20041290 Ver 1_Complete File_20040803

-4-
Ec,osystem r4l;J ?? C?
PROGRAM
November 30, 2004
1?1r. Steve Lund 1@@@flW7190
US Army Corps of Engineers IEC 0 6 2004
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 ENR AT ?
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 s -W
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3822, Replace Bridge 8 on SR 1706, Catawba County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 120 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; therefore, the EEP intends to provide
compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the
Catawba River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., NCDOT Director of Field Operations
Ms. Trish Simon, Division 12 Environmental Officer
File: SR 1706 (Division 12)
ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www,nceep.net

Eco Pbt 1*1W-
stem
PROGRAM
November 30, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Project: Replace Bridge 8 on SR 1706, Catawba County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide compensation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by
Ms. Trish Simon (Division 12 Environmental Officer) in a letter dated November 8, 2004, the
impacts are located in CU 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin in the Central Piedmont Eco-
Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 120 feet
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated
July 22, 2003. The EEP intends to provide compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in
Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
f
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Director
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., NCDOT Director of Field Operations
Ms. Trish Simon, Division 12 Environmental Officer
File: SR 1706 (Division 12)
"
t DENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
B-3822
Subject: B-3822
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:36:33 -0400
To: Michael Turchy <[e-mail]. nc.us>
Michael,
I spoke with Marx Price today concerning the baffles
culvert for B-3822. The reasoning he presented for
baffles was sufficient for me to agree with him. I
design submitted with the permit application on July
will place a copy of this email in the file. If you
questions, please let me know.
Brian
in the box
not installing
will approve the
30, 2004. I
u have any
1 of 1 9/16/2004 12:36 PM
Re: B-3822 - baffles in culvert
Subject: Re: B-3822 - baffles in culvert
From: Michael Turchy <maturchy @ dot. state. nc. us>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:11:27 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Great, I'll send that as soon as I have confirmation from hydro that the design was
changed.
Thanks for going out to take a look at B-3822 with us today.
Michael
At 04:16 PM 9/9/2004 Thursday, you wrote:
Michael,
No need for a permit mod on the baffles in the culvert. Just send me a letter
stating that baffles will be installed in the single box culvert to provide passage
for aquatic life during low flow conditions, and to reduce erosive velocities on
the downstream side along with a revised drawing detailing the baffles in the
culvert. I will review the plans, put them in the file, and issue it. Thanks.
Brian
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
1 of 1 9/10/2004 9:46 AM
B-3822 - baffles in culvert
Subject: B-3822 - baffles in culvert
From: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 16:16:28 -0400
To: [e-mail]
Michael,
No need for a permit mod on the baffles in the culvert. Just send
me a letter stating that baffles will be installed in the single box
culvert to provide passage for aquatic life during low flow
conditions, and to reduce erosive velocities on the downstream side
along with a revised drawing detailing the baffles in the culvert.
I will review the plans, put them in the file, and issue it.
Thanks.
Brian
1 of 1 9/9/2004 4:16 PM
B-3822 Culvert Replacement
Subject: B-3822 Culvert Replacement
From: Michael Turchy <maturchyC dot. state.nc.us>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:42:49 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Brian,
Per our conversation on B-3822, here's a few reasons on why a box culvert is the
preferred structure type replacing bridge No. 8 in Catawba County.
Topographically and economically, a culvert fits well at this location. The banks
along this UT are steep at the current bridge, thus not requiring an excessive amount
of fill (the most expensive element to a culvert) to be placed over the structure.
Hydrologically, the stream is rather small at the bridge, and could be easily
conveyed through the single barrel 12'x9' reinforced concrete box culvert.
As a biologist for the NC DOT, I watch for bridge to culvert replacements and
usually cringe when I see bridge to culvert replacements. I'd love to see all streams
bridged, but I also have to choose my battles for my opinion to be heard. At this
location, I find no reason why the stream would be impaired with a box culvert.
During a site visit in April 2004, the stream was turbid (>24 hours from any rain
event), banks were eroded, and trash was found throughout the stream.
You mentioned that a you were hesitant to see this culvert go in so close to the
Catawba River. What concerns do you have on the culvert impact to the Catawba
River, and could these concerns be resolved with other environmental commitments
to the project?
--------------------------------------------
Michael Turchy, Natural Systems Specialist
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA I Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
voice: 919.715.1468 fax: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/
1 of 1 9/8/2004 5:03 PM
?. SfAtr o
4 F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 ? 6? -
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 In
July 30, 2004
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
W 'FJ-LINDS1401 GROUP
? UG 0'y 200"
WATER QUAvr),
SFCTIall
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Applications for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 (Bolick Road) over
tributary to Catawba River, in Catawba County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1706(2), State Project No. 8.2791901, TIP No.
B-3822.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 8 on the existing alignment with a 120-
foot, single barrel, 12.0 x 9.0-foot reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be
maintained using an off-site detour. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the
project area.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Permanent Impacts: Construction of the proposed project will result in total of 0.03 acres
of permanent fill in surface water. In total, 120 feet of existing stream channel will be
permanently impacted by this project.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary dewatering is necessary for culvert installation. The
temporary dewatering will occur at the elevation and location shown in the permit
drawings. Diking materials and methods will be determined during construction by the
contractor. Temporary impervious dikes and associated ponding and dewatering will
result in 69 feet of temporary impact.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 8 in Catawba County is in extremely poor condition. At the time this
document was written, the bridge was downgraded to a weight limit of 3 tons from 9 tons
and road closure was eminent. Bridge No. 8 in Catawba County is a three-span, two-lane
structure that was constructed in 1965. The superstructure consists of a timber deck with
an asphalt wearing surface on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of end bents and
interior bents constructed of timber caps and piles with timber bulkheads. The overall
length of the structure is approximately 91.0 feet, with a clear roadway width of 24.2 feet.
The height of the structure above the streambed is 17 feet. This structure can be removed
without dropping any of its components into the tributary to Catawba River. All
measures will be taken to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the U.S. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented.
Culvert Construction
Bridge No. 8 will be replaced with a single-barrel 12.0 x 9.0-foot reinforced concrete box
culvert. Construction of the culvert will require dewatering of the natural stream channel
of tributary to Catawba River.
Construction Sequence:
1. Construct rock silt screen downstream of work area.
2. Construct temporary imperious dikes (sand bags) as shown and place one 24"
temporary pipe to convey flow through the work area.
3. Construct stilling basin (stilling basin capacity 165 cy)
4. Construct proposed culvert.
5. Remove impervious dikes and pipe.
6. Upon permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas, remove all temporary sediment
control devices including stone silt screen and stilling basin.
Restoration Plan:
Following culvert completion, all material used in the construction of the temporary
impervious dikes and temporary pipe will be removed. The stream will then be restored
to its pre-project contours.
Temporary Dewatering
There will be 69 feet of temporary impacts in tributary to Catawba River from the
construction of the proposed culvert for the replacement of Bridge No. 8. The area of
temporary impacts will result from dewatering for the installation of the single-barrel
12.0 x 9.0-foot reinforced concrete box culvert in the existing stream channel.
Water Resources
The water resource impacted for project B-3822 is a tributary to Catawba River.
Unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the named streams into which they
flow. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies
the Catawba River as "WS-IV & B". The designation of WS-IV denotes waters
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local programs
to control non-point source and storm water discharge of pollution are required. Class B
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and primary
recreation. Primary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with waters on an organized and frequent basis. The classification date and
index number for this portion of the creek are 8/3/92, l l-(72).
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I,
WS-II, or watershed Critical Area (CA), within 1 mile upstream or downstream of the
project study area.
No special restrictions are required for in-water work other than those outlined in the
NCDOT guidelines, "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters".
Unnamed Tributary to Catawba River is not designated as a National Wild and Scenic
River or a State Natural and Scenic River.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists one federally protected species for Catawba
County: dwarf flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for the dwarf flowered heartleaf as
reflected in the attached CE dated November 2002. We have updated the information for
the federally threatened species as suitable habitat occurs within the project area. A site
search for the dwarf flowered heartleaf was conducted by NCDOT biologists in April of
2004, and no individuals were found. Therefore, the Biological Conclusion of "No
Effect" remains valid.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of tributary to
Catawba River be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary
Construction Access and Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing the temporary dewatering of tributary to Catawba
River. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR
number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Michael Turchy at [e-mail] or
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. M.L,. Holder, P.E. (Div. 12), Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon (Div. 12), DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
Mr. Elmo Vance, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
bi2fl
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
N Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT
Mailing Address: 1548,Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3147 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: gthomegdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
III. Project Information
Page 5 of 12
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: B-3822 Replacement of Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 over UT to Catawba
River.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3822
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Catawba Nearest Town: Catfish
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Bridge No. 8 crossing UT to Catawba River on SR 1706 Bolick Road)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 46'09"N 81 ° 07'21 "W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Catawba River
8. River Basin: Catawba
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Agricultural. Residential
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Page 6 of 12
Replacement of Bridge No. 8 over UT to Catawba River with a single barrel 12 x 9-foot
reinforced concrete box culvert.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridge crossing over UT to Catawba River.
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 dace 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.
None.
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.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
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:
The replacement of the bridge with a culvert will result in 120 linear feet of stream impacts and
to UT of Catawba River. Please see cover letter for additional detail.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Page 7 of 12
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httn://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please secif )
1 Permanent 120 UT to Catawba River 9 feet Perennial
1 Temporary 69 UT to Catawba River

