20090109 Ver 1_Application_20090204

•
O
6 ,
STATE OF NORTH CAR L INA FEB 6',/?
iV 1

V)
U

O DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO "'* 4JV* ,"j 4200
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A? I, JR
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN Mr Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No 99 over Long Creek on SR 1968 in Stanly County,
Federal Aid Project No BRZ-1968(1), Division 12, WBS Element
33344 1 1, TIP No. B-3909
February 4, 2009
0^VWNUiUn9
Dear Sir-
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bndge No
99 over Long Creek on SR 1968 There will be no permanent stream or wetland impacts and
0 05 acre of temporary stream impacts
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings and
design plans for the above-referenced project The Categorical Exclusion (CE) was
completed in March 2003 and the CE Addendum was completed in July 2006. Documents
were distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request
This project calls for a letting date of September 15, 2009 and a review date of July 28,
2009
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
LOCATION
4701 ATLANTIC AVENUE
SUITE 116
RALEIGH NC 27604
x
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at-
http //www ncdot org/doh/preconstruct/pe/ If you have any questions or need additional
information, please e-mail Erin Cheely at ekcheely@ncdot gov
Sincere ,
Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment
Mr Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms Marla Chambers, NCWRC
W/o attachment (see websnte for attachments)
Dr David Chang, P E , Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P E , Structure Design
Mr Victor Barbour, P E, Project Services Unit
Mr Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M L Holder, P E, Division Engineer
Ms Trish Simon, DEO
Mr Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr Mated Alghandour, P E., Programming and TIP
Mr Art McMillan, P E., Highway Design
Mr Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr Ahmad Al-Sharawneh, PDEA Protect Planning Engineer
2
Office Use Only: Form Vernon March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 9 0 1 0 9
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" )
1. Processing
1 Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2 Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested NW
3 If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here
4 If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here ?
5 If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here ?
II. Applicant Information
1 Owner/Applicant Information
Name- Gregory J Thorpe, Ph.D , Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number- [phone] Fax Number- [phone]
E-mail Address. ekcheely@,,ncdot.gov
2 Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address
Telephone Number Fax Number
E-mail Address
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided
1 Name of protect Bridge No 99 over Long Creek on SR 1968
2 T.I P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only), B-3909
3 Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4 Location
County. Stanly Nearest Town Albemarle
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number) N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc ).
5 Site coordinates (For linear protects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody )
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35°16'00" ON -80°15'25" °W
6 Property size (acres). N/A
7 Name of nearest receiving body of water: Long Creek flows into the Rocky River
approximately 4 6 stream miles from the project area Long Creek has a DWQ classification
of "C" and the Hydrological Cataloguing Unit is 03040105
8 River Basin. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated mayor 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. 60% wooded, 40% agriculture (pasture)/residential
Page 2 of 8
10 Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
Standard construction equipment will be used (backhoes bulldozers cranes and/or other
heavy machinery)
11 Explain the purpose of the proposed work The purpose of the project is to replace a
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient structure (sufficiency rating 48 5 out of 100)
The replacement of this madeauate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Protect Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable) If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules
A JD was issued for this project on Apn123 2002 under Action ID # 200230733
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this protect? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
nprap dissipater pads) Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary All proposed unpacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan All wetlands and waters, and all streams (mtemuttent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream rmtigation, 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. No permanent impacts Temporary. _
0 05 acre (49 linear feet of temporary stream impacts due to the placement of two temporary
causeways in Long Creek.
Page 3 of 8
2 Individually list wetland impacts Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/dramage, etc For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding
Wetland Impact
Type of Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Impact
Site Number Impact (e g , forested, marsh, 100-year Floodplam Nearest Stream (acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc) (yes/no) (linear feet)
No wetlands within
construction limits

List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property N/A
4 Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts Be sure to identify temporary
impacts Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e g , cement walls, np-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included To calculate acreage, multit)ly leneth X width. then divide by 43.560_
Stream Impact Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Long Creek Temporary Perennial 75 ft 49 0 05

Total Permanent Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0 ? 0
5 Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuanes, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage. bulkheads. etc
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (¢ applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc (acres)
No open water
unpacts
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6 List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S resulting from the nroiect
Stream Impact (acres) Permanent 0
Temporary 0.05
Wetland Impact (acres) 0
Open Water Impact (acres). 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U S (acres) Permanent 0
Temporary 0.05
Total Stream Impact (linear feet). Permanent- 0
Temporary. 49
Page 4 of 8
7 Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property`s ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet) Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE
N/A
8 Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream unpacts 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, imgation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc ).
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond
Size of watershed draining to pond-
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area-
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 protect. 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 No deck drains will be used
and NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be followed. The bridge will be replaced in-
place with an off-site detour Temporary causeways will not be installed at the same time to
maintain adequate flow in the creek The temporary causeways will be removed after
construction has been completed In addition, the new bridge will be 264 feet long which is
significantly longer than the existing 82.5-foot bridge
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 unpacts to perennial
streams
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
Page 5 of 8
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 protect, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http //h2o enr state nc us/ncwetlands/strmgide html
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.
No miti& thon is proposed for this protect because the 0 05 acre of =acts to Long Creek
are temporary and will not cause an adverse effect or significant loss of waters of the United
States
2 Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http //h2o enr state nc us/wrp/index htm If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information-
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet) 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet) 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres)- 0
Amount of Non-npanan wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres). 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the protect require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Page 6 of 8
Note If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation
Yes ® No ?
3 If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse9 If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion
1 Will the protect unpact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B 0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B.0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B 0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B 0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify------___________)? Yes ? No
2 If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multmliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 15
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel, Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1
3 If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (1 e,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund) Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B.0242 or.0244, or 0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surfaces will not significantly
Page 7 of 8
increase as a result of tlus project The bridge will be replaced in place There will be no deck
drains installed
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 2H 0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this protect (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality9 Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http //h2o enr state nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description
The new bridge will be constructed in the same location as the old bridge
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g, draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
As of January 31, 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one species for Stanly
County, Schweimtz's sunflower. A survey for this species was last conducted on September
27th, 2007 Suitable habitat for this species exists within the project area, however no
individuals were found The biological conclusion for this species remains "No Effect" The
bald eagle has been delisted from the Endangered Species Act as of August 8 2007 It is still
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act There are no large bodies of water
within 1 mile and 660 feet of the project study, there fore no survey is needed and tlus project
will not affect the bald eagle.

Z•2-G
ApplkanttA4 ent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided )
Page 8 of 8

.,

STANLY COUNTY

.?y
1 L
WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS
VICINITY MAP
Permit Drawmg
Sheet _ of

'T 'r) .
MCDEMOF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STANLY COUNTY
PROJECT : SS 444 cB-3909)
BRIDGE NO. "OVER
LONG CREEK ON SR 1%8
(HARTSELL RD)
R - OF_ 10/02/08
'® r
205 s2
200
138 \
?I
E C
co 2?
7
c v
z

W C co
C U a
'?
C f0 ?
E H- O O
v
a LU

y C
W
F.. C M m
N fD a E .'?...
w U a

w
U
Q vn
a U
C&U
y
; C
l1)

C)

O
} D f
L
H E

Q
CD tq
N ;t m U
Ecn E° .
U a.

CL O7
C U
~ co (0
U ?
W °'
N '
IL
0 ?
C C- U O
z
ca M
N a)
t
U -
U

O
O
F U (D
c
ILI
3
a
o
fO? °
p >S
` O
z x j
> O
J w

W y
E
c
co
_
w
~
?
C
N 'D
O
C
C
C
t0 -_ W
E ? -S ?
O
CD
W O
CL

Q

U
? N
n
fn -
W
H
J
i
O
O O
Ul
a O
LL
O

O

?
-- o J
Q
in z
0

Permit Drawmg
Sheet 2 of 10
Y ?
a
Q
a_

W
A ^
w N
?Q
a J
I•••i ? a?
Y
0
J
J
Q

x
?

U

1?1
v
Ln
W
H
Y

Z
Q

V

m
t?
Z
F-
V1
X
W
n
W
J
W
N
3
Z
i'S`j
f
3
O
J
U.
C
W
CID
Q
W
F--
N
?a
LkA
YN
?Q
O,J
MU
0
F} co
C 3 OR
W
c
p z
a , 0 V.)
m
E
. :
Z = O vo.0

C -
wH
F MZ
co LU W
O O < UDU=
?,-v)
z
pm
p p a O

Z
N
W
F-
Q
N
W
O
N
W
H
Z
Q
,.
O
PM a
U) V G
o a
M ?
u
CL CL
? cr. O
c
CL
? c N
C
N Q (A 0
~
U V -J M
N
O C +?-
W O
E
W
Q U)
O W
Permd Drawing
Sheet -f of lo _
00
0
cl?
CD
I
O
I
LU
w
w
tn
.
a
Q
?••? D:
a

W
A
w N
?Q
a J
F••i au
Y
'04 u
- w J
Q
® a

v
U
z
v
O
M

Y
U
W
C
W
t7
D
Q:
co
0
Z
F-
VI
X
W

I•s`
i
O
M I
M
Mn C
13
> J
W Li
J
W
3
Z
c
W
m
Q
W
N
?a
Q-
YN
UQ
J
O:V
0

go
OD
a No
oFC 3
w
M.
R moLn
^: 0
-
O
U
OG w
r7 O
(. MZw?
O O < OU=
- ?„ v

00 pmz

a O
as
Q

N
W
H
Q
N
W
I.L.
O
N
W
H
H
Z
Q
v
15 o C°
>1 Q _a
?OQFE
. O
u u
Q Q N
it e: c
a a u
C
N N ~
Q Q Ln
V U m
m
0 0 0
w E
t
0 Q W
00
0
a
I
U-
O
I
w
w
Permit Drawmq
Sheet S of 10
FILE ERIE!
[ m $D Ms EIUIEf
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B-3909
o? o 0
X ° N
rn
o O o o
z
o D o o
N
O O O
D
v g b
nc 0 N N
o Rn < 1 O O
II II II II II II II x
rp O. 1 A b
D C O W O a
C O
Oe = N
m m
-i z Z
0 0
0 O
z
c
g
° Y
M O
O`m O
° y
Q !4
?o Z
'o?
10 10
10
11
0 0 0
P o a
r- r
m N Em
y ? H .?7 (?' dKf
y
M
b a r
4 ?S?? x n
O
? H
lr7 ?'
?'? v+Y .e' 'Oif O
? e ? ZO7
s
o* a°
GM
y

0
y
O
y

g

y
0

1

rn
z r rn ?

r,ri
O
rn
O

z
w
+ rn

O
g
z
'Im qI F;
N 00
0
0
`m
2 Lail n
--?
r-
=R
6

o?
15+00
\?j Im
n-

rrl
20+00
® 1 nl
Z' ® Cep I ?
Vl, ® n O

N ?
jl
O Q

m ?
?O
Y
S. 4
0
I?-Ci -'I
Z
?O
4 °
o
5
(z tv
?tfl
00
O
VyJ
N.-
vJ
?C
R!
/ r! rn
/ I (7)
o
0
r A n 10-,400
oUq
0
NAp a3
-
oz
o
nP,
NM
?I
h?
O
?C
mm
io ?
ma
ti 1
?n
Sk
Ln
t// J

RM tRLES
WE (DATE! snAES

V
y
m
m y
m
m
w
x En
s
I
A A /
-n
O -n
O
If
? X /
r- I""
0 /
°
°
gg2go°rn
m
?

vl?
rnrn rn In In

?y-Irnm ii
2
35743 ti
??
STA2p OyRT 1 o
1
-ub? /
_
R
\ N II n ?? ° ,
mo?,rni??rnn /
STA
+
?
\ N wo it C
?nm??nr
w
o c o} o?zorn? BEGS 3A
9
L /
mo 2
n 37
E /
\ o rn?2
?l

N IZTA 91 Hln IT
it II II 11 II II II II II
r
?
\
I+ a

?
?
\
(w ? 1
+I al I I n
O 1 I G SP LaT RC V D Gm'

EL J612
LY' b
`
O M
c W

c
0

n c non c
GB ?
;
\
•
N
-4(0 I
M
z
m
n 6" ?
? Ln
s 0 W o g
N END P AT Y "

