadromous and estuarine fishes may be adversely impacted by
these projects unless measures to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands are included
in the project plans. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries may recommend against.IDepartment of the Army .
authorization of these projects under Nationwide Permit 23 unless the following recommendations
are incorporated:.
1. Following impact avoidance and minimization, unavoidable -wetland losses shall be otyset
through implementation of a compensatory mitigation plan that has been approved by the Corps
of Engineers and in consultation with NOAA.Fisheries.
2. All construction activities in waters and associated wetlands shall utilize techniques that avoid
p and minimize adverse impacts to those systems and their associated flora and fauna
U.S. Department commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportati0fl United States Coast Guard Portsmouth, Va. 23704-5004
• r Atlantic Area Staff Symbol: (Aowb)
United States Phone: (757)39&6587
Coast Guard
.16590 ?C
03 DEC 02 F?
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D. DEC x 0
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2DD2
1548 Mail Service Center 40, u.1'snN OF
?-
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 °'?ov?? HIGHWAYS
"jVEL0?1 S?5
L AN
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
This is in response to your letter dated October 24, 2002 requesting the Coast Guard to review
the proposed projects to replace the following nine bridges: Black River Over Flow, Black
River, Jenny's Branch, Beaver Dam Creek, New River, Stone Creek, N.E. Cape Fear River,
= -and { , • and Pinch Gut Creek all located throughout North Carolina.
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard bridge
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport.
'interstate commerce.. Such conditions for some of these waterways were confirmed in a
telephone conversation on November 27,2002. Due to this, the bridge projects on Beaver Dam,
' l `'` and Pinch Gut Creeks and Black River Over Flow are exempt,
Black River, Jenny's Branch, and Stone Creek are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally navigable for Bridge Administration purposes. But these waterways also meet the criteria
for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section
115.70. Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not actually
navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his advance
approval to the construction of bridges across such waterways; therefore, an individual permit
will not be required for these projects either.
Further information is required to assess the bridge replacement projects over the New River and
the North East Cape Fear River. Such information as, is the waterway affected by lunar tides? Is
there any commercial navigationT What types and sizes of boats operate on the waterway?
Bridge Permits may be required. based on the answers to these questions. If a permit is required,
a higher level of environmental review will also be required.
The fact that-Coast Guard permits are not required for some of these projects does not relieve
you of the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or
i
O?O? W AT ?RQG .
MEMORANDUM
November 25, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
John Wadsworth, P.E.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator GuptW
Scoping Comments for Bridge Replacement Projects: B-4103 Davidson Co., B-4255
Rowan Co., and B-4282 Stokes Co.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced projects.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
1. B-4103 Bridge.No. 416 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2550 in Davidson County
¦ The bridge should be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in ,
the stream.
• Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124;
see http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncada inistrativ_/titlel5aenviron /ChapterO4sedime_/default.htm] prior
to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
• NCDOT must comply with water supply watershed buffer requirements.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pelbmp.pdf).
2. B4255 Bridge No. 28 over Withrow Creek on NC 801 in Rowan County
¦ DWQ prefers that the bridge be replaced with a bridge, particularly if a Categorical Exclusion
document is being used (otherwise it should be processed as a FONSI under NEPA requirements).
• Storm water should be directed to grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or other pre-treatment
method before entering the stream
3. B4282 Bridge No. 54 over Pinch Gut Creek on NC 66 in Stokes County
¦ The bridge should be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in
the stream
• Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot,org/planning/pe/bmp.pdf).
1' tl?(7lTtiB
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwettands/
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
c,0` ...' `I?
?O G
o -c
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. --------------
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator . C,,.)6 A) rG? ,-u
Scoping Comments for Bridge Replacement Projects: B'4103 Davidson Co., B-4255
Rowan Co., and B4282 Stokes Co.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced projects.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
1. B4103 Bridge No. 416 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2550 in Davidson County
• The bridge should be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in
the stream.
¦ Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 4B .0124;
see http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncadministrativ_/title15aenviron_/chapter04sedime_/defauIt.htm] prior
to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
NCDOT must comply with water supply watershed buffer requirements.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/peibmp.pdf).
2. B-4255 Bridge No. 28 over Withrow Creek on.NC 801 in Rowan County
¦ DWQ prefers that the bridge be replaced with a bridge, particularly if a Categorical Exclusion
document is being used (otherwise it should be processed as a FONSI under NEPA requirements).
¦ Storm water should be directed to grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or other pre-treatment
method before entering the stream.
3., B4282 Bridge No. 54 over Pinch Gut Creek on NC 66 in Stokes County
¦ The bridge should.be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in
the stream
¦ Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches.,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection-device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see,
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pelbmp.pdf).
A --
1 iNCDDA
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification. Unit,
1,650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
.919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
4 .. - ....
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: JohnWadsworth, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT'
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: December 17, 2002
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) request for comments on
Bridge Replacement Projects B-4103 (Davidson County), B-4255 (Rowan
County) and B-4282 (Stokes County).