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated np-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.eov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.maoquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 120
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Page 8 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbod
(if applicable) y Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The preferred alternative was chosen because it proposed an offsite detour and therefore
would not require the additional impacts of a temporary onsite structure. During demolition,
adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will
reduce temporary fill materials from entering UT to Catawba River. Additionally, adherence to
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will require use of erosion
and sediment control measures that will minimize impacts of construction.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmaide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Paie 10 of 12
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify-______)?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation

Total .
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone Z extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant gent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
Progfi °ct # 802791901
Rd.
T? ? TIP 22
F
ai r f n
® 170!1 ? ??,` 'Sp±
pw,?pro ? %s
IiII! y ? U E1 ?,bo.
0 Longfield sL
i Rock
Km
FRUI
ILI
? / F a
L3f ? v^'?D 1008 ? nor ?/P. fi.
Fork CL
Qr /
- / A >m L! ZIA v ?- G
1oolc R
/ to
1 /
51
T Ln \ m .
r Mmdn
f
S. V C D ® T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY CATAWABA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2791901 (B-3822)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE P 8 ON
MAPS SR 1706 OVER TRIBUTARY TO
CATAWBA RIVER BETWEEN
SR 1747 AND SR 1781
HEET Sheet 1 of 6 10/08/03
NORTH CAROLINA
d
z
:S
V)
N
zo o

w? ?e

?e e
zi
04

a zg a
CQ
cr-
Q
t3..
co
0
C?
0
.o
rid
U-
a
W
O..
N
Z
W
0
W
F-
0
0
u,
Cf
w
ad
o_
L
w
U
X
W
Z
0
N
W
0
bb/(
a
v???u??uu
O
MN
OR
'0 :
N ?
to ?? M 1 tl 1
?o b y.
fio
?u°u'Itl u
If if It X40,,1-?&vW, >
N o§i§
vinin
_ If II
?4o?tiO?vW,>
Ir
tn.
otbN?°p u u
V1 ?? tl tl 1 Y
J
i
y ?
zcl:
W
W
W U
F- Q
Q LL-
z '
W co
C
a
0

SNOISLUN

"'P'z2eEKl'
°o
0
Q
CD
0
N
N
..C
JT7 - i?`T
ll f J
rJ
ll?o
V)
m
0 a Lon m
Ln 7c ' X5.00
?;7 + m co 0
1 z O + B?
\ \ \ LTI ?, QPy m + -'
LD -0
\ \ _ Po v l\. !y m
?N \ r
Q>1 cl:)
TORO-f-/ O'L?\ \ = Q\ \ • ? rt' / ?
c4T/ ti4TF?\ F \ 4 \ ? -
d 4?
\o\ ? V
z Wg ? b
?? ? \ ?C
OW+W+
z
0
z? os
0
0-
F-C) to +
C 6?
? p7 cn ? N
m:_-- co +\., ---+
AN
_L,) W D
cn C)
U C
O X Ul
n n s m Lo +
D Lo
m W
r < :-5: n CA p
-I p \ n
T! cn r
v? V) u?
n co -
C--) -10
m
m ?r
L) A 7 L 70
Sheet 3 Of 6
/' /x O
--q i
o u?
D a
r
N
Cil
+
T w
A CF) O
O r 0

0
J
C, (n
N
CD 2
X n

C7
(D
CD
W
n

21
O n ¢?
4
N
t

?(D

m m

D

o
?
v Z
N Z m
o

m ?
X
< n
w w
a
? v
D
0
N

OCD

C7
!D
C
o n ? ?. 7
?. a 3
m D
?. n.
-G

n 21
Z=
0 ? w
0
w n-
?t
p w 0 7 cn
'a cn C
n
D
'
c
1
m
0
o cn -0
m

3 0M D

n
_
N 7
N
O O 0
7 7 cn
(D

N to
CL -
D
3 nm
?
w
w
o = o
m
m v
n CD
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT: 8.2791901, B-3822 (CATAWBA COUNTY)
STATION 15+93 -L-
1) CONSTRUCT ROCK SILT SCREEN DOWNSTREAM OF WORK AREA.
2) CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY IMPERVIOUS DIKES (SAND BAGS) AS SHOWN AND
PLACE (1) 24" TEMPORARY PIPE TO CONVEY FLOW THROUGH THE WORK AREA.
3) CONSTRUCT STILLING BASIN (STILLING BASIN CAPACITY= 165cy).
4) CONSTRUCT PROPOSED CULVERT.
5) REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES AND PIPE.
6) UPON PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF ALL DISTURBED AREAS, REMOVE
ALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES INCLUDING STONE SILT
SCREEN AND STILLING BASIN.
Sheet 5 of 6
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
2 MORRIS E. MILLER 102 CAMBRIDGE CIRCLE
GAFFNEY,SC 29341
3 ALLEN M. GUY 175 BEAM LANE
STONY POINT,NC 28678
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CATAWABA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2791901 (B-3822)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE #8 ON
SR 1706 OVER TRIBUTARY TO
CATAWBA RIVER BETWEEN
SR 1747 AND SR 1781
SHEET Sheet 6 of 6. 10/08/03
r
C3 p
z y a
w N F n h
?d ? a ? Op 5
g N ?$ yo
00- a
N
W
G r N I
A u x
\` \ ui
o?
M r_
? V O ft
.t in
??wo
pQ; 60
ig.2 A?
P ry
u
r ?)
v ?P
3 4 a
U o W
®
J_
T
N ::E
ww ?_4
I ? O N
O O O
k? II
?71 Q II N
C4 C.
01,
?' w ~ IBC
00
o 0 _ uj
t? o
r c- CL
V) R4
in
= 3
EL
uai qq
L Q a
N10 a d z
2 ?
:3
AU u- z
Id a !!I
do LU
?Jt?N 3Wz N oe, 10
00 CL in 0
?^ ^ a V 120 0 0 o it
y O w
? 1 2
ti =? d 1m ??w Il 11 11 n q 11 `n
az '
R ~ OV oU,aad °ooQ?E- >?oV
8 v c>a N N ; U
N • u.
v CL
d o 0
m 0 O o G °?
w LL 1 ?Oe z
'L1 O
€ lR . U w h h g W
U
Z O z
t ?v °? a
aQZr.7 w voi +f In O In ••oaOe
c4 nd
I w J N •~ a.
F' V a O? O iJ O
u? In
zz?? *Ll oLyfo zrcr CrILL .Lz g VzjrNO3
o innwH?
6/80/60
VV V 4S4--ZZ8E9\(0 ad\-d
6b:60 b00Z-Illf -61
r
fl fl
I Ln IV ? ° ? 'a I I I_I oN 0A x
lJ IJ