N co h)
C m
e
Bf
STA L 36
SP LgT

J I /?{HT
2Zy+ 5

° /
??

ua W t O

A O III
N
O

I
END SP

1,
?kr
A E

?

g
L375D
E
O
o
mm. E
mrr L
SP AT

I vp DI

STA 2
CH
b
i 07

L36
? EL
E 4
' O N W
r+
``
??+ 7C W W
N E DSP T '- Mai
W E 381D \ z -•
N
A
/

\ W 6 O
n A< M :R
f1
\\ m -4 I 11
II I J
n
N n o u ?}

\ x o
\ o
N
A \ v ? c
\\ BE SP ??qqr ??rr C

-4
T
STA IE
+ ?
m o

W
CID

D
m

cI
\ r L
5J-
STA 13 IT V z
W LL JIFYJ A;,
P
0 W W

(0 H

O M.
O
EL J41.5 If

Lm
\ -
? a

N \ m
? i o0 1?
\ N
N
\
.A u E
W O _ 1

? LA SIA 15

EL

_
M2,_

E3 =1

c

N

99M • WE
rr
'
j
- oz
Jp
°
- 8
? 4

S IEL
36 i •
z
z A
BEG
STA 1
F90 L C
-

'f
yW N
E 337.0
7 I tJ!
O
S? 1 v A N
O
m ?
STA EL 3 LL
85 I? N N 10
+
-

C
C m
N
E
LA p
M 8?CH J
'
I
S L
A
ITCH ri, >

W III
O

V
TIN
9
I LT y
3
D y p 7C
CI \ W
I 5
' 4 .4 M
E LA v' CR I ` 4 +0
W cif
A L
G 395
? 1 C

i
co

3 1
. 1
Y I
Cf
9 w o
0 m1
?1 \ o
"' X<
om
z-
1
?
n n
nn
3 ?
Q
?p p o o }

0 \ O O
1

-I STA 20 00 RT 11 \ •Iy
N N p E 3505 \ 357 43 $ 7d K
0 0 ILn 4
? WW p
° z
o Z
N O E Z O
Cgi o +
+
O ? O

r ?
o G 1 1n
Z
y ^
tN N
0
DATE MAM
TIME $TIME$
$FILE$

C.3
N
i W
N.
A
N W
Ln
N
N w
CPI La
W to
W
N
I
La Al, A
N
In
LA
N
N
N
to
N
w
ol
N
twit
N
w
N
A
N
N
N

I
? I
I I
I
c I
i
I I
I
? I
I
I I
I
I

I
I I

I
I
I
I
I

I
? I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
t I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I ? j I
I ? I
I ? I I
? I
I

I I
I
I I
I
I I

I

I I
I
? I
I
j

I

I
I I -u I
I I -- ? j I
I
mm
I
I ND I
I

I
I
I ?

?
I

? I

I
I
I

t

I I
j
?m
I
{
rl r ? ? I
D
I I 1,

, I ?D
n
m U)
I I z ?I
RA LI I ?.. ?_, iI

N I
I fym?J O W I
W O
1 A a ?I
I 1
j

j 1
1
/ I

I I

I
+
I
t
I j
I
I
I

j
I
I
?

I
I

I
I
I
I
I I
?
I I
I
I I
I
I ?
1 j I

I
I
1 I
N I
1 I I
I
I I
I j m
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
?

o
I I ?
N
I
o

a i i
I ? I

i 3 I I I
ICi
?
I I I I ?
I Z
?0

I
I

I
I

I

I
I z
o
I
m
?r I I I o
? N
a z I I
I

??C I
I I
I ?
I ?
°
v
? ° I I I
?
W
W
W

N
t W
A
IWJI

N
N

N
W

N
A

N
Ln
N
LW"L

N
A

N
N
N m
v-i
y N N
I

wn Yaytoor iaxiss ,w
pi lip ,i
(CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B-3909
o z
T
m LA LA
N n I
n
Z (J)Lo
c -i o o y / o f n+ cb
O `
Qp r cn U)Q)
?a
T
c G N N / /` o_k Lf)
II II II II II II II .?'Z' I /// / cl)
c°Ocow°?go w
?
O
aR
rn
rrn / / r? w
z z I I / I Z m 9s
= i yl? I y? c
c? M
0 Do
CC)
'?c g ? Arri I
O ?y m
rnI ,f o L- L
m o o ?, i o o? III O _
y s g ono
o
IS
-0 'o 0
/ /5+00 O '`1 - n
0 0 0 t n
a o a y n - _-
?` 1 'I
tmn ? tin
oo O , ;d
O
C -I I m 20+00 b
a
N ? ° n ° ? G1 yC
co?
to to i A --i
mO N?
N ? mm ?m?? it ? ? I y
P? ? 22 °°?ti II o ?
? `j em° ?rn? I ? I o
oy X02 Iii I I_I I n
C2 y? Ily I I
2G7 °1 11 I I f__
c
?? nzb `I I I
m Win, I
o I
? ? ? Iii 'I NAD 83 ?+?
I I ` a
y I? ?
Q) I
aPO m? NO
ti+a??yr a sr?r?. ? Z S? I I ?
.? .O Ol R' V 1
'_?, ?? A? I IBC
In / ? rn ? F

REVISIONS
Fur
GtlE
N N O ?+ x ?+ O A oo 91 vl to
-0 91
H
hi v -o
ha
c `rjj S O m p c - c m m m m 1 I A S 4 K m `C O S r Q. 0.
a m w o IM N 3 t a a m Ow n m c 2 3: 0 A a Ca o v' °
= <0 p° c O o>> C o
O S N ? rk 7 7 S? ? m?m 0 < W O C q y O ? O
a N? y? 03 03 Q 7 d a 0 7 C W 3 7 O
c T
o_ o °- n °
pr 3
m ° Ib
c'a g° Q.
e o
0- 0 0a r O
r? ? I I I
? I T II ? I ? III i
I / I I I I I I ( N
e 6 I I I I I I ? LJ' -? ?? .0 N0 0 ??? e i< x Q ?? ?o
Li
O = N N p? A A '9 ?f1 'O [il ?1 70 70 VI 70 t?/1
O n p a 0 7 0 c° a N a c o y a y a NZ? u? a o y o a ?Zrt` o yo a s d° ?o ?o 77 0
o a m m O y tN? ?' O O j j O j on
4 90-
O a 0 0 T y 0.
0 N I ` O m N m n N m m N N N N m N m n N N N m m 0 N m O
T y H a n; rt B. n m °a $. M n^ ° c o. o a
,v v
cwr 'V o o a- ?o o m m m° O W o
o °- m o c " 71 0 a a 3 3 ° w w o 0 1 J Q. 73 me
c O O a c > > 0 0 u °, a °. o. ». ?. m
c CL on:*
m a a H 3 c 0 0 n° ^ o C "C
a= $ o 31 n 0 - a a° ° C;C C 0 0
S N O
2
M 3 O C O 5L
9 rt 9
-'• 3 3
y
I
4
p C3 A I? I? I I M r" T m -» D I + O
I i i ? ? ? I I I I ; +2
(A CA -0 0 -p m x
m° m° m° v v m v- m° m m m°- a s m$ O m m 0
07 d 7 a 7 a ?_ O O O O N m p 7 a 3$ m$ m7 7o a' O O n °' 70 O IC 70
O m m z .. O a 7 C
C d` a N ON 0 m c 7 S -N
O T $, 7 m 7 O ^ O 4 a 7 7
m S° A°' C o ?? m m O x 0a m m
° o Z a N c 0
0, n 0 -9
0 T a T a o O_ 0 ^ C 0a °? ?° m m ? A
a W? W c o r W H o. W
A W o° 0 0- 0 0 c
P n o A o
c o- c 00 0 o C o a M
c O 0 m ` O-
0
C^ '^ c n
m m .m`.
I I 1 I I I n ?--?
I I I I I I I I z .
x .. I i
oooo¢} Io?Do??o-? o??
I I 1 I I i"?
I I I I 1 I
0 o C C C C C
0_ A o o>> Z O m W< o° o D
O m m ° O o m s m ° m s O W y O 10 s W W
.? ?a y a3: ,a.?a ,a
03 3
I 1 2- C)
a x '` `c O 10 W m d to a O O to to O a m ° d n' p O a fZ O W T
CA -n CL CA M F 0
to ° m p -, cr A 7O O G1 31 x s g
a a. C c c a o o D o h 0- 0 0
m m .r0" a c n o r o o C '" C o n o 0a W
G Z y O C m ' ° L x C C
0 0 0 c 9 ° m a vn g 0 o p C a
c = a 0 0
0
V, n III
O C C n (A SE C H
o m c° m c
0 m
O c H '
a- rt1 c
m
I T
I I ' ? I
M g
O 80 o?• ® O I 21 (S,) ©
o' e 0 O
n
0
z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
MID
y
Z
N
M
M
N
3Z
DD
0
r
to
h
a o?
n-
R Q

\?l
?J P'T'y

?z
?? r1
r=1
-4 1>
1=J?
J

sl`la
I?

a
ELIE
0
z
O
y
O
`J
REVISIONS

r m
r = z v+
r r ^ ? m o
n
i D
z ? 2 ? V
m r m m ^
A O n"=
m /
o
w? ° n O
o m x o
?NZO V zo?amor"?
OZ /
_
o oz'-^?n?a
n°
N C r0
z
^
z
x m -?
°
A p
iz?
i °?mm
o-
vnm?ivno
0 o c? m m-i
m°m air?v D F-

it r>z ° '_. ozzv?+
t'T7 M
It 11-u m
Lf)
n m A m c? Q,
cci, a v c? N 70
m'-" o / l ?
.-..
mo
n
i?NyLV1
/ / I
rr
W

zxwzvn?om oi°ao ?,
LTI
°
z
m o
m o
ro Z ; m T O 70
Lo
lD

CD
v ? ?; o
N
_t. LD
l
i m
n m? o? u /

I
Zn
v
a0
co
U)8
N
o
P, h
b H '0
'30
R b °r
b
y C yO
'l
b b
y
C
O
V

nZ `
D n
o
\
m -
m m Z 0 0
r
m
m n u m
<- IV1
cy) n
r?
y o?
n
W - N D
O 0
' o
0
0o nnz
L, o
- o C0
?J w
?
O
Z
LP
IN

04,
l O c
O b ? h
O w O b b
Irt? yea
o y ?, x
to R h t?]
by a?
to
0 t"1
ao ?°
b y
x b O
ti y
x C4
n
y
Fo
I w
r
I _O
0
yo
?n
m
cn
6#o?
O ?
0

fl
?
fl fl
o
e

© 8

fl O
?

w

I?
I'
?I
I'
I'
li
li
i
I
I
I
fI fl
f -^-I
11 0
li ?c
I
Cn
I I
n
z
D
'o
l ^O\
0
I \ ?

n
? d
\ I ?
(D CID
n
h
-- .I ? ? J J i l 1 s 3 ti
Oil
4
Od
W
?o

T r = rr= ?,r=
= T -
m m m
,,, m r _
T _
?n
_
-- m m - ? -

S T
T L

A ? .7
o a
?
z

A
'b C

ro
n
g

to
1M
N
N
N
W
N
A
N
N
O?
..d
tr
r
a
r
V
r
co
,a
r
A
MOM
rim
• >m
. w
w z
410
0N
A?
om
O
am
• H
z
W m
+a
m M
6
61
O

'
W 4 +
?wwit
vo
?
T TT
z A

O O
N
m fC
N
11 O
71 .?
w
N to

O
m

i
9

. O
a
+m
M
OI
p
Q
Ol

O ii??9l
iW
O
O
N
O
4 8? i
V

rnmrn cn cncng

rno?rniF
?2a
?
??rn?arn ?
C
n=°
o ? ?
nrn
o?
o 2 ?
i
nu?n
uunuu

0
? a 4
4 y
(
+ b a A
O

• s v
W C1

°0m
N O
Qc+ a m
arr
?°
9
W W
O N
W
z ?

: m w
V

m
w
N O
T W
W V
z
?
O W
p
?