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting comments from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on three bridge replacement projects.
Staff biologists have reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary.
comments. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain 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).
NCWRC has previously submitted scoping comments on these three bridge replacement
projects. The comments, dated May 8, 2002, are attached and remain appropriate; however, we
offer the following additional comments on the B-4103 project.
Bridge No. 416 on SR 2550 (Badin Lake Road) in Davidson County crosses over
Beaverdam Creek, at the headwaters of an arm of Badin Lake• which is managed by Yadkin, Inc.
under a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit. NCDOT should coordinate
with Yadkin, Inc. to ensure compliance with their Shoreline Management Plan and Bald Eagle
Management Plan. -Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Federal and State Threatened), are
found along Badin Lake and other lakes on the Yadkin/Pee Dee River system, both upstream and
downstream of the project area. The Beaverdam Creek/Grassy Fork Creek Significant Natural
Heritage-Area is upstream of the project area, where a number of heartleaf plantain observations
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Set ice Center - RaleNC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: [phone]
1l
V S5
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina.27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: Ron Linville, Habitat Conservation Co trinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 2002
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements:
Davidson County - Bridge No. 416, SR2550, Beaverd e.&-B-4103
Rowan County - Bridge No. 28, NC801, Withrow Cree
Stokes County - Bridge No. 54, NC66, Pinchgut Creek, B-4282
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).
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work,within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Memo
May 8, 2002
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be' buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
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 along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
. In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. Davidson County - Bridge No. 416, SR2550, Beaverdam Creek, B-4103
YELLOW/RED LIGHT. Biologists indicate that a bridge is preferred. Potential for
wetland and stream impacts at this location due to width of stream.
09/08/2003
10:30 NC DOT PDEA 4 96511918
T

Federal Aid # 8.1632201 TIP # B-4255 County. Rowan
CONCURRENCE FORM FORASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
NO.522 D02
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 28 on NC 801 over Withrow Creek
On 9/2/2003, representatives of the
14 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
E] ,_.,/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
b North Carolina State Hfstorie Preservation Office (HPO)
F1 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 property/properties 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 propertylproperties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
?? A-t"?,?
MWA; for the Di
Representative, HPO '
State Historic Preservation Officer
or other Federal Agency
a .2
Date
Date
Date
Date
}