P
k?
c?
w
W
W
z
Fj
z
W
9
Q
D
m
D
W
11
W
D
N
i
tb
V
v

CL

1

0
F?
W
O
V

O ;
m
°
0 a
E
c
-p0 O ao. o a
L
7 a 0 C a O
m w V V U w a u? in 3 'n
I ;
1 II 1
I ;
' 1
?
I II I
I I I
I ; u , I I I
I ; ?
I ; Q
? 1 1 I
I 1 I
I ,
I ! 1
, I I I
I I I
O
04
O
O
O
a
E
E
W
u
0 r-
a N
a 0
u
> > a 2
cn rn m o
m -° •n ° V
O ?p
o o -E s `° a v x
s i u u a 0 12 m m U-
i I
I
?
?
n a
a I
I?I
1
A i
? i
i
0
p
-0 0 CD 0 0
o _n U_ _
-z 0 0
V L0 L. I= J
0
h
W

p 2 Q
E s
O © O 0 O
O U C
in W= 3 o y
0
e
9
i
i
O O
m C
O
o cm
•p
c N
N ? N
NY TI T 'w o p?
s 3 O # W W
?I I I y?? I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I O ® v./ I I I I I OW I 02 nl l0 x•S r
1{ N N N N r 4 1- i U U F 1- V 4 ' I I I I 1 I w
I ?? I? I ? I II I I I I I I I I I ? I I I I I I I I I I
c ° Q
w .w...• 7 ' i w i U 'p i i •D •A' r- t3
u C p C
w v O i w 1 w O O V V Q ' ; N O -°° m O
D U0 L w i 7 O :5 V d d .O 17 p ' ' ' ! i i d ? m c 0 d m
d v A° a o .n 0 ° V w o o -a o •p E c
tl 0 V p V s p V V v? -p m o m ? p
m 3 N o u tl 0 C. ui u i C -n o "r- t3 3 a
a . J i to a O J ° c Q O °• L4 C 0 0 C d m '° 'D
C Z` tl C i C C O © a V c .Q O ? i ; ' cu
0 !2 ° O a 0
In n E ?
C mm orn
o , o 0 0 n ° ~ ~ > ° z .s `°' U D Z, -0
3 C c
p 3 3 p v> m I- o LL o Q€ c o m h. E o -0 0 3 0 to to m V °' o H d F- o a 4 u Z .? 0 C o?? c V Z C p 0 3 w w -0 ?t d a? o o o o "' o 0 0 0 © 0 30 0C, 0? ? 0 y z E. cf E to 03
Or -0 c -a a ° -u c :7 Z o o o m o m tl c ° o a c
Q a Q N
u '.n 'C u 'N u u '0 tub 'o u O u H U 7 p 0 y O CL cx O O O O `O C n 0 ?r CL
ce ? (n W- ? ? ? N W ? GG ? w ? :3 ? add' ? 4 C O ° - L L - O O O OL tiJ li l
111 w v? U F- V ?+. o_ o_ n. aL o_ u_ _ n-
Y
II ? ? I
II 1 I •+-0 t t¢ o OO 0 v p ®0 0© O a t® o o®O Ill (3
0???o ® J
g )L ? I b
-p C
_ o cEi
-p ,-
O M
c ; I °
x 1 L ?a
i; m ' 3 m
CCC[?j«^111 i i O ; o O m_ CA C xO
C
.- 0
c.c0 m pU
a a° O p O ° p y C d 'D m C
3 o V o 0 0 °c a o°© o 2 O o o s o 3 a c€ (? og As
tl p C -p O a o O a ?. 3 O.
-0 IL t no s ° rq t 7 a s a o V c s m° ..c F- m c no m .x u O `o a
w d is m On p +- C° CL V ° ? O d O d I.°- O O C L_ ° O ° O N c m c 3 C
° v °rn ? o 0 0 o a o '0 0 0 o o° u o o a E o 63 o ?`- N I-° 'n 0 .° a
•.C L .>` L p L u
V C p a s a F- L
Z o 0 0 •o m N H a a a n .n v° 3 3 0 -' ©> 9 3 c€ c °° C
0 o p ?. p a a 1 0 0 0'3 o° ° E n - m
a a ° 0 0 °1
= a u_ ? a'b at a?a- ?U 72tnu?wno. hUa-v?inF-3F-i-I-?iin
' I I 1 1 I ' I
I 1 I I ?,
I I I I ,l, I I I T I C I ? ?;
I I "I " I ? 0? ® 4 4? r IUQI V. W `? r°- ? ly ? •? I? I U I U
110
I I ? I ,r, I I I I I I I U
M
i
W }
vj c
o
a
0
tl
m
-°
W

-f? a ci ci a ri. a n a
° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V a a a o`. ao`. V td M. w a
E ;

,
u
i

r-
C u
u r- .t
cL i

V
u'.
d U, a
v
LL LL

E o
`

'
d m
` L '
O
• 1 >
O
to C p
'p 'O t1 E

a
a
a -°
C a
a .O
fl a9
CL cL
w >
3 a -?
U a •- p
U O
C7 vI
i'' C
o
in ca

° " d
o d
L
a CL d c c
L ? ca
© E ° Y E 7:
a n
0 a ° S U L c_° ui
© o
c°
cp W W
!?y ? C C C C O ? of ; ? © O
C
?nnn'"??1I?VII ? ? n. ? ,-. O u a pf p1
d 3 C o U av C C p
C
2-0 o C7 0 O C O Q
o s 00 0 0 0 0 0 a V?
Va o m moo Q E E€
IM C3 oZ `? oC V V w° I® Fa a.
c C i2
a P n. d. c n d d al.
a a` o`. U r? a`. n`-
to a`. O`.
1 1
' E a
i
_
O ` O _p
.? o ` ; : ; ;
m
©m m v
0 C O C ; a 1E. C; rx C,
O a ' c a *5
•
E m CL O.
m
a a
y> 0 a .C p 0.
O _n
0 3r o °
a.
N a it O cn tN N U-
V U °
o Z
KI L
l`_! 0 0-0
? 4 3
c °' v
C c C
? 3 w
O m
? C
m` m

bb/PZ/5
d
V M
a?
? e
m Pg

_
C..
CV)
O
r
2
IL
S
w
LL
LU
W
CL
N
0
(n
W
0
W
H
OC
Q
Cl
w
oC
D
LLJ
ad
O
IL
WX
W
Z
N
W
0
66/ti/8
m
J
i
o
NII q II 4 " 11 4 "
ti
d
aKl??l T
uu
?u"II"" II
?M
OL ???" II
rile""1" W
ad ?ticc
o ?
W4?gl????W C`I Sr1 ?! '"
W ? Vj Q???O
o -a
SNOISLUA
U
Ln W
W
F- _
W (n
W W
=
(/) W
U)
W
W
N Z
.a
W J
_J CL
O
W
J ?
I U
0-1 Cr
00
Li II
3
?1¢
t0?
W
J
O
O
V
c ~
W +
H r
? O
O
m Ul
W ry
+
co
m
W
? Q
:3 N
O
2
N J
I

b?ry
O WW Y
?r

Catawba County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
Federal Aid Project No. BR7--1706(2)
State Project No. 8.2791901
T.I.P. No. B-3822
CATEGORICAL EXCL,I.JSION
UNI FI:D S FATES DEI'ARTMEN'F OF 'FRANSPORT.ATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
I- (693
ATL

Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
l(P 03
DATE

John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Catawba County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
Federal Aid Project No. BRL-1706(2)
State Project No. 8.2791901
T.I.P. No. B-3822
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 2003
Documentation Prepared b-,
TGS Engineers

?---7. Kenneth Burleson, PE
J'Xz C?3
DA/to
Project Manager
'S
: 1!.U3L
r t?/ ?OO?On oG'•'•?J?
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
'D ,,, Z. ? "
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Catawba County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1706(2)
State Project No. 8.2791901
T.I.P. No. B-3822
NCDOT has agreed 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 Standard for Sensitive Watersheds, Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR), General Certification Conditions, and Section
401 Conditions of Certification.
Structure Design
A. This standard note will be included on the bridge plans: "The existing bridge shall be
removed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris will not fall in the water.
The contractor shall submit the plan for the bridge demolition to the Engineer for review and
approval."
Division 12:
B. All methods of demolition will be considered and implemented where practical, other than
dropping the bridge in the water. Bridge demolition activities associated with this project
will strictly follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMPs-BDR).
C. High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be used.
Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
September 2003
-i-
Catawba County
Bridge No. 8 on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1706(2)
State Project No. 8.2791901
T.I.P. No. B-3822
INTRODUCTION: Catawba County Bridge No. 8 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location of the crossing is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the replacement of this crossing. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Existing Catawba County Bridge No. 8 was constructed in 1965. NCDOT Bridge
hlaintenance Unit records indicate the existing bridge has a sufficiency rating of 21.4 out of
a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient with a
posted weight limit of 9 tons. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in
safer and more efficient traffic operations.
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The bridge is located in the northeastern part of Catawba County. This rural area is
characterized by large open farmland, wooded areas, and some residential dwellings (see
Figure 2). The area in the project vicinity is zoned for residential.
SR 1706 (Bolick Road) is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. This route is not a designated bicycle route, has no incidental bicycle
improvements listed in the TIP, and there is no indication that an unusual number of
bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1706 has an 18-foot (5.5-meter) pavement width with 5-foot
(1.5-meter) to 6-foot (1.8-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade
contains a sag vertical curve through the project area. The existing bridge is on a tangent
alignment and there is a horizontal curve located north of the bridge. The roadway is situated
approximately 17 feet (5.2 meters) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 1000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1700
VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes no truck-tractor semi-trailcrs (TTST)
and 1 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). This route does not contain a posted speed limit.
The statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour.
Bridge No. 8 is a three-span. two-lane structure that was constructed in 1965 and is in poor
condition (see Figure 3). The superstructure consists of a timber deck with an asphalt
wearing surface on steel 1-beams. The substructure consists of end bents and interior bents
constructed of timber caps and piles with timber bulkheads. The overall length of the
structure is approximately 91 feet (27.7 meters). The clear roadway width is 24.2 feet (7.4
meters). There are no sidewalks on the bridge. The posted weight limit is 9 tons.
The crossing is at an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. '1 his crossing is not in a
FFMA Special I"lood Hazard Zone nor is it a detailed FEMA Flood Study area. At SR 1706,
the drainage area is approximately 1.3 square miles (3.4 square kilometers). When SR 1706
was constructed, no fill was placed at the bridge approaches to shorten the bridge length,
resulting in a longer, taller existing bridge than is needed to accommodate the creek below.
There are no utilities attached to the structure. No utility impacts are anticipated during this
project.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of .Bridge No. 8 during the period from February
2000 through September 2002. School buses cross this bridge six times during their morning
and afternoon routes.
M. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Bridge No. 8 is proposed to be replaced with a 12-foot (3.6-meter) by 9-foot
.7-meter) reinforced concrete box culvert. The new crossing will provide two 11-
P2
foot (3.4 meter) lanes with 6-foot (1.8-meter) shoulders on each side of the roadway.
The proposed typical section of the roadway is shown in Figure 4. The existing
bridge will be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris
will not fall in the water.
B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives considered for replacing Bridge No. 8 are described below.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure to the west of the existing bridge
(see Figure 2). This alternative would result in more environmental impacts and
higher costs than Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement at the existing location. During
construction an oft-site detour is proposed along local routes (see Figure 1). This
-2-
detour includes SR 1006 (Oxford School Road) and SR 1704 (llerman Road). The
total length of the proposed detour is approximately 4.8 miles (7.7 kilometers).
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" or `No-Build" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by the route and
thus was eliminated from further consideration.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and determined
condition and thus was eliminated from further consideration.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 8 is recommended to be replaced with a reinforced concrete box culvert
in its existing location as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2. DThe new crossing
will provide two, 11-foot (3.4 meter) paved lanes with 6-foot (1.8-meter) shoulders
on each side of the roadway. The proposed typical section of the roadway is shown
in Figure 4.
An cuff-site detour along local routes i recommended during the construction period.
This detour method is preferred because it is the most cost effective and is less
disruptive to the natural environment in the vicinity of the project. This off site
detour has been reviewed and endorsed by the Division Office.
The proposed replacement structure consists of a 12-foot (3.6-meter) by 9-foot
(2.7-meter) reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert should be approximately 96
feet (29 meters) long on a skew.
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTION
Since a posted speed limit is not provided along SR 1706, the statutory speed limit is 55
miles (88 kilometers) per hour. The preferred Alternative 2 will provide a better alignment
than the existing route and the best alignment considered for this replacement. However, this
alignment provides a design speed of 30 miles (80 kilometers) per hour which is less than
the standard 60 miles (96 kilometers) per hour normally used for such a route. Therefore,
a design exception is anticipated to be required for this alternative.
-3-
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two build alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 (Preferred)
Structure $106,000 $106,000
Roadway Approaches 252,715 109,965
Structure Removal 17,600 17,600
Misc. & Mob. 101,685 51,435
Eng. & Contingencies 72,000 40,000
Total CanstreHo{l fit' h ' r4 ?i 7 D?, a _ Yq $325
Right-of-Way Costs 75,000 28,000
? r?:, ?T ??;?
Total Project Cd?t'? 3 : A? '
` , < S 62