MT ]
r
W
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
Addendum to
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
7/# Lo?
ate
7 Z7/
Date
j&Z Gregory J Thorpe(PhD, Branch Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
John F Sullivan, III; P E
Division Administrator,
Federal Highway Administration
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
Addendum to
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
July, 2006
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.
CIkRp?-
avid L Wilver, P E ANE
Project Manager '•
.,? L Mrs'
For the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GAO a
Jenn r A vans, P E
Project Planning Engineer
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No 99 Over Long Creek,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No 8 2681701
TIP No - B-3909
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font
Design Services/Roadside Environmental/Division 10 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands
This standard will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department in coordination with existing standards and laws
Design Services/ Division 10 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits.
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project
Division 10 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure and what is
permitted Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project
Division 10 Construction
All work shall be performed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
project
B-3909 Green Sheet Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion (ADDENDUM)
May 2006
Addendum to
Categorical Exclusion
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for replacement of Bridge No 9 over Long Creek in
Stanly County was completed in March 2003 The preferred alternative selected was
Alternative 3 which included replacement of the existing single lane, low water bridge
with anew two-lane structure at the existing location Following further evaluation by
the Division 10 Office of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, it was
determined to provide a replacement bridge for this low water crossing that will
adequately handle a 50 year storm event This addendum documents the changes
to the CE in order to provide this replacement
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in
conjunction with a field reconnaissance of the site in order to accommodate a 50
year storm event without overtopping The proposed replacement structure is a
bridge approximately 250 feet long Since overtopping of the road occurs during the
100-year storm, raising the roadway grade over the existing elevation will likely
increase the elevation of the existing 100-year storm NCDOT will incorporate a
longer bridge, if required, to limit the increase in elevation of the 100-year storm to no
more than one foot Minimum grade on the deck of the bridge will be 0 3 percent
The length of the proposed bridge and the recommended roadway elevation may be
adjusted (increased or decreased) to accommodate peak flow as determined in the
final hydrologic study and hydraulic design
Stanly County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program The bridge is
within an Approximate Study Area
There is no current posted speed along the existing roadway approaches The
proposed design speed is 50 miles per hour
1
B. Preferred Alternate (Figure 2C)
Since the proposed design change to accommodate a 50-year storm event affects all
three alternatives the basis for alternative selection was not changed from the
document Therefore, Alternative 3, the alternative for replacing Bridge No 99, is
described below
Alternative 3 includes replacement of the existing 82 5 foot single lane, low water
bridge with a new two-lane structure at the existing location (See Figure 2C) The
proposed structure will consist of two 11 foot travel lanes and two 3 foot shoulders
for a total clear roadway width of 28 feet The new structure will be approximately
250 feet in length and 31 feet wide and will accommodate a 50 year storm event
The approach work will extend from approximately 350 feet west to approximately
500 feet east of the existing structure Approach work includes widening traffic
lanes, minor realignment, and grade alterations The total project length is
approximately 1100 feet Traffic will be maintained with an off-site detour on existing
roads The recommended detour is approximately five miles long (See Figure 5)
The detoured traffic will be routed from SR 1968 to SR 1963 to SR 1967 to SR 1956
and back to 1968 or conversely NCDOT Division 10 staff and the Stanly County
Emergency Services Director have reviewed and concurred with the recommended
off-site detour
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1 Estimated Cost
Alternative 3 (Preferred)
Structure Removal (Existing) $15,225
Structure (Proposed) $585,000
Detour and Approaches $0
Roadway Approaches $389,590
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $265,185
Engineering and Contingencies $195,000
ROW/Const Easement/Utilities $31,800
Total $1,481,800
2
4

F. PROTECTED SPECIES
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
officially proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq) Federally
protected species listed with ranges that extend into Stanly County are presented
in Table 5 (FWS list dated March 8, 2006)
Table 5 Federally Protected Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Ta No Effect
Schwemitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii E No Effect
a Officially proposed for delistmg
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet
Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head and tail Immature eagles
are brown with whitish mottling on their tad, belly, and wing linings Bald eagles
typically feed on fish, but may also feed on smaller birds, carton, and small
mammals In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through
May (Potter et al 1980)
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water
and forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching
(Hamel 1992) Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending
750 to 1500 feet outward from a nest tree is considered critical for maintaining
acceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987) FWS recommends avoiding any
disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting, within this primary
zone Within a secondary zone extending from the primary zone boundary out to
a distance of 1 0 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities
should be restricted to the non-nesting period FWS also recommends avoiding
alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant
land-clearing activities within 1500 feet of roosting sites
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No large lakes or other large bodies of water, providing easy access to
food, or snags for nesting are found within the project study area Since
no suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the bald eagle exists in the
project study area, this project is not expected to affect the bald eagle A
5

review of NCNHP records revealed no documentation of this species
occurring within 3 0 miles of the project study area
Schweinitz's Sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched,
rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 6 feet in height The
stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly smooth Leaves
are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above, in shape they are
lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide The leaves are rather
thick and stiff, with a few small serrations The upper leaf surface is rough and
the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white hairs Schweinitz's
sunflower blooms from late August to frost, the yellow flower heads are about 0 6
inch in diameter The current range of this species is in the vicinity of Charlotte,
North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils
that are thin or clayey in texture The species needs open areas protected from
shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies Disturbances
such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS
1994)
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Schwemitz's sunflower was identified within
the project study area, along roadside shoulders, and other open areas
A systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat was conducted by
ESI biologists in July 2001 Since this survey was conducted prior to the
flowering season for Schweinitz's sunflower, search efforts focused on
the identification all members of the genus Helianthus (if present) using
vegetative characteristics in the field No members of the genus
Helianthus were observed during the 2001 survey
Surveys for federally protected plants are valid for a period of 3 years
after which a resurvey needs to be conducted of any suitable habitat to
confirm that the species is not present Potentially suitable habitat in the
project study area was resurveyed for this species on August 30, 2005
and no individuals of Hehanthus were observed Therefore, construction
of the proposed project should not affect Schweirntz's sunflower A
review of NCNHP records revealed no documentation of this species
within 3 0 miles of the project study area
2. Federal species of concern
The March 8, 2006 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC) The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed However, these are listed since
they may attain federal protected status in the future The presence of potential
6

suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand et al 2001) within the project study
area has been evaluated for the FSC species listed for Stanly County (Table 6)
Tahle 6 Federal Sneciec of Cnncarn IP.gM
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Statusa
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis Y SC
Brook floater Alasm/donta vancosa Y T (PE)
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaugharnana Y SC (PE)
Georgia aster Aster georgianus Y T (PE)
Butternut Juglans c/nerea Y W5
Hellei's trefoil Lotus hellen Y C
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata N W1
Yadkin River goldenrod Sohdago plumosa Y E
Riverbank vervainb Verbena n aria N C
t-tnaangerea, i - i nreaienea, bc;- Special concern, G -Candidate, W - Watch List, P -
Proposed, SR - Significantly Rare
b Historic Record - The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
NCNHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of FSC species
within 3 0 miles of the project study area
3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G S 113-331 et
seq) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G S 106-202 et seq )
NCNHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of state protected
species within 3 0 miles of the project study area
7
`BRIDGE NO. 99
?m
sl Yvth,
m ?\ ? m
m .
' I I
I
I
I
1
I?
r
m ?
' I
eat i ,
dl/
m '
`\ y.J 1BBB
I
i
I I
1 r,
I ?? m P

STANLY COUNTY

a
ml
i'
/
i ?
fi-A NORM CAROLINA WWARTlBW OP MU PORTATM4i
DMMM CW MIMMAn
PFARM DRVBIAP)BM AND
BNVWXWX M" M"TM BRAICH
BRIDGE NO 99
SR 1968 OVER LONG CREEK
STANLY COUNTY
.S-3M
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE I
?c
,x
• ? ? I j
•I ? t .
?M
>' ?7F y r. "
Y
ter, , '?r
?r
?-
3 ?
743' r?? _ yzha i
y lj TF•q:1 ,?! (Y rlY• J .4..I,5N
??.' ,-i1 ? ? , ??`? ? ?"?f F ? 1y -?'? ? Y !i1.fr?s ~aF'3'1Sn
^Sf f
y 7
, -7W
V 1 ? 1?.T? v,"YL ? ? ?. ) i •? ?. ?? ??. ? S 'y If 4't Xi.
ti qua ion ?? -r-
Z
t t ?„ f ,Y ? tit}` ?t . '. .? ?; ? ? ".•t;, ?' ? j '?-,*
FF
.
R
r .?
?I V ? w» a I ?,` ?F tint 1"rt• ? {?
r ?S ?j :, 'fir ? '? ,r '_rits '? r `? y, ? ?a?• ??M
-N. Y"l 11C ly•'? i?y'?S-?''
L
f 1 ~

r
r'
t ,. r

,

r
?r .ski qt' '
E h,_
r 11
.{.k.

Facing East

IB•3909
Replacement of Badge
Bridge No 99
SR 1968 over
Long Creels
Stanly County
b" fFa
X
?w
FIGURE 3 1

F
p? W
F
c o h
1
H
w ? ? Wh
W $
U
?w O
o v ry 0.1 .? o1
w
h ? ? M
w
r' ? O
N
O
ti
?i
ti
g $ H ? ?
v
?q
?a a z
Gti ? o o t0?.,
N N ? ? V