01i05/22004 09:23 NC DOT PDEA - 9'=511':4 NO.ID15 902
.u-+ -.4 tot or All P
0
*y ?
z?i
anti
cQ
? m C7
jrc of Ate K0 0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour
State Historic Preservation Office 9,y op `?
David L. S. Droob, Adtniniotratar -f?r? S 8RA}l??
tfiichnet F. Eaaby. Governor Divieion cal Rcsourcea
Liabeth C. Evan, Socrotary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Sc=tAty
OT= of Archivos and History
Dmembet 19, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brooke
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. Yon NC 801 over Withrow Creek, TIP No. B-4255,
Rowan County, ER02-8576
Thank you for transmitting the archaeological survey report, in a letter of November 18, 2003.
The letter and report state that no archaeological sites were discovered in the proposed project
area. We concur with the recommendation that no additional archaeological work is needed.
The above comments are made putsuant 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, environmtntai review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all fuwze communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc FHWA
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
www.hDoAcr.statexems
Latadon • btailia¢Addreu Tdtphoat/Fix
ADMI USTRAT70N 507 N. Blount St, Releigb NC 4617 Mail Smyi= Ctnter. Mei) h NC 27699.6617 (919) 7334763 *733-9651
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St. RsleighNC 4611 Mail Savica Center. Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 733-SS47 *71S-4801
SURVEY' tit PLANNNG 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Scovim C=Icr. Raleigh NC 27649-4617 (919) 733 545 a 7154801
July 17, 2001
Mr. Davis Moore
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service. Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Moore:
Per your request for information regarding bus travel on Highway 801 near West Rowan
High School, I submit to you the following information:
• Buses cross this bridge approximately 30 times each school day (3 for Cleveland
Elementary, 14 for West Rowan Middle, 9 for West Rowan High School and 4
EC buses). This figure does not include activity trips.
• Rerouting to circumvent this bridge would have some buses detour to travel Bear
Poplar Road and Redmon Road and others to detour to Barringer Road and
Sherrills Ford Road.
• For approximately '/Z the fleet to make this adjustment to travel Bear Poplar and
Redmon Roads the mileage for round trip would be 141 miles per day with an
additional 16-20 minutes for each bus route. and Sherrills Ford Rd the
• For'/Z the fleet to make adjustments to travel Barringer an
mileage for round trip would be 72 miles per day with an additional 8-10
minutes.
• . The total round trip mileage for this adjustment would be 38,440 miles for 180
days of school.
• Average of 15 minutes to re-route for 30 trips x 180 school days =1,350 hours
additional pay to the drivers.
As you can see to reroute the buses for 8-12 months around this bridge replacement
. would be a significant burden to the Rowan-Salisbury Schools activity ltrips and
Department. It would greatly affect the high
sports trips. It would also affect the community in attendance of extra-curricular events
at the high school.
2724 Old Concord Road, Salisbury, NC 28146
Withrow -?-7reek Bridge on NC-801
Subject: Withrow Creek Bridge on NC-801
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:35:13 -0500
j From: Wayne Ashworth <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Mr. Moore:
This will confirm our phone conversation(s) regarding the replacement of
Bridge 28 over NC-801 in Rowan County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-0801(3), State Project No. 8.1632201, TIP No. B-4255.
Rowan County Emergency Services ambulances will have additional
difficulties of getting to locations in the area of the work and our
response times will be slightly increased.
These delays, we feel, are manageable, and we will be able to work with the
construction project as proposed. Please advise me in advance of the road
closing so that we may.inform all the emergency responders in this area and
make alternate response plans.
.Sincerely,
Wayne-
Wayne Ashworth, Director of Emergency Services
Rowan County. North Carolina
PO Box 2166, Salisbury, NC 28145 USA
Telephone: 704,638.0911 X300 - FAX: [phone]
[e-mail] [ICQ 3062057]
http://www.co.rowan.nc.us/es/
of 1 3/11/02 2:50 PM
,i
y,. svve a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 24, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
DENR-Division of Water Quality/Wetland 2002
1621 Mail Service Center 4
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 wrurras coup
WATE UAUTY SECTIOIJ
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Bridge Replacement Projects B-1382, B-4031,
B-4103, B-4214, B-4215, B-4223, B-4255 and B-4282.
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is preparing the
planning and environmental studies (Categorical Exclusions) for the replacement of the
subject bridges. These bridges are included in NCDOT's 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit your input concerning the potential impact of
the proposed projects upon social, economic, demographic, land use or environmental
conditions near the projects. Attached is the vicinity map and bridge demolition package
for the following projects.
J?? ¦ B-1382, Sampson County, Division 3, Replace Bridge No. 26 over the Black
River Over Flow and Bridge No. 12 over the Black River on NC 41.
J{-? B-4031, Brunswick County, Division 3, Replace Bridge No. 72 over Jinnys
Branch a tributary of Saucepan Creek on NC 179 (Beach Drive).
(?? B-4103, Davidson County, Division 9, Replace Bridge No. 416 over Beaver
Dam.Creek on SR 2550 (Badin Lake Road).
J 0 B-4214, Onslow County, Division 3, Replace Bridge No. 24 over the New
River on US 17 (Marine Boulevard).
B-4215, Onslow County, Division 3, Replace Bridge No. 19 over Stone Creek
on NC 210.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: www.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

J4 ¦ B-4223, Pender County, Division 3, Replace Bridge No. 21 over the North
East Cape Fear River on NC 210.
(,U ¦ B-4255, Rowan County, Division 9, Replace Bridge No. 28 over Withrow
Creek on NC 801. ,
GV B-4282, Stokes County, Division 9, Replace Bridge No. 54 over Pinch Gut
Creek on NC 66.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for these
projects. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projects.
To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed projects, please respond in
writing by November 29, 2002 concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts of the
proposed projects relating to the interest of your agency.
If you have any questions or comments concerning these projects, please contact
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E. of this Branch at (919) 733--7844, ext. 209.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.,
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
CLT/JCW
Attachment
o ? WA r?Rp?
7
DQWw ra.%
December 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator eUdCA)
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Bridge Replacement Projects: B-4103 Davidson Co., B-4255
Rowan Co., and B-4282 Stokes Co.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced projects.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following recommendations:
1. B4103 Bridge No. 416 over Beaver Dam Creek on SR 2550 in Davidson County
¦ The bridge should be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in
the stream.
¦ Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
¦ Use Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds [15A NCAC 413 .0124;
see http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncadministrativ_/titlel5aenviron_/chapterO4sedime_/default.htm] prior
to any ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
¦ NCDOT must comply with water supply watershed buffer requirements.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/bmp.pdf).
2. B-4255 Bridge No. 28 over Withrow Creek on NC 801 in Rowan County
¦ DWQ prefers that the bridge be replaced with a bridge, particularly if a Categorical Exclusion
document is being used (otherwise it should be processed as a FONSI under NEPA requirements).
¦ Storm water should be directed to grass-lined ditches, vegetated buffers or other pre-treatment
method before entering the stream.
B-4282 Bridge No. 54 over Pinch Gut Creek on NC 66 in Stokes County
The bridge should be replaced with a bridge structure and designed as a single span with no piers in
the stream.
Storm water management should be designed as a closed system. Storm water shall be designed to be
carried across the bridge (no deck drains over the stream) and diverted through grass-lined ditches,
vegetated buffers or directed to a storm water collection device prior to entering North Fork New
River.
Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy; see
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/peibmp.pdf).
AVM
VA
/YCDEh:
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Servico Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://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