'
zap `r53,09Q
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $7800.000, including $600,000 for construction and $180,000
prior years expense.
V1. NATURAL RESOURCES
A review of the project area has been undertaken to evaluate natural resource features
likely to be affected by the project. Materials and research data in support of this
investigation have been derived from a number of sources including applicable U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Stony Point, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle, 1970), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) mapping, and aerial photography (scale: 1:1200).
A. Methodology
A natural resources field investigation for Bridge No. 8 was conducted on May 16,
2001. The study corridor was walked and visually investigated for significant
features. For purposes of the field investigation and to assure proper area coverage
of both alternatives, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately 700 feet
(213.4 meters) in length (500 feet [I52.4meters] from the bridge to the north end of
the corridor and 200 feet [61.0 meters] from the bridge to the south end of the
corridor), with a width extending approximately 200 feet (61 meters) west of the SR
1706 centerline and 100 feet (30.5 meters) east of the SR 1706 centerline. Plant
community area and jurisdictional area calculations provided in this report are based
on corridors centered on each of the two alternatives. Final impacts will be limited
-4-
to cut-and-fill boundaries of the constructed alternative. Special concerns evaluated
in the field include 1) potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and
water quality protection in the unnamed tributary.
The study corridor is located approximately 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) south of the
intersection of SR 1781 (Overlook Drive) and SR 1706 and approximately 6.0 miles
(9.6 kilometers) northeast of Conover, NC (Figure 1). The study corridor includes
the stream channel and terrace adjacent to the unnamed tributary. The unnamed
tributary flows from west to east through the study corridor. The unnamed tributary
joins Lookout Shoals Lake (Catawba River) approximately 0.75 mile (1.2 kilometers)
east of the study corridor. Land use within the study corridor includes forest and
pasture land (Figure 2).
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968 ), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature (Kartesz 1998).
Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland
jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic
organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994,
Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow
current standards. Water quality information f'or area streams and tributaries was
derived from available sources (DWQ 1999a, 1999b). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges which extend
into Catawba, Iredell, and Alexander Counties was obtained prior to initiation of the
field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally or
state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Amphibolite and Biotite Gneiss geologic
formation within the Inner Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The
landscape is characterized by broad, gently sloping uplands, narrow convex ridges,
and steep valley slopes. Soil systems in this central, western portion of the Piedmont
are determined by the local bedrock which is granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, and
mica schist (Daniels et al. 1999). The study corridor is located within the floodplain
and adjacent slopes of an unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. The tributary
-5-
drains from west to east, and SR 1706 extends across the tributary and floodplain on
a north south axis. The outer floodplain slopes up steeply both north and south of
the tributary. Within the study corridor, elevations rise frorn approximately 860 feet
(262.1 meters) National Geodetic. Vertical Datum (NGVD) in the tributary to
approximately 900 feet (274.3 meters) NGVD at the extremes of the study corridor
(t1SGS Stony Point, NC quadrangle).
TheNatural Resource Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service)
(USDA 1975) indicates the following soils within the study corridor: Chewacla loam
(fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Aquic Flimaquentic DYstr(chrepts), adjacent to and
including the st.reambed; Pacolet soils,) it to 25 percent slope (clayey, kaolinitic,
thermic Tvpic Napl adults) on the slope south of the toodplain; and Cecil sandy loam
(clayey, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Napludults) on the slope north of the floodplain.
The Chewacla series consists of very frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils on floodplains. These soils formed in recent alluvium
and slope is less than 2 percent. Chewacla soils have loamy A and B horizons that
extend to a depth of more than 35 inches (88 centimeters). Depth to bedrock is more
than 4 feet (1.2 meters). These soils range from medium acid to strongly acid unless
lime has been added.
The Pacolet series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on uplands.
This series formed in residuum and acidic rock, including granite-gneiss and granite.
Slopes range froin 10 to 25 percent. Pacolet soils have a gravelly sandy loam to
sandy loam surface layer 5 to 8 inches (12.7 to 20.3 centimeters) thick. The subsoil
is clay or clay loam 19 to 28 inches (48.3 to 71.1 centimeters) thick. The solum is
24 to 40 inches (61 to 102 centimeters) thick. Gravel content ranges from 15 to 30
percent. Pacolet soils are strongly acid throughout unless lime has been added.
The Cecil series consists of well-drained, gently sloping to moderately steep soils on
uplands. These soils formed in residuum from acidic rock, including granite-gneiss
and granite. Slope ranges from 6 to 10 percent. The surface layer is clay loam 4 to
6 inches (10.2 to 15.3 centimeters) thick. The subsoil is red, firm clay 35 to 40
inches (89 to 102 centimeters) thick.
Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, none are listed by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as hydric. The NRCS lists the
Chewacla series as containing hydric inclusions of Wehadkee soils (USDA 1996).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River
-6-
Basin (DWQ 1999a). This area is part of USGS accounting unit 03050101
ofthe South Atlantic-Gull'Coast Region. The reach of the unnamed tributary
crossed by the subject bridge has not been assigned a Stream Index Number
by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 1999b).
2. Stream Characteristics
The unnamed tributary is a second-order stream within a watershed primarily
characterized by forest and pasture and containing sparse residential
development. Within the study corridor the unnamed tributary is moderately
entrenched and is characterized by well-developed sinuosity and presence of
established riffles and pools. Width of the stream is approximately 15 feet
(4.6 meters) at the point of the bridge crossing with height above the stream
at approximately 8 feet (2.43 meters). The banks drop from the floodplain
approximately 4.0 feet (1.2 meters) on each side of the stream. The channel
substrate is composed of a gravel and sand mixture with some finer
sediments present in slower flowing reaches.
During the field visit. water depths along the study corridor varied from I
inch (2.5 centimeters) to 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) and flow velocity
appeared to be moderate. Persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was not
observed within the stream channel. The water level appeared to be low,
1ith about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) of unvegetated riverbank above the
water surface.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of'
streams in the basin. A best usage classification has not been assigned to the
unnamed tributary. The nearest rated system is Lookout Shoals Lake
(Catawba River), approximately 0.7 stream mile (1.1 stream kilometers)
downstream of the study corridor. A best usage classification rating of WS-
IV & B has been assigned to this portion of Lookout Shoals Lake. The
designation WS-IV denotes waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local programs to control
non-point source and storm water discharge of pollution are required. Class
B waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture,
and primary recreation. Primary recreation refers to wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with waters on an organized and
frequent basis. No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor. Lookout Shoals lake has no water supply
intakes at this time (DWQ 1999a). No designated Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or
Water Supply 11 (WS-11) waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
-7-
study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach
to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Catawba River
basin management plan 15A NCAC 0213.0243. The nearest stream sampling
station in this sub-basin is on Elk Shoal Creek in Alexander County. The
most recent water quality samples in Elk Shoal Creek indicated Good-Fair
water based on benthic macroinvertebrate samples and Good-Fair ecological
health based on fisli samples.
'I "he Catawba River sub-basin 03-08-32 has been biologically and chemically
monitored and has a use support rating of Fully Supporting in 97 percent of
its reaches. The remaining 3 percent of stream reaches were not evaluated.
The unnamed tributary has not been rated, but nearby Elk Shoals Creek and
Lookout Shoals Lake are both currently rated as Fully Supporting. Sub-basin
03-08-32 supports six major point-source dischargers with a combined
permitted discharge of 10.5 million gallons per day (MGD) (39.7 million
liters per day [MLDJ) permitted flow. The sub-basin includes 49 minor
discharges, with a total permitted flow of 4.8 MGD (18.2 h1LD). Non-point
source pollution is also a major consideration in this sub-basin, with
sedimentation and erosion the most widespread problem (I:)WQ 1999a).
3. Anticipated Impacts
Both project alternatives include culverting of the stream to maintain the
current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. Indirect impacts, due
to erosion and sedimentation, will be minimized through implementation of
a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B
and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution"
(NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include
the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent
to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management
of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential
negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into
streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
In both alternatives, the proposed culvert installation will allow for
continuation of pre-project stream flows, thereby protecting the integrity of
this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from construction are expected
to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT's
-8-
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will
be strictly enforced during the project.
During replacement of the existing bridge, bridge components will be
removed without impacting waters of the United States. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR)
must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
D. Biotic. Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, riparian forest, agricultural land, and
roadside./disturbed land. These plant communities are described below.
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest - Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest occurs
south of the study corridor floodplain on a ridge and a north-facing slope.
This community extends along the slope and ridge both east and west of Sit
1706. This community is very similar to the community, of this name
described by Schafale and Weak-ley (1990). This forest is dominated by
mature oaks and hickories and is characterized by relatively open understory
and shrub layers. Herbaceous vegetation is sparse due to uniform shading.
The canopy of this forest is dominated by white oak (Quercus alba) but also
includes scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), northern red oak (Q. rubra), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), and sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum). Sub-