I
Detour 5 2 Miles
Utilizes
SR 1968 Hartsell Rd
SR 1963 St Martin Rd
SR 1967
SR 1956
I
I
196
s
s
1963
967
"
1967
967
r 8
Zq el.
IJ
S
t Martin
I
1969
i
W
1
1956
J
1s
1919
I
B-3909
Replacement of Bridge
954 Bridge No. 99
SR 1968 over
Long Creek
Stanly County l
? y
19 ' OF NORiN "41f,
J=
195 % O
20? OF TR
FIGURE 5
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved
a 8? v ? 01,1', a e?pv
Dat Grego J. orp , PhD, Environmental Management DirectorA?
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
_31:31103 U464??
Date Donald J Voelker
Acting Division Administrator,
Federal highway Administration
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
March 2003
Iona Hauser
Senior Environmental Planner
/ (vz?
la?a- i
avid L. Wdver, P E.
Project Manager
For the
n NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Teresa Hart, P E, CPM
Consultant Unit Head
f /__10' _::_7
hn M Penney, P E
Project Planning Engineer
Document Prepared by
Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No 99 Over Long Creek,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8 2681701
TIP No.. B-3909
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #33 and #23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) Special Conditions,
Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
All commitments developed during the project development and design phase
have been incorporated into the design and were standard commitments Current
status, changes, or additions to the project commitments as shown in the environmental
document for the project are printed in italic font
Design Services/Roadside Environmental/Division 10 Construction
Ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands
This standard will be implemented during construction to the best ability of the
Department ?n coordination with existing standards and laws.
Design Services/ Division 10 Construction
Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable Prior to
the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor must obtain all
necessary permits
This standard will be used during design and will be implemented during
construction of the project
Division 10 Construction
Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform
the bridge demolition/removal and construction of the replacement structure and what is
permitted Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the stream
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
pro/ect.
Division 10 Construction
All work shall be preformed during low flow conditions
This environmental commitment will be implemented during construction of the
pro/ect.
B-3909 Green Sheet Page 1 of 1
Categorical Exclusion
January 15, 2003
Stanly County
SR 1968
Bridge No. 99 Over Long Creek
Stanly County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1968(1)
State Project No. 8.2681701
T.I.P. No. B-3909
Bridge No. 99 is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location of this Bridge is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated that Bridge No 99 has a sufficiency
rating of 48 5 out of a possible 100 for a new structure The Bridge is considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient Replacement of this inadequate structure
will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 99 on SR 1968 over Long Creek in
Stanly County (See Figure 1) Long Creek is in the Yadkin - Pee Dee River Basin. The
area of the drainage basin for the creek at the subject location is 73 3 square miles
(18984 6 hectares).
Existing Bridge No 99 consists of four spans of approximately 20 6 feet each with a total
length of 82.5 feet (25 1 meters [m] ). The bed to crown height is 7.7 feet (2.3 meters
[m] ) and the normal depth of flow is 2.1 feet (0 6 meters [m]). Materials consist of
timber deck on steel I-Beams, concrete piers and concrete abutments. There is one 10
foot lane and a total of an 11.3 feet (3.4 meters [m]) clear roadway width. The existing
bridge is in a horizontal tangent and is skewed 90 degrees to the roadway Vertical
grade on the bridge slopes slightly from west to east The grade of the west approach
falls toward the bridge with a sag vertical located on the eastern approach approximately
20 feet (6.1 m) from the end of the bridge. Both approaches are in a horizontal curve
with fair sight distances
1
There are no utilities attached to the bridge An overhead power line runs parallel to the
downstream side of the bridge There were no structures or utilities observed in the
floodplain except those mentioned above. According to the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance
supervisor the bridge is classified as a low water bridge The bridge and approaches
frequently flood. Due to the remote location of the bridge, the frequency of overtopping
could not be verified. There was minor debris on bent #1 There was no scour observed
at any of the bents Bridge scour information for the existing bridge is not available, as it
has not been assessed due to insufficient substructure data The channel banks appear
to be stable with trees and small bushes
The 2001 average daily traffic volume is 600 vehicles per day (vpd) The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 1000 vpd by the design year 2025. No school
buses currently use this bridge.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from January 1,
1997 to December 31, 1999
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis in
conjunction with a field reconnaissance of the site The proposed replacement
structure is a bridge approximately 110 feet (33 5 m) long. Since overtopping of the
road occurs during the 100-year storm, raising the roadway grade over the existing
elevation wdl likely increase the elevation of the existing 100-year storm In order to
eliminate this increase in backwater, a longer bridge may be required Minimum
grade on the deck of the bridge will be three tenths (0 3) of a percent. The length of
the proposed bridge and the recommended roadway elevation may be adjusted
(increased or decreased) to accommodate peak flow as determined in the final
hydrologic study and hydraulic design.
Stanly County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program The bridge is
within an Approximate Study Area The new structure will be designed such that the
elevation upstream of the roadway is not encroached upon the existing 100-year
storm. The proposed replacement for Bridge No 99 will be a structure similar in
waterway opening size, therefore, it is not anticipated that it will have any significant
adverse impact on the existing floodplam and floodway.
B. Build Alternatives (Figure 2)
The alternative for replacing Bridge No 99 is described below
2
Alternative 3 (Preferred) includes replacement of the existing 82 5 ft (25.1 m) single
lane, low water bridge with a new two-lane structure at the existing location (See
Figure 2). The proposed structure will consist of two 10 foot travel lanes and two 3
foot shoulders for a total clear roadway width of 26 feet (7.9 m) The new structure
will be approximately 110 ft (33 5 m) in length and 29 ft (8 8 m) wide. The approach
work will extend from approximately 310 ft (95 m) west to approximately 80 ft (24 m)
east of the existing structure Approach work includes widening traffic lanes, minor
realignment, and grade alterations The total project length is approximately 500 ft
(152 m). Traffic will be maintained with an off-site detour on existing roads The
recommended detour is approximately five (5) miles (81 kilometers (km)) long (See
Figure 5). The detoured traffic will be routed from SR 1968 to SR 1963 to SR 1967
to SR 1956 and back to 1968 or conversely. NCDOT Division 10 staff and the Stanly
County Emergency Services Director have reviewed and concurred with the
recommended off-site detour.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternative 1 includes replacement of the existing 82.5 foot (ft) [25.1 meter (m)]
single lane, low water bridge with a new two-lane structure at the existing location
The new structure will be approximately 110 ft (34 m) in length The approach work
will extend from approximately 310 ft (95 m) west to approximately 90 ft (27 m) east
of the existing structure Traffic will be maintained with a temporary on-site detour
located approximately 30 ft (9 m) downstream (south) of the existing structure.
Approach work for the temporary detour will extend from approximately 380 ft (116
m) west to 335 ft (102 m) east of the approximately 90 ft (27 m) temporary structure.
Approach work includes widening traffic lanes, minor realignment, and grade
alterations. The total project length including the temporary detour is approximately
805 ft (245 m)
Alternative 2 includes replacement of the existing 82.5 ft (25.1 m) single lane, low
water bridge with a new two-lane structure located approximately 25 ft (8 m)
downstream (south) of the existing structure. The new structure will be
approximately 115 ft (35 m) in length. The approach work will extend from
approximately 390 ft (119 m) west to approximately 340 ft (104 m) east of the
existing structure. Approach work includes widening traffic lanes, minor realignment,
and grade alterations. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction. The total project length is approximately 845 ft (258 m).
No Action Alternate The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
removal of the bridge effectively removing SR 1968 from traffic service.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition
3
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 3 is the preferred alternative It proposes to replace the existing structure
in place with a new bridge. Alternate 3 was selected because of fewer impacts to
streams, a lower cost detour and lower construction costs. NCDOT Division 10
concurs with the preferred Alternative
IV. ESTIMATED COST
Table 1: Estimated Cost
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (Existing) $20,488 $20,488 $20,488
Structure (Proposed) $182,000 $187,200 $187,200
Detour and Approaches $110,070 $5,700 $0
Roadway Approaches $323,870 $266,280 $184,580
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $208,572 $153,332 $114,732
Engineering and Contingencies $130,000 $117,000 $93,000
ROW/Const. Easement/Utilities $51,100 $37,200 $31,800
Total $1,026,100 $787,200 $631,800
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of natural resources in the
project study area Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include, 1) a
delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and/or surface waters and preparation of a map
depicting the jurisdictional areas based on Global Positioning System (GPS) data, 2)
an assessment of natural resource features within the project study area including
descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water
quality, 3) evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction and
alternatives; and 4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
The project study area is located on SR 1968 over Long Creek in Stanly County,
North Carolina. The bridge is located approximately four tenths (0 4) of a mile (0 6
km) east of the intersection SR 1963 and SR 1968. The project study area
comprises an area approximately 2000 ft (610 m) in length and approximately 400 ft
(122 m) in width. The project study area is rural in nature and the surrounding
,landscape is dominated by a mixture of forested natural communities and agricultural
4
land A US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conservation easement is located
adjacent to the project study area.
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
number of sources including applicable United States Geological Survey (USGS)
7 5-minute quadrangle topographic mapping Frog Pond, NC (USGS 1981), FWS
National Wetlands Inventory mapping, the Soil Survey of Stanly County, North
Carolina United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 1989) as prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200) furnished by Wilbur Smith Associates
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric sods, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al.
(1979). Jurisdictional surface waters (i.e., streams) were delineated pursuant to
current COE and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) protocol. All
jurisdictional areas were mapped using TrimbleTm GPS units and the collected data
was differentially corrected and plotted in order to produce working maps and site
plans (Figure 2).
Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was obtained from the
Yadkin-Pee Dee Basinwide North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) Water Quality Management Plan (1998), and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
support existing data. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using current
DWQ protocol Fish populations are typically sampled using a Smith-Root Inc,
back-mounted electro-shocker. Fisheries sampling is conducted by ESI under North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) Permit # 0616.
Additional resources utilized for this natural systems investigation include the most
recent list (March 7, 2002) of threatened and endangered species by county
published by FWS. Records kept by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) were also reviewed on June 4, 2001 and periodically updated to determine if
there are any documented cases of listed species occurring within the project study
area or within a three (3) mile (mi) [4.8 kilometer (km)] radius of the project study
area (most recent update February 25, 2002). When appropriate, natural community
descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by NHP and developed
by Schafale and Weakley (1990) Community classifications were modified to better
reflect field observations when community characteristics did not fit a Schafale and
Weakley community type. Vascular plant names generally follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968) Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic
organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
5
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al 1985, Menhirnck 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al
1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995)
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province The
topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly level to
gently sloping. Elevations in the project study area range from 340 ft to 450 ft (104
m to 137 m) above mean sea level (USGS 1981).
The project study area crosses four soil mapping units Two nonhydnc sod mapping
units are present and include the Badin channery silt loam (Typic Hapludults) and
Goldston very channery silt loam (Typic Dystrochrepts) Also included in the project
study area are two nonhydnc soil mapping units that may contain inclusions of hydnc
sods, the Chewacla silt loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) and Oakboro silt loam
(Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts). No hydric soils are mapped as occurring in the project
study area.
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-07-13 of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin (DENR 1998) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03040105
(USGS 1974) One stream channel is located in the project study area, Long
Creek Long Creek originates in extreme southern Rowan County approximately
two tenths (0 2) of a mile (0.3 km) west of US 52 at the Rowan-Cabarrus County
boundary and flows through the project study area to its confluence with Rocky
River Long Creek, from its source to Rocky River, has been assigned Stream
Index Number (SIN) 13-17-31 by the DWQ (DENR 2002a).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
J
A Best Usage Classification is 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. Long Creek has been assigned a Best Usage
Classification of C (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a) The C designation indicates
freshwaters that support aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation is any activity
involving human body contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HOW), WS-I, or
WS-II Waters occur within three (3) miles (4 8 km) upstream or downstream of
6
the project study area (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a) Long Creek is not designated
as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as a national Wild and Scenic
River.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulates permits
for projects involving the construction, alteration, and/or operation of any sewer
system, treatment works or disposal system and certain stormwater runoff, which
would result in a discharge into surface waters (DPA 1991) There are two
permitted point source dischargers located on Long Creek (DENR 2002b).
Permitted dischargers are listed in Table 2 below.
Table 2. NPDES Permitted Discharaes
Permit Facility Receiving Discharge Distance from
Stream (MGD)" Study Area
NC0024244 City of Albemarle, Long Long Creek 16 61 mi (9 8 km)
Creek Wastewater upstream
Treatment Plant
NC0043532 Town of Oakboro, Long Creek 0 5 2.5 mi (4.0 km)
Wastewater Treatment downstream
Plant
'Million Gallons Per Day
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term
trends in water quality at monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989) This program has been replaced by the benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring program associated with the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (DENR 1998). DWQ assigns
bioclassifications to streams and portions of streams based on species richness
and overall biomass, which are considered reflections of water quality. There are
three benthic monitoring stations within three (3) miles of the project study area