+ uu ` o? 9
a¢ Barber t
,r
?u
Nay /
k `?±ij '? '
OT 1
i?
70
To Clever o
S1.31ngvillq
? _ ,fLy B?'d. t j

S q 70
h ` !
To S
Sv ?C
of
f _
-?• ' ? ? f 1 L'n ?_

39 B idge No 28 O
C1 a?

J fi P??ch WfT}iR PEGS '
?o
ce
+-
W TVHROW
801 +
W. Rowan
High Sch- • °

-Eb nezer Ch. an • +?
i

a Fr
heR??t a
801 SR 1526
' ?
LM

? Cool em e`
r ,

R
Woodl at
1?fl evel d / 5
1
a
E-0I t _
J? a t' y,`,' l7^ '?
Bear Pop,,_ y4
aliSllLr fx ,o ?Ea
y./SPen .?
I 10 l50 A,
S 9 M Itbrndile IiGranlte
Qy rr' \

`aYe
R O N
,
G
l52 hma
1 ro ,? Faith Crescent
1'
i
?t5 i. 112 k.ell lack?d
nc
ilia
ands; 9 5 51 Tudrrnn<-.(/`?
L
A
!
{
,
u
c
,
chvdle ' . ??? ^ ` .• _ of Gold Hill
111 • _ _ "? _ "• 'e i
r on
North Carolina Department of Transportat
Project Development & Environmental Analysis

ROWAN COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 28 ON NC 801
OVER
WITHROW CREEK
8-4255
FIGURE 1
BRIDGE DEMOLITION FORM
DATE:
PROJECT T.I.P. NUMBER:
STRUCTURE NUMBER:
COUNTY:
FACILITY NAME:
BODY OF WATER CROSSED:
DIVISION NO.:
October 21, 2002
B-4255
790023
Rowan
NC 301
Withrow Creek
9
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION and POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM BRIDGE DEMOLITION:
Bridge No. 28 is located on NC 801 over the Withrow Creek in Rowan County. It was constructed in
1948 and has a sufficiency rating of 50.4. It has four spans totaling approximately 151 feet in length. The
deck and railings of the superstructure are composed of reinforced concrete on steel I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments. The #1 & #3 bents are composed of
reinforced concrete caps on timber piles piers cased in concrete and #2 bent is composed of reinforced
concrete post and beam. The rails will be removed with out dropping them into Waters of the U. S.
There is potential for components of the deck and substructure to be dropped into Waters of the U. S.
during construction.
MAXIMUM POTENTIAL FILL:
CLASSIFICATION OF WATERS:
MORATORIUM:
SECTION 7:
CAUSEWAY CONSTRUCTION:
BMP-BDR RECOMMENDATION:
56 cubic yards
C
Probable
Not Anticipated.
Not Anticipated
General Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal should be
followed for this project.
t B80028 BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT RUN DATE 12/12/00
DATA ON EXISTING STRUCTURE
-- ---------------------------------------------------------
COUNTY: DIV.: DIST.: STRUCTURE NUMBER: LENGTH:
ROWAN 09 1 79 0028 151 FEET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROUTE CARRIED: FEATURE INTERSECTED:
NC801 WITHROW CREEK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOCATED: BRIDGE NAME:
0.3 MI. S. JCT.-SR1739 ------------------------
--------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
FUNC. CLASS: SYST-ON: SYST.UNDER: ADT & YR: RAIL TYPE:
MAC FA ----- 3300 99 LT 181 RT 181
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILT: BY: PROD: FED.AID PROJ: DESIGN LOAD:
1948 SHPWC 6725 ------ H-15
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REHAB: BY: PROJ: ALIGNMENT: SKEW: LANES:
---- ----- --------- TAN 075 ON`02 UNDER 00
---------------------------------------------------------------=---------------
NAVIGATION: HT.CRN.TO BED: MATER DEPTH:
VC.___ FT HC ---- FT 21 -FT 1 FT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERSTRUCTURE:
REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK ON I-BEAMS
----------------------------------------------=--------------------------------
SUBSTRUCTURE:
END & INT.BENTSI&3:RC CAP & TIM.PILES,INT.BT#2:RC POST&BEAM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPANS:
1@37'9 ,2@37'6 ,1@37'9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BEAMS OR GIRDERS:
4 LINES OF W27X94 I-BEAMS @ 619 CENTERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLOOR: ENCROACHMENTS--------------- DECK (OUT TO OUT):
5 3/4 RC,3 AWS 025.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEAR ROADWAY: BETWEEN RAILS: SIDEWALK OR CURB:
024.0 026 .0 LT 01.0 RT 01.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VERT.CL.OVER: VERT.CL.UNDER: HOR.CL.UNDER: SPECIAL PERMIT:
99 FT 99 IN 00 FT 00 IN 00.0 FT B 1
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
__INV.RTG.: OPE.RTG.: CONTR.MEMBER: POSTED:
HS- 13 HS- 22 BEAM INT. SV 33 TTST LM DATE 12 19 1996
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SYSTEM: GREEN LINE ROUTE:
4 PRIMARY NO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2ND OPENING: 3RD OPENING: 4TH OPENING: 5TH OPENING:
---- -------- ---- -------- ---- -------- ---- --------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMARKS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revise C 12rm98
Bridge #: 790028
TYPICAL SECTION
v
t0
IBMCFlCROWS13
STRUCTURE DATA WORKSHEET
County: ROWAN Date: 10/25/00 By: GDP
5'
Unstable Looking: NORTH
Unstable
Rail TVPe: 181
12" L_
26'-0" Between Rails
I
L 24'-0" Clear Roadway
8..
3" W. S.
0
? O ? o
- v _ o _ s _ o •? o • a _ v . _
O O Q O O O
5 3/4"
Deck
30 14' 4 LINES (a) 81" CTRS. 130 1/2"
END BENTS: RC CAPS ON TIMBER PILES
INTERIOR BENTS # 1 & 3: RC CAPS ON CONCRETE ENCASED TIMBER PILES
INTERIOR BENT # 2: RC P3B
BEAMS: 10"w X 27-h X 9/16"flange X 9/16"web
co
r
Span Length Br g. To Br g.
1 37'-9" 36'-4"
2 37'-6" 36'-9"
1 37'-9" 36'-4"