canopy and shrub composition includes saplings of the canopy species, red
maple (Ater rubrum), redbud (Cercis canadensis), American holly (Iles
opaca), flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), and eastern red cedar
(Junipertss virginiana). Ground cover within this community includes poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), and Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides).
Riparian Forest - Riparian forest occurs primarily adjacent to the unnamed
tributary, along a linear depression draining southeastward to the unnamed
tributary in the northwest quadrant of the study corridor, and adjacent to SR
1706 in the northeast quadrant of the study corridor. These areas are subject
to infrequent flooding and higher levels of moisture than nearby slopes and
ridges. This community is characterized by well-developed vegetation
structure, including a closed canopy, a combined sub-canopy and shrub layer,
and a dense ground cover. American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and red maple
-9-
comprise much of the canopy. The sub-canopy/shrub layer consists of
ironwood (Carpinus curoliniana), river birch (Betula nigra), American holly,
redbud. silky dogwood (Cornus ctntonnim), and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
Ground cover includes poison ivy, Virginia creeper, greenbrier, muscadine
(Vitis rutundifolia), pink wood sorrel (Oxalis violacea), mayapple
(Podophylluni peliatum), southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenioides),
Christmas fern, spotted jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), maidenhair fern
(Adianturn pedalum), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum bi lorum), bedstraw
(GaliumI ilosum), and buttercup (Ranunculus sp.).
Agricultural Land - Within the study corridor, agricultural land occurs as
hay pasture in the northwest quadrant. This field is on a gently inclined,
south-facing slope. At the time ol'the site visit, this area supported a shin-
high crop of hay with scattered, invasive herb and grass species. Invasive
species within this community include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense),
purple top (Triodia jlava), low hop clover (Trifolium campestre), red clover
(T. pratense), blackberry (Rubes sp.), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum
leucanthemum), vetch (Vicia sp.), and bachelors buttons (Centaurea (yanus).
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land is limited to
approximately 10-foot (3.0-meter) road shoulders adjacent to both sides of
SR 1706. Vegetation within this area is characterized by grasses and herbs
which are regularly maintained by mowing. On the day of the site visit, the
roadside appeared to have been mowed within the previous week. This
community is dominated by grasses such as fescue (T'estuca sp.), crabgrass
(Uigitaria .sartguinali,s), rye (Lolium sp.), and Johnson grass. Scattered herbs
include chickweed (Stellaria sp. ), red clover, white clover (Trifolium repens),
vetch (Vicia sp.), blackberry (Rubes argutus), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), bedstraw, dog fennel
(Eupatorhan capillifolium), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and
pokeberry (Phytolacca americana).
2. Plant Community Impacts
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within alternative corridors. A summary of impacts to
individual plant communities at Bridge No. 8 for Alternatives 1 and 2 are
presented in the following table.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities
are minimal for same location alternatives (Alternative 2). Impacts are
greater for Alternative 1 because the length of the construction corridor is
much longer than for Alternative 2, and because the bridge is being replaced
on a new alignment (25 feet [7.6 meters] to the west). Alternative 1 impacts
-10-
approximately twice the amount of natural communities (Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest and riparain forest) compared with Alternative 2. No
temporary impacts to plant communities are proposed with either alternative.
For both alternatives, the greatest projected impacts will occur to the
roadside/disturbed plant community.
3.
Plant Community Impacts within Alternative Corridors. Plant
community impacts at Bridge No. 8, Catawba County, for Alternatives I and
2. Impact areas are given in acres (hectares).
Plant Community Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
New Alignment Replacement at
Existing Location
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 0.26 (0.11) 0.11 (0.04)
Riparian Forest 0.09 (0.04) 0.10 (0.04)
Agricultural Land 0.27 (0.11) 0.00 (0.00)
Roadside/Disturbed Land 0.52 (0.21) 0.32 (0.131
TOTAL: 1.14 (0,47) 0.53 (0.21)
No new fragmentation of natural (Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest and
riparian forest) plant communities will be created by either alternative, as
both will result only in relocation of community boundaries. Both
alternatives may only claim narrow strips of adjacent natural communities.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into
local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species
utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueria montana). The establishment ofa hardy
groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the
availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
Wildlife
No mammals were observed during the field visit. Tracks and sign of
raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), and
groundhog (Marrnota monax) were observed within the study corridor.
Mammals expected to occur within the study corridor include Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris),
least shrew (Cryptolis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern
-11-
cottontail (Sylvilagus floi•idanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys Volans), eastern harvest mouse
(Reiihrodoniomvs, humulis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopu.s),
hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hisTPidus), red fox (1'ulpes vulpes), gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).
Bird species identified during the site visit within forest habitats are Carolina
wren (Aryothorus ludovicianus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
antericanus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Poliol)tila cuerulea), eastern towhee
(Pipilo ervthroplithalnuts), tufted titmouse (Baeolophits bicolor), red-eyed
vireo (Vireo olivaccus), cedar waxwing (Bonihycilla cedi-orum), red-billed
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), and downy woodpecker (Picoide.s
pubeseens). Bird species identified along forest edges and within open
agricultural land include northern bobwhite (C'olinus vii•ginianus), northern
mockingbird (Xfhnuspolvglottos), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus
inigratorius), common yellowthroat (Geothlvpis trichas), and indigo bunting
(Pas.serina cyanea). Other species expected to occur in the study corridor
include white-eyed vireo (Vireogriseus), white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis), chipping sparrow (Spi. ella passerina), mourning dove (Z.enaida
macroura), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), American goldfinch (CM-duelis
tristis), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicu.s varius), white-breasted
nuthatch (.Sitta curolinensis), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), and
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroicu coronata).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected in this habitat are five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheidrys aestivus), eastern box
turtle (T errapene carol ina), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
Two bird species, primarily associated with aquatic habitats, were observed
during the site visit: belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) and green heron
(Butorides virescens). Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) was observed
on the stream bank and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis) was heard calling
from the stream bank. Typical amphibian species for this habitat type include
northern dusky salamander (Desinognathus f iscus), three-lined salamander
(Eurycea guttolineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens). No mollusks were observed during the site
visit.
-12-
No sampling was undertaken in this unnamed tributary to determine fishery
potential. Small minnows were seen during visual investigations, but no
larger fish were noted. Species tkhich may be present in the creek include
rosyside dace (Clinostomw fimduloides), bluehead chub (Noconris
leptocephalus), greenhead shiner (Notropis chlorocephalus), creek chub
(Semotilus alromaculatus), striped jumprock (Moxostoma rupiscartes), and
fantail darter (Etheostoma flahellare).
4. Wildlife Impacts
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed project will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known
terrestrial animal populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is
expected since most permanent improvements will be restricted to or
adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances will have short-tenn impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to be minimal for both
alternatives. For both alternatives, potential impacts to down-stream aquatic
habitats will be minimized by culverting the system to maintain regular flow
and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
C. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of the unnamed tributary are subject
to jurisdictional consideration tinder Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping depicts
the unnamed tributary as a riverine, lower perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom and permanently flooded water regime (R2UBH;
Cowardin et al. 1979). The field investigation verified this characterization,
finding the unnamed tributary to be a perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom of mud, sand, and gravel.
Both alternatives will require a culverted crossing of the stream resulting in
direct jurisdictional area impacts to 100 linear feet (30.5 linear meters) of
stream, and approximately 0.04 acre (0.02 hectare) of surface waters.
-13-
Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas. Areas affected by alternative right-of-
ways. Areas are given in acres (hectares); lengths are given in feet (meters).
2.
3.
4.
Alternative I Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Jurisdictional Type New Alignment Replacement at Existing
Location
Stream linear distance 100 (30.5) 100 (30.5)
Stream area 0.04 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02)
All methods of demolition will be considered and implemented where
practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water. Bridge demolition
activities associated with this project will strictly follow NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR).
In consideration of surface water impacts, this project can be classified as
Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria:
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence ofhydrology at or near the
surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of' the growing season (DOA 1987). No
vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR section
328.3) occur within the study corridor.
Permits Required
The replacement of this bridge with a culvert is expected to be authorized
under Nationwide Permit (N WP) No. 14 (Linear Transportation Projects) (67
FR 2080, January 15, 2002). This permit authorizes linear transportation
projects in non-tidal waters, provided the discharge does not cause the loss
of greater than 0.5 acre of waters of the United States. The DWQ has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 14 (GC
3404).
Mitigation
Fill or alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). Compensatory mitigation is not
expected to be offered for this project due to the avoidance of jurisdictional
-14-
area impacts. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
secondary impacts to the unnamed tributary. A final determination regarding
mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
F.
Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 el seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range". and the term
"'Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). FWS Federally protected
species listed for Alexander (February 3, 2003 list), Catawba (February 5.