located on Long Creek The closest station is located approximately one (1) mile
(1.6 km) upstream of the project study area at the intersection of SR 1967 and
Long Creek. This monitoring station was last sampled in 1989 and received a
bioclassification of Good-Fair (DENR 1998, DENR 2002c). The second
monitoring station is located approximately two (2) miles (32 km) upstream of
the project study area where SR 1954 crosses Long Creek. This monitoring
station was last sampled in 1989 and received a bioclassification of Fair (DENR
1998, DENR 2002c). The third station is located approximately three (3) mile
(4 8 km) downstream of the project study area at the confluence of Long Creek
and Little Creek. This monitoring station was sampled repeatedly from 1983 to
1996 The bioclassification remained Fair from 1983 through 1989 and was
upgraded to Good-Fair in 1996 when this station was last sampled (DENR 1998,
DENR 2002c).
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina
Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the
7
structure and health of the fish community Long Creek has not been sampled to
determine a NCIBI score as of the most recent Water Quality Management Plan
(DENR 1998)
3. Potential Impacts to Water Resources
Long Creek is not designated as a Trout Water or an Anadromous Fish
Spawning Area There are no federally Threatened and Endangered species
documented within three (3) miles (4 8 km) upstream or downstream of the
project study area It is ESI's opinion that this project can be classified as a Case
3 by the BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal (NCDOT 1999). Case 3
bridge replacements have no special restrictions beyond those outlined in the
BMPs for Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (NCDOT 1999). However, this project may be elevated to a Case 2 at
the discretion of the NCWRC in the event that a moratorium is established to
protect sunfish (Lepomis spp ). Case 2 allows no work at all in the water during
the moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas (NCDOT 1999) If a sunfish moratorium is
established in-stream work would likely be banned during the period of March 15
through June 30, inclusive.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is
labeled Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDRs), as
well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting from
demolition
The steel and timber deck components are slated for removal in a manner which
will avoid dropping any debris into Long Creek However, due to the presence of
concrete in the substructure of the bridge, the potential exists for up to
approximately 25 cubic yards (19 cubic meters) of temporary fill being excavated
from Long Creek as a result of demolition activities.
During Bridge Removal Procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including
Erosion Control Measures Therefore it is anticipated that removing the existing
bents will result in no impacts to surrounding waters.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may
result from construction-related activities BMPs can minimize impacts during
construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas Additional
8
measures, which can be taken to minimize water quality impacts include avoiding
the placement of live concrete directly into the stream channel and preventing
heavy equipment operations from being conducted in the stream channel If in-
stream work is necessary the use of a turbidity curtain is recommended to
minimize impacts to water resources downstream of the project study area
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result
of increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or
increased shade due to the construction of the bridges, and changes in
stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to
the stream channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project However, due
to the limited amount of overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are
expected to be temporary in nature
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the
alternatives being considered. New location alternatives will result in limited
clearing of some canopy along the stream bank, resulting in the potential for
localized increase in sunlight and stream temperature. All alternatives allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby
protecting stream integrity
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Existing Vegetation Patterns
Terrestrial distribution and composition of vegetation communities throughout the
project study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, sods,
hydrology, and past and present land use practices. When appropriate, the
vegetation community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written
to reflect local variations within the project study area. Two natural communities
were identified within the project study area: Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. In addition to these natural
communities, there are also areas of pasture and maintained/disturbed lands
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - This community is located in the Long
Creek floodplain throughout the project study area Areas within this community
that have been recently disturbed have a much denser understory and a higher
occurrence of invasive species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
blackberry (Rubus argutus), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
The canopy is dominated by hardwoods species such as green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), box elder (Acer negundo), and
shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). The understory is composed primarily of
9
individuals of canopy species but also includes ironwood (Carp?nus carolm?ana),
American basswood (T?lia heterophylla), hackberry (Gelds occ?dental?s), and
sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Herbaceous species observed included ebony
spleenwort (Asplen?um platyneuron), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrosticho?des), tear thumb (Polygonum spp ), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - This community is the dominant community in
the project study area Areas occupied by this community include the forested
slopes adjacent to the Long Creek floodplam and other upland areas The
canopy is dominated by mesophytic trees such as American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), and sugar maple. The understory
and shrub layer consists of individuals of canopy species as well as eastern red
cedar (Jun?perus v?rgin?ana), white oak (Quercus alba), willow oak (Quercus
phellos), winged elm (Ulmus alata), and tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altiss?ma) The
herb layer in these forests is typically diverse, however, within the project study
area the herb layer is sparse due to a closed canopy. Herbaceous vegetation in
this community includes Christmas fern, cranefly orchid (T?pulana discolor),
Japanese honeysuckle, and muscadine grape (V?tis rotundifoha).
Pasture land - Several areas of pasture that may or may not be currently active
are located on the east and west side of SR 1968. This pasture area is currently
vegetated with various early successional grasses and other herbaceous plants
including broomsedge (Andropogon wrg?n?cus), plantain (Plantago sp ), dog
fennel (Eupatonum capolifol?um), and golden rod (Solidago spp )
Maintained/Disturbed Land - The maintained/disturbed land within the project
study area include such areas as roadsides, residential areas, and dirt
roads/driveways and are dominated by a mixture of ornamental and early
successional species. Typical species observed in this community are fescue
(Festuca sp ), wax myrtle (Myna cenfera), broom sedge, dog fennel, and golden
rod
2. Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Potential impacts to vegetation communities are estimated based on the area of
each vegetation community present within the proposed construction limits A
summary of potential vegetation community impacts is presented in Table 3
10
Table 3 Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities-
Potential Impacts
Acres hectares
VEGETATION Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Preferred
COMMUNITY Temporary Temporary Temporary
Impacts Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Construction
impacts' impacts' Im actsa
Piedmont/Low 0 04 013(005) 0 03 009(004) 0 04 006(002)
Mountain Alluvial (002) (001) (002)
Forest
Mesic Mixed 0 07 024(010) 0.06 024(010) 012 011(004)
Hardwood Forest (003) 0 02 (005)
Pasture Land 0 003(001) 0 02 002(001) <0 01 002(001)
0.01 <0 01
Maintained/disturbed 044 042(017) 0 66 020(008) 0 31 015(006)
Land (018) (027) 013
Total: 0 55 0.82(033) 0 77 055(023) 0.47 034(013)
023 031 020
Total For Alternative: 137(056) 1.32(054) 0.81(033)
i emporary construction impacts are oasea on the portion of the impacts not mciudea in the
construction limits for the permanent structure
b Totals for vegetation communities do not include the open water area attributed to Long Creek
or any impervious road surfaces
Potential impacts associated with a bridge replacement are generally limited to
narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge structure and roadway approach
segments All three alternatives minimize potential impacts to forested
communities by concentrating impacts in maintained/disturbed land Alternative
3 has the least amount of potential permanent impacts and the least amount of
temporary impacts related to construction activities This is primarily due to the
fact that Alternative 3 utilizes an off-site detour Of the alternatives that utilize an
on-site detour Alternative 1 has the least amount of impacts to natural
communities. In order to minimize impacts to natural communities Alternative 3
is preferred If an off-site detour is not practical, Alternative 1 would be the
preferred alternative.
3. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife. Little evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort Forests
along streams such as Long Creek provide cover and food and function as a
migration corridor linking areas of more optimal habitats Other expected wildlife
species are those adapted to ecotones between the maintained roadsides and
adjacent natural forest
it
a. Terrestrial
Several bird species were observed within or adjacent to the project study
area. Bird species observed included the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), mourning dove (Zena?da macroura), blue day (Cyanocitta cristata),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Pares
carol?nens?s), common yellowthroat (Geothlyp?s tnchas), tufted titmouse
(Pares bicolor), northern cardinal (Card?nalts cardinalis), eastern towhee
(Pip?lo erythrophthalmus), field sparrow (Sp?zella pus?lla), and orchard oriole
(Icterus spunus) Other avian species expected to occur within the project
study area include belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), downy woodpecker
(Pico?des pubescens), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carohnens?s), ruby-
crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), eastern bluebird (Scalia s?al?s), white-
throated sparrow (Zonotnch?a alb?collis), and common grackle (Qu?scalus
qu?scula).
No mammals or mammalian signs were observed within the project study
area Species expected to be found in and around the project study area
include raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (D?delph?s virg?n?ana), red
fox (Vulpes vulpes), muskrat (Ondatra zibeth?cus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carohnens?s), white-tailed deer (Odoco?leus virg?n?ana), and eastern cottontail
(Sylwlagus flondanus).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area Species
expected to occur within the project study area include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carohna), eastern garter snake (Thamnoph?s s?rtalts), ring neck
snake (Diadoph?s punctatus), and black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
Terrestrial amphibians documented within the project study area included the
northern cricket frog (Aces crep?tans). Other species expected to occur
within the project study area include white-spotted slimy salamander
(Plethodon cyl?ndraceus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouse?), marbled
salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
b. Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area is limited to Long
Creek. Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-shocking and visual
observation of stream banks and channel within the project study area were
conducted in Long Creek to document the resident aquatic wildlife
populations
12
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within Long Creek were identified to
at least Order, Family and species, if possible (McCafferty 1998), and include
Asiatic clam (Corbicula flummea), dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata:
Gomphidae, Coenagriorndae), fishflies (Megaloptera- Corydalidae, Sialidae),
caddisflies (Trichoptera. Hydropsychidae, Hydroptdidae), mayflies
(Ephemeroptera- Heptagernidae, Caerndae, Baetidae), beetles (Coleoptera:
Psephenidae, Dytiscidae, Elmidae, Haliplidae), flies (Diptera- Chironomidae,
Simulndae), water strider (Gerridae), worms (Annelida- Oligochaeta,
Hirudmea), and snails (Gastropoda)
Sem-netting, dip netting, and electro-shocking were employed to sample the
resident fish populations. Fish collected were identified to species and
included eastern mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), satmfin shiner (Cypnnella analostana), fantail
darter (Etheostoma flabellare), and Piedmont darter (Percma crassa). Based
upon the habitat type and previous experience in this part of the Piedmont,
the following additional fish species are likely to occur in Long Creek, yellow
bullhead (Ame?urus natahs), snail bullhead (Ame?urus brunneus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (L. auntus), green sunfish (L.
cyanellus), spottad shiner (Notropis hudsonws), and tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi).
One aquatic reptile was observed within the project study area, northern
watersnake (Nerodia sipedon). Other species expected to occur within the
project study area include painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) eastern mud turtle
(Kinostemon subrubrum), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
One aquatic amphibian was observed within the project study area, bullfrog
(Rana catesbe?ana). Other species expected to occur within the project study
area include southern leopard frog (R. utnculana) and pickerel frog (Rana
palustns)
4. Potential Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the lack of, or limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed
bridge replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known
animal populations Wildlife movement corridors are not expected to be
significantly altered by the proposed project Potential down-stream impacts to
aquatic habitat will be avoided by bndgmg Long Creek to maintain regular flow
and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from
increased sediment during construction are expected to be minimized by limiting
in-stream work to an absolute minimum and use of a turbidity curtain during
construction, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the
13
water Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed to minimize impacts due to anticipated bridge demolition BMPs
for the protection of surface should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Long Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters
of the United States" (33 CFR 328 3) The waters in Long Creek within the
project study area exhibit characteristics of rivenne, lower perennial, rock bottom,
bedrock (R2RB1) waters (Cowardin et al 1979).
Long Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of
bedrock, boulder, gravel, and sand The channel upstream of the existing bridge
on SR1968 is 50 ft (15 m) wide and an average of two (2) ft (0.6 m) deep The
geomorphic characterization of the stream section of Long Creek upstream of the
existing bridge is indicative of a "D" type stream (Rosgen 1996) These stream
types are braided and occur in broad valleys with alluvium and have glacial
debris and depositional features "D" channels are very wide with high bed load
and bank erosion (Rosgen 1996). The portion of Long Creek, downstream from
the existing bridge, has a channel width of approximately 60 ft (18 m) and
average depth of two (2) ft (0.6 m). This section of Long Creek is indicative of a
"G" type stream These stream types occur in narrow valleys and are unstable,
with grade control problems and high bank erosion rates The "G" designation
indicates that the stream is an entrenched "gully" with a low width/depth ratio on
moderate gradients (Rosgen 1996).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C.
1344) are defined by the presence of three primary criteria. hydric sods,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12 inches [31
centimeters (cm)] of the sod surface for a portion (12 5 percent) of the growing
season (DOA 1987). Based on the three parameter approach, two (2)
jurisdictional wetland areas are located within the project study area These
wetlands are small areas influenced by Long Creek Vegetation within these
areas is hydrophytic in nature and includes green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
tear thumb, sedges (Carex spp.), and dulichwm (Dulichvum arundrnaceum).
Sods exhibit hydric characteristics (Munsell color 5Y 5/2 with 7 5YR 5/8 mottles).
Hydrological indicators observed include the presence of surface water and