20' 5'
Page of
s-•oCtl
a
`l
Q
L•Z141
i"N
M Z•SL+o
2" Z
I
0
f III
L Ls;o
e
rQ
g
N v
J +1
?o
pJ 0
Ica II r-
?l
Cb
all
1 ?
n
Ica

G
0 o-*v
0
CALCULATION SHEET PAGE OF
t7?/Jle'
bd?bdil X MJl1l1 !X{ilNll XlNll IN(
CLIENT SUBJECT r? n2 'DL EL) ( -COLI) -nnS Prepared By 2 1 Date Q L 's ,-
PROJECT No. Reviewed By Date

?2z L)(--
o?? '-'rte=?
H l 5

?ZG C-a.p
Na cu-Q - USit- PiLlvr,?,

2 r.s'

z' E:l
1?
c?

j -;k cu3 Y, co pa le s = .3

----------- C,
.,
-
--121 C-Q

II I I

1 OF 1

REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 28 ON NC 801
OVER WITHROW CREEK a ' a
ROWAN COUNTY
TIP NO. B-4255
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1632201
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-0801(3)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-4255
OF 40 R'"
h~ p 7
o °` z
?FNT OF TR A14SQO
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
January 2002
Prepared by:
?C 7 '"' 8000 Regency Parkway
-fl
Suite 200
! Cary, North Carolina 27511
Phone: [phone]
1 : k ! : ; Fax: [phone]
www.buckengineering.com
f.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions .............................................................................. 2
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator .............................................................. 2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5
2.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 6
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................... 6
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ............................................ 7
2.3.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 7
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ........................ 7
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers ................................ 7
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................................... . 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................... . 8
3.1 Biotic Communities ........................................................................................... . 9
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Community ........................................................ . 9
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest ................................................................................... . 9
3.1.3 Upland Forest ........................................................................................ . 9
3.1.4 Agriculture ............................................................................................ 10
3.1.5 Aquatic Community ............................................................................. 10
3.1.6 Wildlife ................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts ................................................................................ 12
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts .................................................................................... 12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ............................................................................... 13
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................... 13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................ 13
4.1.2 Permits ................................................................................................ 13
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition ................................................................. 14
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .................................................. 14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .......................... 16
5.0 RE FE RENCES .......................................................................................................18
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 20
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities .................................... 12
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Rowan County ........................................16
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Rowan County ................................................ 16
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Terrestrial Vegetation Communities Within Project Area .................................11
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project (Replacement of
Bridge No. 28 on NC 801 over Withrow Creek, Rowan County). The purpose of this
report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the proposed
right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural resources are
provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of
the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and
effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the
context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project crosses Withrow Creek (Figure 1). The project calls for the
replacement of Bridge No. 28 on NC 801 over Withrow Creek in Rowan County. The
project description will be added at a later date.
1.2 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigation. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized
in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
o Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Cleveland)
o United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) quadrangle map (Cleveland)
o NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1 in = 100 ft)
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, formerly known as Soil
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Rowan County, North Carolina (1995)
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World
Wide Web by NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species (February 26, 2001 list), and from the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files
were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and
locations of significant natural areas.
1
General natural resource surveys and federally protected species surveys were
conducted along the proposed alignment by biologists from Buck Engineering PC on
August 1, 2001 and September 11, 2001, respectively. Water resources were identified
and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community classifications
generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy
follows Radford et al. (1968). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Potter
et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques.
Techniques included qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities,
active searching, and identification of characteristic wildlife signs (sounds, scat, tracks,
and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina (Division of Environment Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified
based on the classification scheme of Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 0.6 mi (1.0 km) on all sides of the project area,
and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [61.8 sq. mi (163.3 sq. km)]. "Study area" denotes
the area that was covered during the natural resource surveys. The study area limits are
sh6wn in Figure 2, and were derived from aerial maps provided by NCDOT.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Gregory W. Price, Senior Biologist
Education: MS, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1989
BA, Biology, Appalachian State University, 1985
Experience: Senior Biologist, Buck Engineering, Cary, NC, 2000 to present.
Senior Engineering Technician, City of Durham, NC, 1997 to 2000.
Biology Instructor, Wake Technical Community College, 1993 to 1997.
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality, 1991 to 1997.
Environmental Technician, NC Division of Environmental Management,
May 1990 to September 1991.
Biology Lab Instructor/Research Assistant, Appalachian State University,
August 1985 to May 1989.
Summer Naturalist, Duke Power State Park, June 1985 to August 1985.
2
Expertise: NEPA investigations; Section 7 field investigations; wetland and stream
delineation and mitigation; water quality/biological monitoring of streams
and lakes, environmental education.
3