2003 list), and Iredell (May 31, 2002 list.) counties are shown in the
following table.
Federally Protected Species. Species name and status for federall\
protected species in Alexander (A), Catawba (C), and Iredell (I) Counties.
Common Name
Bog Turtle
Scientific Name
Clcrnuitys
muhlenhergii
Federal Status County
Threatened A, I
(Similar
Appearance)
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis nuniJlora Threatened C
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of
approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to 10 centimeters). This otherwise darkly
colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or
yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al. 1980). The bog
turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to
over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the FWS officially
proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog
turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the
southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina. The bog turtle
is proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the
northern population. The proposed listing would allow incidental takes of
bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful
activity.
-15-
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually
in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow
streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). This required habitat
is not located in the study corridor. In North Carolina, bog turtles have a
discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP
records indicate that bog turtle has not been documented in the vicinity of the
project corridor. T S!A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and
a biological conclusion is not required. However, this project is not expected
to affect the bog turtle.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf - The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-
smelling, rhizomatcus perennial herb with long-stalked leaves and flowers.
Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark green above and paler
below; the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green reticulate
mottles. The leaves grow to about 2.4 inches (6 centimeters) long and form
a dense, spreading rosette. The flowers, which appear in April and May, are
solitary, flask-shaped, fleshy and firm, and have three triangular lobes. This
species differs from related species by having smaller flowers with calyx
tubes that narrow distally rather than broaden (Kral 1983). Dwarf-flowering
heartleaf'is found in acidic sandy loam soils on north-facing wooded slopes
and bluffs and in boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and streams in the
Piedmont of North and South Carolina. Soil type and sunlight are important
factors in the site suitability for this species. This species typically is found
in moist duff at the bases of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (Kral
1983).
Within the study corridor, Pacolet soils (an acidic, sandy loam series,
providing suitable habitat for dwarf=flowered heartleaf) occur on a hardwood-
forested slope south of the floodplain of the unnamed tributary. This slope
supports Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. This forest is characterized by a
closed canopy and well-developed sub-canopy, shrub, and groundcover
layers. The site visit was conducted during the blooming season for this
species. A systematic survey of suitable habitat within the study corridor was
conducted during this field investigation. No specimens of Hexastylis were
observed during the survey. The nearest documented occurrence of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf is approximately 3.4 miles (5.5 kilometers) south of the
study corridor on Lyle Creek.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
within the study corridor provides appropriate habitat for dwarf-flowered
heartleaf. A systematic survey of this habitat was conducted during this field
investigation. No specimens of dwarf-flowered heartleaf were observed
during the survey. NHP records indicate that this species has not been
documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. Based on
-16-
available information and best professional judgement, the proposed project
will not affect dwarf flowered heartleaf. NO EFFECT
2.
Federal Species of Concern - The FWS list also includes a category of
species designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in Alexander,
Catawba, and Iredell counties. A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). The following table displays the FSC species
occurring in these counties.
Federal Species of Concern. Species name, habitat potential within the
study corridor, and state status for species federally designated as FSC
within Alexander (A), Catawba (C), and lredell (1) counties.
Potential State County
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status "
Rafinesque's big-eared Corvnorhinus
bat raTnesquii Y Sc A
Alleghany woodrat Neotomu mogister N SC 1
Catawba crayfish Y SR C
ostracod Dact.yloct. there isuhelae
Keever's bristle moss Orthothrichum keevenre N F A
Torrey's mountain-mint Pvcnanthemwn torrei Y SR-T A
Sweet pinesap A4onotropsis odorata Y C C
Tall larkspur Delphinium exahatunt N E-SC 1
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri N C 1
** E = Endangered; T = threatened: SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C =
Candidate; P = Species has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered. Threatened, or
Special Concern; W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare hecause of severe decline (Amoroso 1999;
LeGrand and I lall 1999).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for
species listed. NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall
1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection
Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seg.). No species with these designations are
-17-
documented N ithin 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. However,
NHP documents the occurrence Santee chub (Cyprinella zanema), a
Significantly Rare species, about 1.9 miles (3.0 kilometers) east of the study
corridor in Lookout Shoals Lake (Catawba River).
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or pennitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Iistoric Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on February 29,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (IJPO).
None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
June 1, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are
no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE.' A copy of the concurrence form is
included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
After reviewing the project, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),
concluded that if the bridge is replaced on the existing alignment, no archeological
survey is recommended (see Appendix). However, if the bridge is replaced on new
location an archeological survey is required. The preferred alternative for this project
is to replace the bridge at its existing location. Therefore, no further archeological
investigation is required.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
-18-
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality ol"the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of=Way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the preferred alternative.
In compliance with executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low
income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. There are no publ icly-owned
parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, State, or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
A GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation was conducted along the project. An examination
of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Vl'aste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks or hazardous
waste sites in the project area. Based on the field reconnaissance survey and a review of the
Geographical Information Service (GIS) map, there were no anticipated Underground
Storage Tani: (UST) impacts, no Superfund sites, no regulated or unregulated landfills or
dumpsites located within the project limits.
The project is located in Catawba County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because
the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create
any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. This bridge replacement is an
air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
-19-
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air
quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process and no additional
reports are necessary.
Since the project is located along the existing alignment and will not substantially increase
traffic volumes, the impact on noise levels will not be substantial due to the undeveloped
nature of the project area. Noise levels will increase during construction, but the increase
will only be temporary. Also, construction activities are usually conducted only during
daylight hours along projects of this nature. Therefiore, traffic noise reports are considered
urinecessan. This noise assessment completes the: requirements for evaluating highway
traffic noise in '1"itle 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772.
Catawba County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The crossing is
at an unnarned tributary to the Catawba River. This crossing is not in a FEMA Special Flood
Hazard Zone nor is it a detailed FEMA Flood Study area. The approximate 100-year
floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial. At SR 1706, the drainage area is approximately 1.3 square miles
(3.4 square kilometers). The proposed replacement will not adversely affect the existing
floodplain, or modify flood characteristics, and will have minimal impacts on the floodplain
due to roadway encroachment. The existing drainage pattern will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service (see Appendix)
Comment: There are no known locations of species of concern near these projects.
However, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for species prior
to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse
impacts occur.
Response: A natural resource field investigation was conducted for Bridge No. 8 on
May 16, 2001. No species with Federal or State protection designations were
located in the study corridor.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures
be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are not
aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
Response: High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be used due
to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV.
-20-
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Daniels, R.B, S.W. Buol, H.J. Kleiss, and C.A. Ditzler. 1999. Soil Systems in North Carolina. North
Carolina State University Soil Science Department, Raleigh, North Carolina. 118 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999a. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 1999b. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. U.S. Department
of the Interior. Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
LeGrand, H. E. and S. P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
-21-
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E,F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Deleware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1996. Hydric Soils: Catawba County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture Technical Guide, Section 11-A 2.
U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1989. Soil Survey of Catawba County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
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, NC. 255 pp.
-22-
2408 .'
4b 1706 C
s° ?•, 1
?sF 1763
1704 1781 \ -y, 0
T N?
:.. .
1706 178 n
2445 !
Bridge No. 8
1006
1704
? 439 a. 1748
4 I
Oxford School Rd.
1747 2425
1709 1006
1757
1706
1707 2448 ?.
1710
1006 a. ?
Lookout?asa
1006
1709
2433 1708 1717
429 2421 2446
2407 -
01 Meters 800
r?
0 Miles 0?5
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0
fi 01..
tlB'R• ?r1
7? '1
/ F:.rh z K=
I•
10
Hen 6
LEGEND
O O O
PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
CATAWBA COUNTY
Bridge No. 8
on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over unnamed tributary of Catawba River
TIP No. B-3822
Figure l
a
i
I
?
I
I