saturation within 12 inches (31 cm) of the soil surface These areas exhibit
characteristics of a palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated
(PF01 B) wetland (Cowardin et al 1979)
14
2. Potential Impacts to Waters of the United States
Potential impacts to wetlands and open water areas are estimated based on the
amount of each jurisdictional area within the proposed construction limits. Open
water areas of Long Creek (R2RB1) are included in this table, although impacts
are not expected due to the use of channel-spanning structures During bridge
removal procedures, NCDOT's BMP's will be utilized, including erosion control
measures; therefore it is anticipated that removing the existing bents will result in
no impact to surrounding surface waters. A summary of potential jurisdictional
impacts is presented in Table 4.
Table 4_ Potential Imnartn to .harm irtinnai Watlanric anri Ciirfanc tAh+nre
Potential Wetland Impacts
JURISDICTIONAL Acres (hectares)
AREAS
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Preferred
Temporary Temporary Temporary
Impacts Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Construction
Impacts' Impacts ' Impacts'
PF01B 0 0 0 0 0 0
R2RB1 0 05 016(006) 005(002) 0.15(006) 0 05 0 10 (0 04)
Lon Creek (002) (002)
Total: 0 05 016(006) 0.05 (0.02) 015(006) 0 05 010(004)
002 002
Total Wetland Impacts 0.21 (0.08) 0.20 (0.08) 0.15 (0.06)
for Alternative
Potential Stream Impacts
Linear feet (meters)
Long Creek 30(9) 112 (34) 33(10) 95(29) 32 (10) 68 21
Total Stream Impact 142(43) 128(39) 100(31)
For Alternative:
a
I Ct 111JUI CII Y GVI MLI MMU1I impacts are oases on the pornon of the impacts not incluaeo in the
construction limits for the permanent structure.
All three alternatives avoid mayor impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the project
study area The use of a channel spanning structure will be considered during
design to avoid impacts to the stream channel. Alternative 3 has the overall least
amount of permanent impacts and the least amount of temporary impacts related
to construction activities. This is primarily due to the fact that Alternative 3
utilizes an off-site detour. Of the alternatives that utilize an on-site detour
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 have a similar amount of impacts to Long Creek
15
a. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit
(NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330 5(a)(23)] has been issued by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. NCDENR
Division of Water Quality has issued a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written
notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general
permit is utilized NWP #33 may be required if temporary structures, work
and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary for this project and not
covered within the CE.
3. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance - Due to the presence of surface waters within the project study
area, avoidance of all impacts is not possible. Wetland and stream impacts are
previously discussed in Section V E 1.
Minimization - The alternatives presented were developed in part to
demonstrate minimization of stream impacts. Impacts to the stream will be
minimized during demolition by removing bridge components in a manner, which
will avoid dropping any components into the creek channel. Bridge demolition
impacts have been previously discussed in Section V C 3. Employing 2 to 1
slopes where practicable can further minimize wetland impacts
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is probable probably for this project due to
the nature of project impacts However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in
an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding placing staging areas within
wetlands. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be
mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any
temporary fill material within the floodplain upon project completion. Final
mitigation requirements rest with the COE Mitigation may be required for
wetland impacts less than one tenth (0.1) of an acre (>0 04 ha).
16
F. PROTECTED SPECIES
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
officially proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U S C 1531 et seq.) Federally
protected species listed with ranges that extend into Stanly County are presented
in Table 5 (US Fish and Wildlife Service list dated March 7, 2002).
Table 5. Federallv Protected Snecies_
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus Ta No Effect
leucocephalus
Not Likely to
Schweirntz's sunflower Hellanthus schweinitzii E Adversely
Effect
WilluaUy pupusdu rur vensnng
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than six (6)
ft (2 m). Adult bald eagles are dark brown with white head and tad Immature
eagles are brown with whitish mottling on their tad, belly, and wing linings. Bald
eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small mammals. In the
Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980)
Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water
and forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching
(Hamel 1992) Preventing disturbance activities within a primary zone extending
750 to 1500 ft (229 to 457 m) outward from a nest tree is considered critical for
maintaining acceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). FWS recommends
avoiding any disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting, within
this primary zone. Within a secondary zone extending from the primary zone
boundary out to a distance of one (1) mi (1.6 km) from a nest tree, construction
and land-clearing activities should be restricted to the non-nesting period. FWS
also recommends avoiding alteration of natural shorelines where bald eagles
forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1500 ft (457 m) of
roosting sites
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No large lakes or other large bodies of water, providing easy access to food,
or snags for nesting are found within the project study area Since no
suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the bald eagle exists in the project
17
study area, this project is not expected to affect the bald eagle A review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records revealed no
documentation of this species occurring within three (3) mi (4 8 km) of the
project study area
Schweinitz's Sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched,
rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately six (6) ft (2 m) in height.
The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes nearly smooth.
Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above, in shape
they are lanceolate and average five (5) to ten (10) times as long as wide The
leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small serrations The upper leaf
surface is rough and the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft white hairs.
Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late August to frost; the yellow flower heads
are about six tenth (0.6) of an inch (1.5 cm) in diameter The current range of
this species is within 60 mi (97 km) of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on
upland mterstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture.
The species needs open areas protected from shade or excessive competition,
reminiscent of Piedmont prairies Disturbances such as fire maintenance or
regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS 1994).
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Effect
Potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower was identified within the
project study area, along roadside shoulders, and other open areas A
systematic survey of all potentially suitable habitat was conducted by ESI
biologists in July 2001. Since this survey was conducted prior to the
flowering season for Schweinitz's sunflower, search efforts focused on the
identification all members of the genus Hehanthus (if present) using
vegetative characteristics in the field. During this survey no members of the
genus Helianthus were observed. Therefore, construction of the proposed
project should not affect Schweinitz's sunflower. A review of NHP records
revealed no documentation of this species occurring within three (3) mi (4 8
km) of the project study area.
2. Federal species of concern
The March 7, 2002 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed However, these are listed since
they may attain federal protected status in the future The presence of potential
suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand et al 2001) within the project study
area has been evaluated for the FSC species listed for Stanly County (Table 6)
18
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC)
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Statusa
Carolina darter Etheostoma coll?s collts Y SC
Brook floater Alasm?donta vancosa Y T (PE)
Carolina creekshell V?llosa vaughan?ana Y SC (PE)
Georgia aster Astergeorg?anus Y T
Butternut Juglans c1nerea Y W5
Heller's trefoil Lotus hellen Y C
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis temata N W1
Yadkin River goldenrod Sol?dago plumosa Y E
Riverbank vervain
a Verbena npana N C
-?1 rual lyal cu, 1 - 11 a wilmil itau, JV- apeclal lioncem, L, -uanalaale, W - W aicn LIST, V -
Proposed, SR - Significantly Rare
NHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of FSC species within
three (3) miles (4 8 km) of the project study area
3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC), receive limited
protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G S 113-331 et
seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
NHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of state protected
species within three (3) miles (4.8 km) of the project study area
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical
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 understanding (federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects) on
properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP),
and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity
to comment on such understanding. The project was coordinated with the North
19
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) in accordance with the Advisory
Council's regulations and FHWA procedures
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 28,
2002. All structures within the APE were photographed and submitted for review In
a meeting between NCDOT and the HPO on April 16, 2002 a concurrence form was
signed that states that no eligible properties are within the APE. Compliance with
Section 106 is complete and a copy of the concurrence form is found in the
Appendix
C. Archaeology
On May 23-24, 2002 archaeologist with the Project Development and Environment
Analysis Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an
archaeological survey of the site The survey consisted of background research and
field survey of the APE. Background research did not identify any previously
recorded archaeological sites within a half mile (0.8 kilometers) of the proposed
project, and no archaeological projects have been conducted in the vicinity
Examination of historic maps identified no early 20"' Century structures within the
APE.
The field survey consisted of excavating shovel tests on 100 foot (30 meter) grid
within the APE but outside the existing ROW Two shovel tests in the southwestern
quadrant of the APE identified an archaeological site, 31 ST184. Site 31 ST184 is a
prehistoric lithic scatter that produced nine non-diagnostic artifacts. The site has
been disturbed by plowing, land clearing, erosion and modern dumping, has little
research potential and is therefore recommended ineligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). A memorandum from the HPO dated September 16,
2002 concur with these findings and is found in the appendix.
The proposed project will not impact any archaeological sites that are eligible for the
NRHP
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact Replacements of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of
significant environmental consequences
20
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications
The project does not conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No Adverse impact on families or communities is anticipates. Right of way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during
construction of this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or the representatives
to consider potential impacts to prime and important farmland sods be all land acquisition
and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Since there are no prime or important
farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the Farmland Protection
Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Stanly County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable,
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air
quality will not be significant
Any noise level increased during construction will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D 0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway
traffic noise (23 CFR Part 722) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no
additional reports are required.
21
As Examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
hazardous waste sites in the project area
Stanly County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The bridge is
within an Approximate Study Area. The new structures should be designed to match or
lower the existing 100-year storm elevation upstream of the roadway Since the
proposed replacement for Bridge No 99 would be a structure similar in waterway
opening size, it is not anticipated that it will have any significant adverse impact on the
existing floodplain and floodway.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were taken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them
in the project development with a scopmg letter. Additionally, 12 newsletters detailing
the alternatives considered were mailed to citizens in the vicinity of the project.
Newsletters were also mailed to local officials. No comments were received in response
to the newsletter mailings
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
The US Army Corps of Engineers provided jurisdictional wetland determination US Fish
& Wildlife Services provided comments The North Carolina Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety responded to the scoping letter locating B-3909 in the Special
Flood Hazard Area -Zone A (100-Year Floodplam). NCDENR Division of Water Quality
provided comments, as did the State Historic Preservation office.
X. 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 85 pp
Cowardm, L.M, V Carter, F.C. Golet, and ET 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.
22
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
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 1998 Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. A-III-26
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 2002a. Water Quality
Stream Classifications Downloaded from
http.//h2o ehnr state.nc.us/strmclass/alphaold/yad.txt on 18 February 2002
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. http.//h2o.enr state nc.us/NPDES/documents/download As on February
18, 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002c Biological
Assessment Unit http)/www esb.enr.state nc.us/BAUwww/benthosdata pdf on
18 February 2002.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987 North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Planning and Assessment (DPA). 1991. North Carolina Environmental
Permit Directory North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South The Nature
Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S P. Hall, and J.T Finnegan. 2001. 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. 91 pp.
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
McCafferty, W P. 1998 Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury,
MA. 448pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp
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
23
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, and J F Parnell 1994 Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp
Rosgen, D 1996 Applied River Geomorphology Printed Media Companies,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Schafale, MY 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) 1989 Sod Survey of Stanly County, North
Carolina. USDA Sod Conservation Service.
U.S. 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
U S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta,
GA. 28 pp
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 12 April 2001. Updated County Species List.
U S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974 Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1981. Frog Pond, NC 7.5-minute series topographic
quadrangle map, photorevised 1983
Weakley, A. S 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
575 pp.
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.
24
- i
.
z
1, r
i ?
i
- _
!BRIDGE N0. 99
If -
rti_! -?
?•\ •` V
r ?
r
? r • /
.\ j
a ?
%
STANLY COUNTY
N=29 CARGLANA R AYWX=fr OF TRANOMTATJM
IIV? Of B?A7n
b?xl rROMM RNVMLSP ZW AND
EiYULGIOD 'AL ANALTO BRAN=
r, BRIDGE NO 99
SR 1968 OVER LOXG CREEK
STAALY COIIAW
B-d9A9
VATUNITY MAP
I I IolGURE I
i
y ry!
. ?tf
ti
F
6 { r
r .K If X11' f . {`f % ?1 ? 'rl. \
yam, ` •=` ?. -'-',• ?,,. ? ?',:` ? ?-i ,.,; t ?.?. ?,..• _ ? ?. ?! +
?+?' • •, ?`< " e ? ? y.F 1??? .? ,e, J?a\ `'' ?? « i, it ?
*c v_. ?y}r _ ` S z 'emu is. r r4, y
??>. ••, f ?.'ti? .(,?, T !1,+^.?'y? .%,; ,: '`mow r ?' .vi ' ?' \
/ V • Y?L ?1 Ma
" NY
+'*
{
f