Figure 1. Vicinity Map of TIP No. B-4255, Rowan County
551.
Ebenezer
Ch.
801 '• i' ? 15Z6? ;..
N 1737
1733
'1773 -'? ?- -1790
177 .5 .5
1735
r i
tJ
1771, 26
80
4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below as they
relate to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management concerns due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Rowan County lies within Piedmont physiographic region in the west-central part
of North Carolina. The county is characterized by broad, gently rolling to hilly
landscapes that have moderately steep or steep slopes along rivers and major tributaries.
Most areas of the county are drained directly into the South Yadkin and Yadkin Rivers by
tributaries that flow generally northeastward. County elevations range from 1,100 ft
(335 m) at Youngs Mountain in Barber to 560 ft (171 m), which is the water level of
Tuckertown Reservoir. Project area elevations average 680 ft (207 m).
2.2 Soils
There are 4 soil types located in the project area. A brief description of each soil
is provided.
o Chewacla loam, 0-2% slope (ChA) is a very deep, somewhat poorly drained soil
found on floodplains along streams and drainageways in the Piedmont.
Permeability is moderate with frequent flooding and depth to the seasonal high
water table is 0.5 to 1.5 feet below the surface. The surface layer is typically an
8-inch thick brown loam. This soil has main limitations of wetness and flooding
and is on the North Carolina Hydric Soil List (NRCS 1995) with a Capability Unit
of IVw.
o Enon fine sandy loam, 8-15% slope (EnC) is a very deep, well drained soil found
on narrow ridges and side slopes in the Piedmont. It has a surface layer of 7-inch
brown fine sandy loam. Bedrock depth in these areas is more than 60 inches.
This soil has slow permeability and high shrink-swell potential.
o Poindexter-Mocksville complex 15-25% slope (PxD) is an equally proportioned
combination of the Poindexter and the Mocksville series with steep slopes. Both
soil series are found along very narrow ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont and
5
are relatively well drained and moderately permeable. Depth to the seasonal high
water table is greater than 6 feet below the surface with no flooding for both
series. Poindexter soils are moderately deep to weathered bedrock with a surface
layer consisting of about 9 inches of dark grayish brown loam. Mocksville soils
are very deep to bedrock with a somewhat shallower surface layer consisting of
dark grayish brown loam. The main limitations for this soil are related to the
steep slope and the erosion potential with a Capability Unit of VIe.
v Zion-Enon complex, 8-15% slope (ZeC) is a combination of the Zion and Enon
series that is commonly found on narrow ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont
uplands. They are moderately to very deep, well drained, and have slow to
moderately slow permeability. Depth to the seasonal high water table is greater
than 6 feet with no flooding and the surface layers for both series are relatively
thin with about 3 inches of dark grayish brown loam. The main limitations for
this soil are related to problems with moderate slope and slow permeability in the
subsoil and the Capability Unit is IVe.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical
characteristics likely to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey),
best usage classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable
impacts to surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Yadkin River Drainage
Basin. There is one water resource in the project study area. NC 801 crosses Withrow
Creek, a tributary to Second Creek, which drains into the South Yadkin River.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ, which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The classification for
Withrow Creek (DWQ Index No. 12-108-21-3, 8/1/98) is classified as C. Class C refers
to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. No registered point source dischargers are located in or
directly upstream from the project study area.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 miles [mi] (1.6
kilometers [km]) of the project study area.
6
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Withrow Creek at NC 801 is approximately 30 ft (9 m) wide and is approximately
1 ft (0.3 m) deep. The creek has substrate composed primarily of sand.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and
non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are based upon published
resource information and field study observations.
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by DWQ, is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water
quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa richness (EPT S) is
calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes
tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight
in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily reflect the
effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical
pollutants as sediment. The closest benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring is located on
Withrow Creek off SR 1547 upstream of the project study area. That station received a
Good-Fair bioclassification rating in 1996 (EPT taxa = 14) and in 2001 (EPT taxa = 18).
2.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Dischargers
Point source discharge is defined as "a discharge that enters surface waters
through a pipe, ditch or any other well-defined point of discharge. The term applies to
wastewater and stormwater discharges from a variety of sources" (D)6'Q, 1998). Point
source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit. No registered point source dischargers are located in or
directly upstream from the project study area.
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater, snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition (DWQ, 1998). Many types of land-use
activities serve as sources of non-point source pollution, which include land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Other sources of pollution include fecal
7
coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be
washed off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
The major non-point sources in the project study area appear to be from crop
production and road runoff.
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction, such as clearing and grubbing on streambanks,
riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and pesticides in revegetation,
and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to
result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and groundwater flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further
reduced by limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately
following the completion of grading.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative
animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range
distributions) are also cited.
8
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the
text with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much of the flora
and fauna described within biotic communities utilize resources from adjacent
communities, making boundaries between contiguous communities difficult to define.
There are five communities located in the project area: disturbed/maintained, floodplain
forest, upland forest, agriculture, and aquatic communities (Figure 2).
3.1.1 Disturbed/Maintained Community
This community is located on the north and south side of the bridge and NC 801.
and consists mostly of grasses, herbs, and vines including fescue (Festuca spp.),
goldenrod (Solidago spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), ragweed (Ambrosia artenzisiifolia), Heal-all (Primella spp.), sunflowers
(Helianthus spp.), Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), wild grape (Vitis spp.), morning glory
Qpomoea spp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and cross-vine (Bignonia
capreolata). Staghorn sumac (Rhus typha), blackberry (Rubes spp.) and sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings were also present. Transitions of this community with
other communities (upland forest and floodplain forest) also exist within the project area.
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest
Dominant woody vegetation in the floodplain forest community include river
birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder, green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), black walnut (Juglans nigra), American elm (Ulmits americana), silky
dogwood (Comets antontunt), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), pawpaw (Asimina
triloba), Chinese privet (Ligustrumt sinense), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Vine species consist of poison ivy, trumpet creeper, Virginia creeper (Partheltocissus
quinquefolia), green-brier, wild grape, honeysuckle, and cross-vine. The herb community
is composed of microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
panic grasses (Panicum spp.), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), The floodplain forest
community most closely represents a Piedmont Alluvial Forest as described in Schafale
and Weakley (1990).
3.1.3 Upland Forest
The upland forest community is located upslope of the floodplain community.
This community includes a mixture of northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak
9
(Quercus alba), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), box elder (Ater negundo), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron ttdipifera), red maple (Ater ntbnan), winged elm (Ubnus alata), American
elm, and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). Understory and shrub species include flowering
dogwood (Conttts florida), pawpaw, redbud (Cercis canadensis), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), tulip poplar saplings, American beech (Fagus grandifolia) saplings and
blackberry (Rubles spp.). The upland forest community most closely resembles the Basic
Mesic Forest (Piedmont subtype) community as described in Schafale and Weakley
(1990).
3.1.4 Agriculture
Croplands (corn) exist just east of NC 801 within the project area just south of
Withrow Creek. Haylands exist just west of NC 801 within the project area just north of
Withrow Creek.
3.1.5 Aquatic Community
This community consists of Withrow Creek. The NCDWQ has an ambient
benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring station on Withrow Creek near SR 1547,
approximately four miles upstream of the project area. Species collected in August 2001
at that station, included 12 mayflies, 2 stoneflies, and 4 caddisflies. Dragonflies,
damselflies, and snails (Elimia spp.) were also observed in that reach of Withrow Creek.
That station received a Good-Fair overall rating by NCDWQ.
3.1.6 Wildlife
Maintained/disturbed communities adjacent to forested tracts provide rich
ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common mammals
and birds associated with ecotones and upland forests are least shrew (Crypototis parva),
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagtts floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), Northern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse
(Baeolophus bicolor), European starling (Stunius vulgaris), and common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula). The agriculture community also provides good habitat for
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Aquatic wildlife
is addressed in Section 3.1.5.
10
4
j
LEGEND
Agriculture DOT Bridge W E
Upland Forest Primary Roads
Floodplain Forest Streams S
ll Disturbed/Maintained Project Boundary
r°?D
m?
r
i
1
Bridgo #28
r
Cr
,!y
r
i
!
I r
I i
I
I
I
E
I
II
i
I
e
I ?
I
I
I
801
IRED =LL tk-
??? ROWA DAVIDSbN Figure
Terrestrial Vegetation Communities
Within Project Area
SCALE
200 0 200 400 Feet
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project lengths described in Section 1.1 where they intersect with the natural
communities, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of [ ] for the bridge
replacement and another [ ] for the on-site detour. However, project construction
often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
T:ihle 1. Estimated areas of impact to terrestrial communities
Community Area of Impact
acres (hectares)
Disturbed/Maintained
Flood lain Forest
Upland Forest
Agriculture
Total Impact
3.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Withrow Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 28. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and
the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in
the following impacts to aquatic communities.
i Inhibition of plant growth.
o Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
12
N
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMP's.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters of
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no wetlands in the project area.
Physical aspects of surface waters are described in Section 2.3.2.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of
the stream that are located within the proposed right-of-way. A combined length of [ ]
of Withrow Creek and [ ] of streambed may be permanently or temporarily
impacted by the proposed bridge replacement.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
13
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 28 is located on NC 801 over Withrow Creek in Rowan County.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
14
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
o More than 1.0 ac (0.4 ha) of wetlands;
o And/or more than 150 ft (45.7 m) of streams.
The impacts from this project do not meet the minimum mitigation thresholds.
Therefore, no mitigation requirement is anticipated. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a 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. As of February 26, 2001, the USFWS lists two federally protected species for
Rowan County. These species are listed in Table 2. Brief descriptions of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species are included in Appendix A.
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were found for both protected species.
15
A.
Table 2. Federallv Protected Species for Rowan
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened-PD*
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schiveinitzii Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
• * "PD" - Proposed for delisting.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of federally protected species within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study
area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Rowan County
(Table 3). Federal species of concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection 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. However, the
status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration.
Federal Species of Concern are defined as species that are under consideration for listing
for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are
afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists the FSC, the state status of these species (if afforded state protection),
and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species list
is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Rowan
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Present.. ?
Carolina darter
Georgia aster
Heller's trefoil
Etheostonia collis collis SC Yes
Astergeorgianus* T Yes
Lotus helleri C Yes
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica C No
Note:
* This is a Federally listed Cl taxon, a taxon under consideration for official listing for which there
is sufficient information to support listing.
C A Candidate is any species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in
the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
16