t a
' I

AND
y
'
i
?
x 1?

f;NY . 1

4

L

y ? l
1?`
y
i.

1'J \ItcrnoiliNC I

J 1
?
Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Bridge No. 8
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
CATAWBA COUNTY
Bridge No. 8
on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over unnamed tributary of Catawba River
TIP No. B-3822
F12ure 2

CATAWBA COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 8 ON SR 1706 OVER
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO THE
CATAWBA RIVER
B-3822
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
fi
t; ~ dUs4
Go o
- -- o o
z I U Z c I
O
II tOI?
ko ! c°
? I I
O l
i 0.4
I ? I w ?" ( I I w
O ? I
i l x?CS ? ? xW
I
? O ? II
III
II
N + I my ofI ! W
? I +I I a
ci

-" vV
4 Q?
. , y ?

ZONE X t?.

t to?? ,

Bridge No. 8 U UT

l '
r
AEY

ZONE ):
?
A
•
jpp6', ti ?'1rJ
LS:•: ,
DAM ..

. .
t:ater ` t
-_. ZONE A
Zon_ ?,.

FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area
-LLrNE A E ----
i

0 2000
I FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
CATAWBA COUNTY
Bridge No. 8
on SR 1706 (Bolick Road)
over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River
TIP No. B-3822
Figure 5
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
1.60 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 25, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements: B-3677, Mecklenburg County; B-3822, Catawba County;
B-3840, Gaston County; B-3700, Stan]), County; B-3828, Cleveland County; B-3839,
B-3454, Forsyth County; B-3421, Cabarrus County; B-3637, Davie County; B-3835,
Davie-Forsyth Counties; B-3404, Anson County; DOT contractor TGS Engineers
We have reviewed these projects and provide comments in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether or not habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are primarily limited to the known
locations of listed species and species of federal concern. When the Categorical Exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects we can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed are species lists from the nine counties included in this package. These lists provide
the names of species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants, as well as species of federal concern. Species of federal concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our
response to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any
are found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
1. B-3822 Catawba County B- 3840, Gas on ounty• B-3839, B-3454 Fors County:
B-3421. abarrus Co nty: B-3637, Davie County. There are no known locations of species of
concern near these projects. However, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts
occur.
2. B-3677, Meck lenburg County; B-3700_ Stanb, Counri•• B-3404 Anson County. Our records
fo; these counties indicate known locations for the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of these projects. If this species occurs in
tl.c project areas, additional consultation will be required.
3. B-3828. Cleveland County. Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near the
project. If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
4. B-383 Davie-Forsyth Counties. Our records indicate there is a i:own locaticn of the
federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii) near the project. If this species
occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-01-252.
Sincerely,
v .e. z-/?&
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1548
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, North Carolina 27284-9180
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1621
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered**
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
CATAWBA COUNTY
Invertebrates
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dacryloctythere isabelae FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
DAVIE COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
FORSYTH COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered""
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive i:)irector
T0: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FRUM: David Cox, Highway Project Co for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001 /
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-336777, B-350 B-
3694, and B-3700.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream. channel realignment. The. horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers. bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A L ,'.e a, banl: (riprap iree j area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
1Z. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during nomial flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on. a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3404 - Anson County - Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421 - CabatTUS County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 -Davie County -Bridge No. 37 over I-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 -Davie-Forsyth counties -Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
entirely, The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
" We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the proiect vicinity.
8. B-3839 -Forsyth County -Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3940 Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29170. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County -Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at (.919) 528-9886. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
L7
Feclerul .4icl =BRZ-170th-1 TIP =B-3, S Cui17n" Catawba
4
C0NCLR1ZC:NCE FORM FOR PRUPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE INAT10N. AL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
nrr ec! t escr,P!ian: Ror,l--ro Bridge Air Q S I7VL ck
On June 1. 2000, representatives of the
Lam' North Carolina Department of Transportation CNCDOT)
L?? , Federal Highway Administration (FH\k'A)
L? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/ consultation
other
All parties present agreed
C? there are no properties over fife years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
L? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each propem. properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the Nationa!
Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Sinned:
1.00
Date
J?Cti rY;
FHWA, for the division Administrator. or other Federal Agency
Z
ve, SHP
h-,!
Date
'?°•-
5rate Historic Preservation Officer Date
/
ti' a :urN e\ report k prepared. a f inal cLip? of this form ind the attached list \% ill be incWt: 1.
,r SWt °?
r
-g2?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. Brock, Adr-ninisudtor
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 20, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook C&aIC-6y.4e?
puty State Histo 'c; Preservation Officer
De
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Bridge No. 8 on SR 1106 over Creek, B-3822, Catawba Counrc, ER 01-8180
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted is
over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
If the bridge is r5llas ed on the existing alignment, no archeological surrey is recommended.
However, we do not recommend an archeological survey if the bridge is replaced on a new
alignment.
cc: FHwA
Tom Padgett
Location Mailing Address Telephone/ Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-1613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-.1618 [phone] •715-3801
t-
/J
CATAWBA COUNTY
P.O. Box 389 • 100-A South West Boulevard • Newton, North Carolina 28658-0389 Telephone[phone]
htt / /www. co. Catawba. nc.us
I : FAX[phone]
December 21, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Continents for Bridge Replacement Project B-3822, Catawba County,
replacement of Bridge. Number 8 on State Road 1-706-Bolick Road) over an
unnamed creek.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, concerning the replacement of the
above referenced bridge. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter.
The Planning and Utilities and Engineering Departments have not identified an), adverse
impacts. This particular bridge was included in the 1991 Catawba County Thoroughfare
Plan. The Plan identified the bridge as structurally deficient in 1991. A sufficiency rating
of 50 percent or less qualifies a structure f'or Federal Bridge Replacement Funds and this
bridge was noted as having a sufficiency rating of 34.8 percent. Therefore, the
replacement of this bridge would be beneficial to assure the safety of the general public.
Thank you for notifying us regarding the bridge replacement. We would like to continue
to be informed as this project progresses. If you have any other questions or comments
concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Michael Dove, Planning and Community
Development Director, at [phone].
Sincerely,
v • (I ?? r
3. Thomas Lundy
County Manager
cc: Michael Dove, Planning and Community Development Director
Barry Edwards, Utilities and Engineering Director
Sidney Halma, Catawba County Historical Association Director
Larry Williams, Soil and Water Conservation
"Keeping the Spirit Alive Since 1842!"
to
Printed on
Recycled Paper
12--01-'04 09,16 FROM-DENR EEP
9197152001
1 Jheffl r
PROGRAM
November 30, 2004
Mr. Steve Lund
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Lund:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
T-172 P05 U-365
B-3822, Replace Bridge 8 on SR 1706, Catawba County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 120 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; therefore, the EEP intends to provide
compensatory stream mitigation up to a 2:1 ratio in Cataloging Chit 03050101 of the
Catawba River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., NCDOT Director of Field Operations
Ms. Trish Simon, Division 121rnvironmental Officer
File: SR 1706 (Division 12)
DER
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 16S2 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699.1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
DEC-1-2004 WED 08:48 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 5