_Facing West
f ? ?? y? I {1y{ n Y K r vy /
r * ?f yj ? ? ,y?,
4
i ? f f
Facing East
wa
?? .n+ s t? .{ ? r y
r
Facing Upstream
j
B-3909
Replacement of Bridge
Bridge No. 99
SR 1968 over
Long Creek
Stanly County
-?p t+0 7H
r +. a
or
FIGURE 31

o °
H
V A ?
? o
1 b
N
N
U ?$
o' V V
w ?O ?j o? O ^ A
1
A
??Opp1
O
O
ti
O
1
N
°o N ? y
?o A
ii N N
? V

I
Detour 5 2 Miles
Utilizes
SR 1968 Hartsell Rd
SR 1963 St Marlin Rd
SR 1967
SR 1956
St Martin
1969
I 1
,969
119
R
963 O
1 ,
--" 1967
i
0
_r 77
t ? 1967
F
?r!\ 1956
f
963 8
t
l
J? ? 1956
B3909
f
` e 3 F 1954
?1968Y"" .? 'p
1956
J
19
? 1919
B-3909
Replacement of Bridge
954 Bridge No. 99
SR 1968 over
19 Long Creek
Stanly County
F NORiN+?.
19 A O ?Ofi YM
195 ? f?4 Oro
? rf
0. ?T
OF I-
? zo
FIGURE 5
U.S. Department Commander 431 Crawford Street
of Transportation United States Coast Guard (Aowb) Portsmouth, Va 23704-5004
Fifth Coast Guard District Staff Symbol Aowb
United States Phone [phone]
Coast Guard FAX [phone]
Mr. Michael Penney
Project Development Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1549 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1549
Dear Mr. Penney.
16590
May 22, 2002
This is in response to your letter dated May 14, 2002, regarding the replacement of Bridge No.
246 across Big Bear Creek in Stanly County, Bridge No. 99 across Long Creek in Stanly County,
Bridge No. 81 across Gum Long Creek in Cumberland County, Bridge No 133 across Doomas
Creek in Montgomery County, Bridge No. 47 across Lumber River, in Scotland and Hoke
Counties, and Bridge No. 33 across Brown Creek in Anson County, North Carolina.
Since Big Bear Creek, Long Creek, Gum Long Creek, Doomas Creek, Lumber River and Brown
Creek are not subject to tidal influence, they are considered legally non-navigable for Bridge
Administration purposes. Also, since these waterways are not susceptible for use by interstate or
foreign commerce, they meet the criteria set forth in Section 107 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 1982. This section of the Act exempts such waterways from Coast Guard
bridge permit requirements.
The fact that a Coast Guard permit is not required does not relieve you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Linda Gilliam-
Bonenberger, Bridge Management Specialist, at [phone].
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200230733 County: Stanly
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: NCDOT Authorized Agent: Environmental Services, Inc.
Address: William D. Gilmore, Project Attn. Matt K Smith
Development and Environmental Analysis Address: 524 New Hope Road
1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27610
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone:[phone]
Telephone: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.):
TIP No. B-3909, Bridge over Long Creek on SR 1968 near Albemarle, Stanly County
Basis for Determination: Delineation Map and Data Forms dated March 6, 2002
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
0 There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property
0 On the undersigned inspected the Section 404 junsdictional line as determined by the NCDOT and/or
its representatives for the subject NCDOT project/corridor. A select numberof sites were inspected and all were
found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes that this junsdictional delineation
can be relied on for plannmg purposes and impact assessment.
:' The surface waters and wetlands on this project have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
0 There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
0 The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Steven W Lund at 828-271-7980 x 4
Project Manager Signature
Date: April 23, 2002
Expiration Date: April 23, 2007
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS FORM.

/ \
I >?_ "A
TA I
•3' Q
?
1
f ?!
O=v!??• • O
? .
B-39 09 ?
6
N U ?
0 Q r 4 =`-,

Q o v ?
O 0.25 050M I
O 0.25 0 50 Km ?I J < 1 [ 11
s. uses, vxo. Frog P,d ,983)
and Nbemwft (IS" Qua&"es
10
Environmental Location Map Bridge B-3909 Figure- 1 Services, Inc. Bridge Group 35 Project ER01049
Stanly County
North Carolina
,
Date February 200
P,6 ?-
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: g f. A c e- cep o L -,3°10 Date: -3-of
Applicant/Owner: 6007- County: S4-o^l y
Investigator: State: -?
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (e No Community ID: 5Luecs ,o J _
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 10 Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: - I r„c?
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum ndicator Dominant Plant Species • Stratum Indicator

2. ?24C ?O. 10.
d ,O,e .Jd f
3. Pp i 11.
?
4. ()1 ?. t fln .burn r q (?Nc)??. ? .se ?'?71• 12.
5. 13.
S. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or
FAC (excluding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake or ride Gauge Prim"Pr Indicators:
Aerial Photographs nundated

Other maturated in Upper 12 Inches

Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)-
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: o _Gn ) --Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Gn.) -Local Sol Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol- fin.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name /? /' J
(Series and Phase): 6a F (oo ld sox Seri c 3 Drainage Class: 4vCl? eA?rSSey??r
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?r ib-tr r?rreloh3 Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description
Depth matrix color
Unches Horizon (Munseil Moist)
o- y 5-/ s!?
?-rv SY U13
Mottle Colors
(Munsell Moist)
-7t sr2 yt
-2,-5, y IL S&
Mottle
Abundance/Conl(ast
G/D
0In
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Hrstosol
_ Histic Epipedon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Conditions
?/d eyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
Texture, Concretions
Structure. etc.
C/v Ioeyr,
5 rayclly 16c"
{LOc 1e
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Organic Streaking in Sandy Sods
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Sods List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Sods Present?
Remarks:
Y No (Circle) (Circle)
No
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Approved by HOUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
11
FA Wef
DATA FORM VA
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
11987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ,13r O-e C"LQ C -?9 C/1 Date: "1/3 fO(
Applicant/Owner: NCD OT County: Sinn 1
Investigator: ?SZ State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? JYes Community ID: f+`cr1dc,lood k"e
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transect ID: VA2
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Plot ID: _ wcf
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Suedes Stratum indicator
1. Sal i x n i r9 a S oF3? 9.
2.?iePU5 C!J?e- nL? tj_ pgl_ 10.
316e(JhaIAn119u5 txCl?tnlaliS ??- 11.
4.Q?1 c talon U D'1 SP P•_ ?$? - 12.
5. E!'pOca ton SnA. - 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC
too 9
l
d
F
(exc
u
ing
AC-) e
Remarks:
I
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data IDescn-be in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology indicators:
-Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs &Inund'ated

Other Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-

No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
i
- -Drift L
mes
Sediment Deposits
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):

Depth of Surface Water: an ) _Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: X Q fin.) - Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol- /Vlrin I _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks-
A-b•.no???•.e
SOILS
Map Unit Name lQyr?(
(Series and Phase); Lr-ik%?C((ti5114 IoQrn Drainage C1ass:SbrY+?+.Jrta? bo r)y
Feld Observations J
Taxonomy (Subgroup): _F(tAVQglt24' is istroCiv*e p-ts_ Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
inches Horizon _ 110imsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Conlrast Structure etc.
0-?8 2 5 Y ?l4 Sell..
1® yQ 51
4?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquec Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrie Sods Lest
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Presently Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Ls this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
P, 8 t*-^
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R fti j c 4 torovl! L -,3?1 O al Date: -7 3- 01
Applicant/Owner: ULI County: Sl-ody
Investigator: fi.7 State: Ly
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID: 511cc.;?u
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: -
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: I
(If needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum ndicator Dominant Plant Species- Stratum Indicator
t. FT-g0A A.s ne st Ivaru ? 1? 9.
2- S tX S O . 10-

d ?,do.,
3-
71.
4.
lJ U L t [an rlyeyl q M1c?rw4t e? ?L 12-
S. 13-
S. 14.
7. 7S.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
FAC lexduding FAC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data [Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
-Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge Prima Indicators-.
Aerial Photographs undated
-
Other maturated in Upper 12 Inches

Recorded Data Available -Water Marks
-Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
_Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth of Surface Water: Cj- Y fin.) Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: Gn.) Local Sod Survey Data
_FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: lin) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): (?C9 Go l j b-4K See-,'es Drainage Class: W Cil for exLrS5t'v4 r

Taxonomy (Subgroup): e? ! Field Observations
?Ti t?r ?e,orS Confirm Mapped Type: Yes )110
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseli Moist) Abundance/Corillast Structure. etc
10- N 5-1y 71 sy2 sf C/ to Cloy j ,,c)$,
`f-f? Sy 3/3 7rSr2 s/kr G/0 Sr-V-tlr fG40,
-
t0+ - R.a4 k
Hydric Sod Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sods List
Reducing Conditions
? _ Listed on National Hydric Sods List
a
:eyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
Y No (Circle) (Circle)
e No
No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Ye No
Approved by HQUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
FA
DATA FORM VA
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Bridgt C", Q C R'3`1 C/ 5 Date: _213 /01
Applicantlowner: NC D OT County: SfQn N
Investigator. ?S= State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? JeN Community ID: /`?c_j.4-od Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transect ID: VA2
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Plot ID: Wet
111' needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1- SRI 0C n iq t/GL S o6L, g.
2.?irpN5 C!1 i"GM111's t4 o6L 10.
3?R1halarkfl7 " 45
6CC_j tnWje,
4_DnI QDY1 tom Sp P• D? 12.

6- 14.
7. 15.
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or
,QD ?e
FAC l
d
l
F
ex
ud
ing
AC-)
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs &Inundated

Other
-
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches

No Recorded Dat
Ava
l
bl -Water Marks
i
a
i
a
e -Drift L
mes
-Sediment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Secondary Indicators 12 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
-
Depth of Surface Water: fin I _
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Free Water (n Pit: 1v1,4 an.) Local Sol Survey Data
-
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Sol: A1117 _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks- t (' t
?- UM? E n n eF 'l?r?"? ?O n0'
SOILS
arftName
-R"j
l Qf'i 4i
r
Phase):Ck-(?W?1C;-b i14 414 j Drainage Class:Sbr"he+,.)hA, Oo r,
l oaryi
,
Feld Observations
Subgroup): F(uVQc?w4k 1 NstT(3 cl')re Q Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Cor1llpst _ Structure, etc
0-18 2 5 Y
10Y25jg
Hydric Sol Indicators:
_ Histosoi _ Concretions
_ Hlstic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfrdic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Sods List
_ Reducing. Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
A
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No (Circle) (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Sods Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HOUSACE 2192
HJL
8/93
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Apnl 5, 2002
Ms Iona L Hauser
Wilbur Smith Associates
333 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1450
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Ms Hauser.
/ N11Tff t
.? $ O
7 2002 ?
Subject Review of Bridge Replacement Group 35 for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Stanly and Anson Counties, North Carolina
We have reviewed the subject projects and are providing these 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)
EFFECTS TO WATERS AND WETLANDS
We are pleased with the decision to replace bridges with bridges The new bridge designs should
include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to
reaching the affected stream This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects
from the run-off of storm water and pollutants, The bridge designs should not alter the natural
stream and stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage Any piers or bents should be
placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. The bridges and approaches should be designed
to avoid any fill that will result in damming or constriction of the channel or floodplam. If
spanning the floodplain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of
the approach to restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and reduce high
velocities of flood waters within the affected area.
For the two bridges where the preferred alternative is to replace the structure on its current
location, we recommend that, if possible, an off site detour be provided rather than using
temporary structures near the existing bridge This will minimize the amount of riparian
vegetation that must be removed and, in general, reduce the amount of disturbance to the stream.
We recommend that erosion- and sedimentation-control measures be in place prior to any
ground-disturbing activities Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the
stream
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
Stanly County - B-3908 - Bridge 246 over Big Bear Creek and B-3909 and B-4276 - Bridges 99
and 73 over Long Creek (our Log Numbers 4-2-02-235, 4-2-02-236, and 4-2-02-237,
respectively)
In the Natural Resc:zrces Technical Reports for each of these projects, biologists considered the
two federally listed species in Stanly County--the threatened bald eagle (Hahaeetus
leucocephalus) and the endangered Schwemitz's sunflower (Hehanthus schwemaztt) No
suitable habitat for the bald eagle exists within the project areas, and there are no documented
occurrences in the vicinity of the projects Surveys for Schweimtz's sunflower revealed no
individuals within the project areas Based on the lack of habitat and negative survey
information, we concur with the conclusion of "no effect" to federally listed species for these
projects In view of this, we believe the requirements under Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that
may be affected by the identified action
Anson County - B-4009 - Bridge 33 over Brown Creek (our Log Number 4-2-02-238).
In the Natural Resources Technical Report for this project, biologists considered the five
federally listed species in Anson County--the threatened bald eagle (Hahaeetus leucocephalus)
and the endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Hehanthus schweinitzu), shortnose sturgeon
(Acipereser brevirostrum), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Carolina
heelsphtter (Lasmigona decorata). No suitable habitat for the bald eagle, shortnose sturgeon,
red-cockaded woodpecker, or Schweirntz's sunflower exists within the project area, and there are
no documented occurrences in the vicinity of the project Suitable habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter was determined to occur in Brown Creek; therefore, field surveys were conducted for
this species Although seven species of native freshwater mussels were found during surveys in
Brown Creek and Little Brown Creek, no federally listed species were found With over
35 person-hours of surveys conducted for this project and in the vicinity of the project, no
Carolina heelsphtter mussels were located Therefore, we concur with your conclusion of "no
effect" to the Carolina heelsphtter for this project In view of this, we believe the requirements
under Section 7(c) of the Act are fiilfilled However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must
be reconsidered if (1) new information reveals unpacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) tins action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action
As further protection for the native freshwater mussels that may be affected by the construction
of this project, we recommend that, if possible, they be removed from the area of impact They
could be moved to suitable habitat upstream of the project or held in a secure location until the
construction is completed and then be placed back in Brown Creek at their original location
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Ms Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext 237 As noted
above, we have assigned log numbers to each project Please reference these numbers in any
future correspondence concerning these projects
Sincerely,
nan P Cole
State Supervisor
LT
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office 5EP 13 2002
David L S Brook, Administrator tr?-0
:hael F Easley, Govemor
beth C Evans, Secretary Da ?E?a so C
frey J Crow, Deputy Secretary DEVLCY?
September 16, 2002
L AN MEMORANDUM
TO William D Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM David Brook Qa-o6wk,
SUBJECT Archaeological Survey for Bridge No 99 on SR 1968 over Long Creek, B-3909, 8 2681701,
Federal Aid No BRZ-1968(1), Stanly County, ER 02-7898
Thank you for your letter August 5, 2002 of transmittirig the archaeological survey report by Caleb Smith
for the above project
We appreciate the old maps and the project specific information included in the background section of the
report. We also appreciate the current photographs illustrating land-use and ground disturbance in the area.
The following property is determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places-
31ST184
In the future, please do not include archeological site forms in the report, either in the text or as an appendix
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763 In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number
cc FHwA
ACOE
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
inistration 507 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
oration 515 N Blount St Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone] .7154801
Federal Aid # BRZ-1968(1) TIP # B-3909 County Stanly
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description Replace Bridge No 99 on SR 1968 over Long Creek
On 04/12/2002, representatives of the
[a/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? ` Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
? Other
All parties present agreed
? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as
DPEA 1 es, 1 3 z is considered not eligible for the National
Register 6d no further evalu`dtion of it is necessary.
Q/ There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed
Representative,
'A, for the Division' Administrator, or other Federal Agency
pfu V
Date
(7 ?'? yam.-- 9 1 G/161?