SC A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and
sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated
material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
T A Threatened species is any native or once native species which is likely to become an Endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no
occurrence of FSC species within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) the project study area.
17
.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. and S.P. Hall, eds. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina.
Division of Environmental Management.
NCDENR. 1998. Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina. " Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wqhome.html (27 Jul 2000).
Palmer, W.M., and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Potter E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in
North Carolina." North Carolina Ecological Services. http://web.ral4.fws.gov (22 March
2001).
18
I .
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.

19

APPENDIX A
Descriptions of Federally Protected Species found in Rowan County, NC
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: March 11, 1967
Threatened-Proposed for Delisting
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO E 1 CT
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked on July 25, 2001. No populations of this species have been
reported from the project vicinity and no birds or nests were observed during the site
visits conducted on August 1, 2001 and September 11, 2001.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: May 7, 1991
Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower, usually 3 to 6 feet tall, is a perennial herb with one to
several fuzzy purple stems growing from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. Leaves
are 2 to 7 inches long, 0.4 to 0.8 inch wide, lance-shaped, and usually opposite, with
upper leaves alternate. Leaves feel like felt on the underside and rough, like sandpaper,
on the upper surface. The edges of the leaves tend to curl under. Flowers are yellow
composites, and generally smaller than other sunflowers in North America. Flowering
and fruiting occur mid-September to frost. This plant grows in clearings and along the
edges of upland woods, thickets and pastures. It is also found along roadsides, powerline
clearings, old pastures, and woodland openings. It prefers full sunlight or partial shade,
but is intolerant of full shade.
20
k i dt,
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along roadsides, power line
right-of-ways, and field edges throughout the project area. The project study area was
evaluated for potential Schweinitz's sunflower habitat and extensive field surveys were
performed in September 2001. No populations were found within the area of potential
impact. The NCNHP's database of rare species and unique habitats was checked on July
25, 2001. No populations of this species have been reported in the project area.
Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to this
species.
21