Date
Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included
L,
e??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
November 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM- David Brook
SUBJECT Bridge #99 on SR 1 68 over Long Creek, TIP B-3909, Stanly County, ER 02-7898
Thank you for your letter of September 26, 2001, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a'search of our maps and files and located the following structure of historical or
architectural unportance within the general area of this project:
Jacob and Alma Hartsell Farm (ST 401) is located due east of Bridge #99.
We recommend that a Department of Transportation architectural historian identify and evaluate any
structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. We recommend archeological
work for the do-nothing, rehabilitation or off-site detour alternatives. If an on-site detour I used, please
send plans so that we may continue our review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preserv
.qon's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and con?sderation If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number
DB kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location
Administration 507 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Restoration 515 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Survey & Planning 515 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone].715-4801
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH
=' r
}
Fax:[phone] Jan 8 '02 12:43 P.02
wmMnrn u. Mm. uf., Ce IM IY
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
October 31, 2001
MEMORANDUM _
4 1 ) i • - l
t Devetogmeegt & Enviroumemal Analysis Branch
To: Elmo Vance, NCDOT Pro'
iec
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qualitr
From: Cynthia F Vats Der Wiele, l?CDO T Coord' or ewdt t7
-Subject. Scopmg.Commitnts for Bridge Replace3neUt-ProjezW-, B73908, B-3909,, 21-40091 B-
4205. B-427618-3680. '
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated October 3, 2001, in which you requested
sco0mg comments for the above projects. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the
following topics be, addressed:
1. DWQ requests that.best maiagement practices (BMPs) for bridge demolition shall be adhered to,
particularly on TIP Project B-4205 inM6ntgorwry County, as Doomas Creek is listed as a High
Quality Water (HQW).
2. Disturbance of the stream channels must be limited to only what is necessary to perform the
bridge demolition and removal. Heavy equip>tment must, be operated from the banks rather than in
the stream channel in order to, minimize sedrm2entation and reduce the likelihood of introducing
other pollutants into the stream.
3. Project B-4205 in Montgoni y County shall comply with the requ=trients for High Quality
Waters with regards to stormwater management; sedimentation and erosion control and buffer
requirements.
4. Ensure that sediment & erosion controt sores are not placed in wetlands.
5. Borrow/waste areas should :void wetlands to the, maximum extent practicable. Pnor to the
_ approval of any borrow/waste slte in a w'etlan&v the contractor must obtain a Oft certification
from DWQ.
6. The information packet did'not include-information regarding the types of structures that will be
replacing the deficient bridges Two voice maff messages were left in regard to a request for
more information (and not returned) DWQ prefers that the structures that will be replacing the
deficient bridges will be bridges. Ali structures .shat be installed in such a manner that the
original stream profiles are.•not altered (i.e. the• dieptltr of the channel must not be reduced by a
widening of the streambedy. Existing strew dimensions are to be maintained above and below
locations of culvert extensions.
7. All work shall be performed during:low, flo>w conditions.
& All mechanized equipment operated near sueace waters should be regularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamitmtion of si ream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, A01 Wetlands Certiticatlon Unit,
1660 Mall Service Center, Raleigh: NO 27699-1950 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 271104-2260 (Locatlon)
919-733.1788 (phpne), 919733-6893 (haq, hW/h2o.enratate.nc ustncwotlandr4
NCDOT/P&E BRANCH Fax:[phone] Jan 8 '02 12:44 P.03
,r
s
9 Written concurrence of 40T Mater Qualify Certification may be required for these projects (e.g.,
applications requesung coverage under' i3W 14 or Regional General Permit -19$200031). Please be
aware that 401 certification may be. denied if wetland of water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the Maximum. extent
Thank you for requesting our input ar this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance, of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires ftt appropriate measures. be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses ale not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact CyntNa Varr Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: USAGE Wilmington Field Office' _
USAGE Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFW&AsheuillcField Office
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC <
File Copy
' r
r
1
r
I
r

i

: i

t

"
a
?1 ?N,np V 0-
e ?sra?v
? a
r! y.
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Michael F Easley, Governor Bryan E Beatty, Secretary
October 19, 2001
Mr William D Gilmore, P E,
Manager of the Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
1549 Mail Service Center ? ?
Raliegh, NC 27699-1549 or-,
Subject RE- Bridge Replacement Projects
Dear Mr Gilmore
Thank you for your letters dated September 26, 2001 regarding the review of nine bridge replacement
projects The North Carolina Division of Emergency Management has reviewed the proposed projects
and would like to provide comments to the Department of Transportation
My staff has reviewed the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for your project areas The majority of
these projects are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, also know as the 100-year floodplain Please
ensure that the proposed projects do not cause an increase in the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in these
areas and that they comply with Nation Flood Insurance Program guidelines
Protects Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4009, Bridge No 33 in Anson County - Zone A
• B-3830, Bridge No 363 in Columbus County - Zone A
• B-4205, Bridge No 133 in Montgomery County - Zone A
• B-4273, Bridge No 37 in Scotland County - Zone A
• B-3908, Bridge No 246 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-3909, Bridge No. 99 in Stanly County - Zone A
• B-4276, Bridge No 33 in Stanly County - Zone AS
Projects Not Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (100-year floodplain)
• B-4093, Bridge No 81 in Cumberland County - Zone B (500-year floodplain)
• B-3680, Bridge No 2 in Moore County - Zone X (500-year floodplain)
The Division of Emergency Management does not oversee the routing of Emergency Response Units on
a day-to-day basis However, utilizing off-site detour routes has the potential to increase response times
of these units, especially if alternate routes are not available Your agency should contact local
emergency management officials or the local representatives responsible for roadways NCEM would
1830-B Tillery Place • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Ovvortunity / Affwmative Action Emnlover
also like to advise that you pay close attention to roadways that have been identified as evacuation routes
and the potential impacts your projects may have on evacuation travel
If you have any further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Steve
Garrett at [phone], extension 349
Si
Assistant Director, Hazard Mitigation
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management
205 West Cabarrus Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 0 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Af mmative Action Employer
Gavin Smith, Ph D.

1 t / ,rte #'/f?/1 {?L i'/-yF?f
1k a.
t j , i •'
? , •J a? ? i?"7Y - ` /, ? ?_ _sY r``?? / + - f r-?., r ezr _ !J' 4 •? Y
!i J + r 1 ) + tom/ 1 1 ?,'? . t - l 1 '~_' `!' U ,
,' -,? Y/ r t!F -'trJ-?2•?,r>=?p:? y?a?: . J ?..?jl _ 1 x j, -<>'" i \'\ i ?, '?? +t r.,, \l ( .'J
-j,,'?i _tcj?,ass- ` r q ?,?'i.? / r ,q a ?J i \?ti i`+ `c .a S7 L I ??/f ' 1\•J` _
%`"""? °? j /,/ n • / m ` q ( - r /fit F I(' -fill
L'r \ --.) '
?'? - .y . _? L_.1 ?-?. ?g?+ r ` -// ? ?? . 1 ;? r , 1• 1 } t T t nr-
, ? ?: :_°_``_ it r/(TT? ? • J } r? 1,:K? ^ - ? t ? ? ? _ f (1 t`
?• y, t??.-/ ?? `1 ? ? sy,d ?e ,s 'd 3y :? a+ r •D ? t l?yt ,?' fr ? r 1 ,
I .1 ? ? - _ / "? .'?• -, ?,'t?J ?' i ? / rr? irf ({? V y +e ,r_- Ilk-
r • /-/? /. ? Y+\ ;' 'i\ !`C" - ? rt? P ' ._? f^ ? f fin` •? ~ ? ?_ ? ? t, Ir
Ir r ' 1 F ) +/ r ??1
'?4 7? , - ter" r, ` •'t? •, t Y - ^'1 t b I boa -___7
0 "1
F l r
70 W Y `` t F t? ?G ''f r' ?i 8 •a . } I Qt' ?1 'r l :l ' • ; 7 a
Name FROG POND Location 17 567603 E 3902743 N
Date 10/10/2001 Caption: Stanly County, B-3909
Scale 1 inch equals 2000 feet Bridge no 99 on SR 1968 over Long Creek L=83ft,
W=12 2 ft yr built 1957
r
016hed
f / determine if
tact your m5L
;ram at (800)
Soo
FHEE

1 } s

i
p

- ZtNE..45

tc? _

s?

Wished.
di amine if flood Pns,irance is available in this community,
yo "` ins, :ani : ,ent, or call the stational rinod insurance
at (800) :0,
4?
MIMATE SCALE
Soo #7 500 FEET
w
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

(?? ?Ea
44
al?Ai INSURANCE RATE
STANLY COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 76 OF 175
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370361 0076 6
E FECTI E BATE:
DECEMBER 1, 1981
''lip. '??
E0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO Elmo Vance
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM Maryellen Haggard, Highway Pro e t Cogr inato
Habitat Conservation Program //(
DATE October 12, 2001
SUBJECT NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Stanly county, North Carolina TIP Nos
B-3908, B-3909
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)
follows On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
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 Wet concrete should not be allowed to contact stream water This will lessen the
chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill
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
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10' If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil

6 A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
stream 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 -Pnsitive 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 areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended
10 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
l l 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
12 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
13 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
14 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
15 All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage The culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed The installation of the
culvert or pipe should insure that all waters flow without freefalling or damming on
either end during low flow conditions 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 When two pipes are installed, only the lower pipe should be buried 1 foot into the
substrate so that all base flows continue uninterrupted in the lower pipe during normal
and low flow conditions to maintain aquatic life passage The bottom of the second
pipe should be placed at grade or at bankfull elevation The second pipe should
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage Where disrupted,
natural floodplain benching should be restored upstream and downstream of the
second, "dry", pipe
3 Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required Widemng 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 streambed
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-3908 - Stanly County - Bridge No 246 over Big Bear Creek. This creek supports the
Carolina darter, Etheostoma collis, and the Carolina creekshell, Villosa vaughaniana. Both
the Carolina darter and the Carolina creekshell are Federal Species of Concern and state-
listed Endangered We request that the bridge be replaced with another bridge. NCDOT
should adhere to strict erosion control measures
2 B-3909 - Stanly County - Bridge No 99 over Long Creek Long Creek supports the
Carolina darter The Natural Heritage database shows a record of occurrence upstream of the
project area We request that the bridge be replaced with another bridge NCDOT should
adhere to strict erosion control measures
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
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact meat [phone] Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects