20090374 Ver 1_Application_20090407

`?n^
9FIr
3 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA <?Oeo
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
\ BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, 1R.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
v March 26, 2009
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
3 74
ATTN: Mr. Andy Williams
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 54 over Rockhouse Creek on NC 65 in Rockingham
p County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-65(4); Division 7; TIP No. B-4622
Dear Sir:
'Zi The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 54
over Rockhouse Creek on NC 65. There will be 40 feet of temporarysurface water impacts due
to the placement of a temporary work pad.
Please see enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), storm water management
plan, permit drawings, and design plans for the above-referenced project. The Categorical
Exclusion (CE) was completed in July 2007 and the Right-of-Way Consultation was completed
in September 2008. Documents were distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies are
available upon request.
This project calls for a letting date of December 15, 2009 and a review date of October 27, 2009.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1596
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
4701 Atlantic Ave.,
Suite 116
Raleigh, NC 27604
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
copy of this permit, application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http;//www.ncdot`org/doh/precons[ruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
info'rmation',please call James Pflaum at [phone].
?/ h.D
W!
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
W/o Attachment (see website 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. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Pam Williams, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
1w,

O?O? W ATF?OG
1 1 y y
1 1 • 1 1 0??
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
la. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 33 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? ? Yes ®No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ®No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Replacment of Bridge No. 54 over Rockhouse Creek on NC 65 .
2b. County: Rockingham
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Wentworth
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: g-4622
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No. not applicable
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if

applicable):
not applicable
3d. Street address-. 4701 Atlantic Ave, Suite 116
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): not applicable
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.396755 Longitude: - 79.789662
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 35 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Rock House Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: WS-IV
2c. River basin: Roanoke
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Site is predominantly rural, mostly forested for silviculture use.
31b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
2620 linear feet
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of Bridge No. 54 on NC 65 over Rock House Creek. A single span 150-foot long 30-foot wide 60-inch plate
girder bridge is proposed to replace the three span 135-foot long 22-foot wide reinforced concrete deck girder bridge. The
bridge will be located approximately 50 feet north and at the same elevation as the existing structure. A temporary
causeway is proposed on the western bank to remove an existing bent in Rock House Creek. No bents will be placed in
Rock House Creek. An on-site detour will be used to route traffic during construction. Heavy duty excavation equipment
will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes, and other equipment necessary for roadway construction.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
? Yes ® No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: No wetlands, all streams perennial
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ? Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company:
Name (if known): Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for _ ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
51b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ? Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
4
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary,
1a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply): -
? Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number- Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of Average Impact length
number - (PER) or jurisdiction stream (linear feet)
Permanent (P) or intermittent (Corps - 404, 10 width
Temporary (T) (INT)? DWQ-non-404, (feet)
other)
S1 ? P ®T Fill Rock House ® PER ® Corps
25
40
Creek ? INT ? DWQ
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 0 Perm
40 Temp
3i. Comments:
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number-
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T 4b.
Name of
waterbody
(if applicable) 4c.

Type of impact 4d.

Waterbody type 4e.

Area of impact (acres)
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a.

Pond ID 5b.

Proposed use or 5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres) _ 5d.
Stream Impacts (feet) 5e.
Upland
(acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded
Filled Excavat
ed
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart bel ow. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require miti gation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse
?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
Bt ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
A single span structure is proposed that eliminates the need for bents in Rock House Creek. A preformed scour hole will
be constructed to prevent erosion.
1b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT BMP's for the protection
of surface waters will be strictly enforced during construction of this project.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ? No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ®No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
? Yes ? No
Comments: See Permit Drawings
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? n/a %
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ® Yes ? No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
See enclosed description
? Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply):
? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
41b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ® Yes ? No
51b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ® Yes ? No
10
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la . Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
f ® Yes El N

use o
public (federal/state) land? o
1b . If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c . If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ® Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 213 .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered 'yes' to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in

additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? ?Yes ®No
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. 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.
not applicable
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes No
®
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFW S concerning Endangered Species Act ?
® Yes No
impacts?

Sc. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ®
Raleigh
? Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
Field surveys, NHP database, and USFWS website for Rockingham County
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NMFS County Index
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ?Yes ®No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Categorical Exclusion document for 8-4622
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year fioodplain? ? Yes ® No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Hydraulics coordinating with FEMA
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? FEMA maps
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
? /
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant 2 3D1O
J
is rovided.
12
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Project: 33801.1.1
TIP No. B-4622
Rockingham County
03/26/2009
Hydraulics Project Manager: James R. Rice, P.E. (HDR),
Marshal Clawson, P.E. (NCDOT Hydraulics Unit)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION
The project B-4622 consists of constructing a new bridge 150 feet long to replace the
existing bridge #54 in Rockingham County on NC 65 over Rock House Creek. The total
project length is 0.279 miles. The project creates impacts to Rock House Creek, which is
located in the Roanoke River Basin. The project drainage systems consist of grated inlets
with associated pipe systems, deck drains, and a preformed scour hole.
Jurisdiction Stream: Roquist Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
The project is located within the Roanoke River Basin in Rockingham County, which is
not a CAMA county. There will not be any impacts to wetlands due to the construction of
the bridge and associated road due to the fact that there are no wetlands in the vicinity of
the project. A pre-formed scour hole was utilized at the outlet of the lateral ditch to
eliminate the need for embankment rip rap where the lateral ditch would need to tie to
Rock House Creek. The only environmental impacts anticipated are as a result of
removing the existing structure.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND MAJOR STRUCTURES
The primary goal of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is to prevent degradation of the
states surface waters by the location, construction and operation of the highway system.
The BMPs are activities, practices and procedures taken to prevent or reduce stormwater
pollution. The BMP measures used on this project to reduce stormwater impacts are:
0 Rip rap preformed scour hole at ditch outlet.
M
m
Q
iZ
PROD CT LOCATION j^\I
I
( \ 1
127
1 \ 1
/ 7 2124
145 2 TWORTH 87
259 1 /? ? ?OarT
?
2194 X146 - 1 Valley
?-
65
'
704 <237 4200
Pleasa illy, 65
2360 Bakes' 2371 2003 2041
rossroads?\?
2380 2363 2411
2413
andy Cross
zael 1001 241
V1?INITY
MAPS
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 35801.1.1 (B-4622)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
'54 OVER ROCK HOUSE CREEK
ON NC 65
SHEET OF Fj 01/16/09
Il
I
NORTH CAROLINA
a
W
J
?
H
o
0 N 0
F4
6 U
w
JZ
g:) Z
LU Z o D
> _
m L °

z

F- d'
?

0
m

?

0

O
w
w

ppp???

U I
Z Q
Z Z

O U a 000
O pad?
lrC
1 a 4 D
1

1 A
04
W
PO

14
O

z

? ?e r ii
C W

Q ?
O U m
?dua
OCL
t v m .
a-w

H Y I NN Q
I ?? LL
?gLL

U e 1
I
I ZW
VVa
W O U.1
I
J Nw>
ZZ
LL 1. "
QJ i
? mOlO
Z ?' O
o° I W W W
LLI
m e o° I ?d
° Q
i
?? =- ?g
°
°° ° N
g
LLI 8 I UFe
j
Z
/
lid /

' Z
0
/
Ln 0O
gCLH e z

/

? J
a

?
i
Z
mod.
' ZY ?Y
QZ Oo
f
m
U
Ot=
m3
1.-J
OZ
ZZ
Ox
OV
PROPERTY
NAMES AND
PARCEL NO. NAMES OWNERS
ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES SITE NO.
Ol

GREEN FAMILY TRUST
1475 NC 65

REIDSVI LLE, NC
27230

1

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 3380L1.1 (B-4622)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
#54 OVER ROCK HOUSE CREEK
ON NC 65
SHEET 3 OF 01/16/09

C
E O
7? ??

O

O O'
z O
p N
Z 7 D 6 N
F

m N ,.N„ }
d F N
ci.
H N
E
e
O
Z=
= p
_ m a
U x L E F `* o
6' U :! m
'
Q W U- t-
y

?
c 4 Q
o o x ..
N
w m C U M Z p Z
W C m m?
x s
E O
o w Y o

U
F
Q
E
v
W
3 a
W
U m U

..
E m w o o U
z
m n a m
E o
v o
v
r w
w N m
Q
m
6
m 0
N E v? E o o
F- a
U

Q w ??

U o

w C

a
m
H m? m
E w
a s
? o o ° au?
o ? ?
10 o
N U?
U - 0 °
Q
J U m

W Q
m c y

O C

- O
m
N
W O O a
=

~
W
N m
x
> p C ?
E-10m O
R
°o ?

0

c = c 0
d
o °
ELL ? o o
?
CL rn
c
?p a
'o
E °
d a

~
d
? U
U
2 d
d L
m
ti N a a
w
N T
m

W E
E
m'

N
r
O
01--
J
O
E
O o
O
N IL + ?
O c
m
L_
d
fn O
J E
O
A Z ¢
~O O
Z
F .

\Zdr idge\84622\HydroulI cs\Permits\B4622_hyd-per In i ts_tsh.dgn
nyers
WAS 33801.1.1

'p U
O N
O

A N A
O . . N
NI N
N
J
/
^
y T y
T
T 0 T 0
? 1e
II? ? 5
Iw
ell
= z n
o

~ 22

N
N
O O O O ?
h

O 00 00

y O IN IN
0 10
O
< H O I< 0 I
V
II II II. II II II z
v to IJ lao ?:, i>

m
i
a
C
ae
O t
o
a° a° i°o °
Y
IN 2 • i I
I
I I I
O ce
a
h y
?Z
I
?Qg
?

b C 61
n al
? ?l

A b'
I V
y A o y
n
?
n ?
N I I x
V II c
ti w
pp

N
Z
D
n
0
0
n
n
N
0

mn
N
Q
?C)
0
;yy
?mom
°30
H
DS
m?
NA
?mI
i
0
D
v
o O
0
+ m
O y
ti
m
P m
} A
A ?
? m
9p?,
HpG
SF
I
0
n
IN
a ? o $
n
m,
A a

e

b

>

I Y
o0?
_

i a IS n "?

€
O
?
o I N

££
O
? .
Z
A

m i
m N
I I o
ti
I I I I II
II
II
l
;
a
,
;

?
x
z
I Y° i ? z
I b I K

i
I
m
Z
Mi I
I
I ?
A ?
o
I

I I
I D
m
N
y
ab
?
B?
?S r 9o
?a.• oti
;
tj

?>
I
oa :z =m

I a
Ni7\,?
h
TIP PROJECT: B-4622_

v
I^ ?` n
m _ y
? Im 1
u le
O
0
Q I ?? ?ry
t
I ? ICI IO ??
I I ? I x l
la i Ix iy
Lh ?ti 10 O
bLbi I?I?
I
I ? Ix I j? ?
C?-?I IxIZ
I n? i i ?O I
I y
? C I I I ?
L'n Z
I i I I .IZ
I I I I h
I I I I
I I I I ?q
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
?-
w
I o
IV) F
ct
60
I:?)
ix
io
I?
I?
o
Iz
R
R
n
k

b
?-a
Cp
n W
i W
IA b
IN
IIJ
it
I i
I?
i _
Match Lin
a' eTs!a10+00 Ext.-65.00
L ;nll ,55
?71 -7 _
Y , 1 / I. II I
/ I p
r a
,. Y ,?I,.? rm i ?o
' t 6
om CAZ '-Ia f
.)
?'
46
,.
I 4s.o io. ImI. F f-f" + A 8 f
1'JI Y ?. I OIOg$
( I.'?I ,) I O n
"??1-"_?s ?` • ' it % I 1 I N W 3
7
?IJ
v m ?l o ?? '4 I I j a i -
w °o
2 2.
T r
n .. m m t 11j.1 I 'C [ vp
m Gl Z
v o a Z oBF? ?r• I, ?I S Y> 1 7 mL
N - 33' ' Z 3°Q O I I i` 1 ?e4al P
p0 Z o A °oi/I l?//I'I 1 8xz
m
(? tD »° ? I Illl I}_ yg
- - F r
N j 0 ;> n (i I 1I ° mm
y
m ?wH I ?' If U ° ° m?
S _I Z
15 0
I .. i oo= =I
i °ID ?J,,\I 1 m _,n O ° c' ! n?_ I 7 mw
p Is. ].u 1 ?"p
vlO? ? ? ulm

Z
0
1
m

a

m

y

m
3 ?
O

y
I
i.
N OD
m m
m
\ ( J °y
° / f f•
Y Z°y ? ? ) s ,a ? I 9
\1 \JS?/ m? t ? ` ?? ? „488"' \ \•.? 5 /... -.c

q X?rm i

T Z
mjD i
?
' M w N
1 p00°

mmm
O
T
m
O
m
D
r

€? 9 z
9 a
? mo
omai
"a a
m?' s
.2
o m°
3 Y, ^ >O
8 L ° N>n
o r
3 -
m o?n
cc ?_m

z
L.
ll J 1 I m,? ?? €
f 1 £ I zs'sE °m F °
Vpe,(/?/??)t?l
n
•I ©8 r '0 NAD
.? 1fl 11 s t BY SRS 2007
yr °
c
I• I < 1J
A t.
`? 'e I r 8
?'',. `. ? 1 yN Z a ? G
•.? ?\ I ?. a cu
k oas _ : z =
p5 N
z
a

0
/
i/ / la 1 1' ! I T
l /1
y L?,
I ( I
j :. I II J 1 1 ( r 1 Vi \ M1
viv,
N
R
A y
N K.
? m
R
?\\J I^ V 1
5 1
1
A
OT
D ?
v C
A
(Dl m `
x
N O
r ?
D ?

2 odm
Q
?EO

Z . ....
;??/
/
\

?^ Y
I I n=>LC ll,a?i
1
r: , \ !
? / \ ..UY? \ \ ?W t\ I (fl/?
06
p
00 f

I}
L / _ 7 1 f A L '?(T
z 3
x
r 1T1. '?? _ o? Vf ? A -: n
?c ?m
F
1 1: ? ? 1
l ?/ ti I ? I ( c
/ ?? .. Imo..
..1ti I! ,
( ICY A:.
Ir A ? >
,
Ni?Yr ? / / h'? ' (h l r q 9, s 3?
11'?'? t
S
.

K ?1 p
z

I \? \ ? 'r te

? ? : ?s yr o.

O
a\M ? E ?rw
'ILI
i?
I I ,

v
_ $ m

r
s s
m

?a
3 y,
> NO
? m
ti
L-.
p a
pBa
oft= g
td
, O

F
I v 7(1 1 ? s
r f
t t r / II I I ( 1 I }? .. I ti ?? US 1 AD
N
F\ SRS 2007
I?lr ••?? iJ j????>???f//%i"( i\ 1\'l`?,JF1?7+j? ?IIr? ?"? 1? Y ws' ? man 3.- ,
l r f 1 I ?, ?i vl 'a . 1
t
N D('?Z
m ?p
S E?1 ??n }l l ICI / ??? ?1?Ik11 v?'
'Z 1
- M -<,Z 0!
m m r7o / yr sv s ) ?l ? 11w 1 I??1 (?Y 1 i? 1 D,. (?' ' \?/ v
1 7
i
r 2m??°!1,i c•'}f ?,? v ..., Ili ?? v\ ?1?1i 111 Ij 1 1 ?1 v? , fA 'D
C) C) z
Cm v / ;(. I'1111 (\\•dP 1?(t Iv 1 1 ,? ' f - ?c :? 3
vnm° /? ,l vg's / I `11A11\ x??r?ulllvNm o?'• z B? e
i
1- m 0 V,
_ - -?' Vii/ I it?//?? ,••?1????.'?.1??1\II?\v?.A??,ti?,» ?QlS >
V m
V ?
\ u
' N
0

X12

..
m
m ,A
m V o
m. V+Nilm

ifa' N(
3
0
0
m
a
0
i

is\b4622_hyE_pl I O6_pe,m i c.dgn
t
t
O
O
W
O
O
A
t
t

I I
II
;7 .1
v i P:'7
t -ncool 0--
_?' 1 - ° no
F O? ?Nlll NfJ10??
I ?a I ' i l - -i?nomoma m
t

t
t
N
N
{
O
O
N
W
t
t
i
?JiNN.
?N
Sry? :n
y^ 9Q?4
a? acra
aJ :ta
24
i
iy

r:\HOOdwOyy\Fr Oj\b9622_rdy_t5h.dgn
$$$$USERNAME$$$$ 1 1
W.B.S
,

O W W
T
F G
w
_
O
Z C)

Z m y

y
° o
o I
6 '6
.yy
N N
N
ti O O V

o n u n o o x

O i
p W p W A m
?xxxo? a

?
y
?
y
y
y bb
g O
° ? K rR!
or
b
b

y c?

n
y

?
II
ti
e 11

33801.2.1

O vo
> ?OZ
n
o"
o =u??
A W
n mm
H4,t-
yO°SF
NAp B3 ??>
O
n?
I
P
H
m
4
m
m
0
Z
D ?
T
o O
t `m
O
O
O
O
P
N
N
Y p I a
m I I if
o i-?
o
m ?
m? K
N .?. ? !
b
I.I
m?
. H V

O e

0
o n
y
a G
(O1
- 9 N
Z
O
ti

?
t
? y
I b Z
o y Z
g
y n
h` x a i
N
N
i py
• ? 's10
> '? x x
o
ro y
N

, A
vAO
?r ?
?O '(e
TIP PROJECT: B-4622
.p.
S
s

P
m
_ ?
f
ti _ I , TTT \?t ?/ f C_ _

d_ 3
N
? o 0
'H
rqx
In ? ? n
ec o
?oil
b Nba
til
y Q O
VJ
n
0%
c?
n
0
Q
k
ti

00

W fy ? ? .7
W W
O O
IJ i
a
?

m m

a N D

T
a

r 3?
0 3 ?< i
O
O ° U
N ? J
c a o_
9 s
0
a
O
0
O
S
o i l ? K,
o
o
I 9
9
o
3.
J
m
N
a
O
3
< < = N
oo a m
? „m m
a a J
3
° I
c
0
? o
o
e ©
O
mpm ? qpq ? eoe

m
n D
v
n

o S
o -a o
J m o
J
m 0 o
O' O O_
O
m ?

N
N N
?
C C jn
T

I
1 M
?
I
I

I
I
?
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
T
? n
0 0 0 0
0 _ _
]y O
G a N 0 O
J C
m m N O
o' O O
_C
0
a
M
jyyy
0 5 e ?3
C i
m m 'j' N p () N m n T N N S 9 'O a- 9 () y n N
& 1 0 3 c o a 3$ ° Y yd yd ? .i a v •D° $ •? O
° n - J 0 7 0 o ON J O o o j ° '- J
N ?y 2 3 rb m' o O g 3 F o c °i D S O O m ,} 10 0 J T '7 C
O O ON ° O Z O 3 m m n ` n a t o O a° ; _ O o 9 pC
T` J o o j J C. O
n a a
° mm Sc
N N O xg O j •J >> 2 O t O C a y° D
F S Vf o °o n J C o 3 o
Z S. a a m as
o Z 2.
9? g J a a a
T Q
? O O 'O ? S ° s
9 0
' O
C)
lT
R R i I-I I''? Inr
ICI {??? ? ? k .o ^o O 9 F ' i ? c? I :O
T T T 9 9 as '° S T 9 9 Q?•? pm I?? A A N A N
3 w J M J M a P J J p M D D ON J OY •3 O a o° N J J j YI [T S (D m
o ?7 o ao o m s e o° IV\ 0 8 S o to o 'a J o J u o m m m 3 o a
y 3 N n n n ss n 0_ n m n n 6 6 m n n
_v, d n A A O D.
a o E c? c 3 0 0 a• o o o ' o 0 0 0 ° °m cm m? O m 3 0 0
M3
a s Gl
O c a a A N N v
__ ao aF aa•z? ?• ;f 5'ff2s y?
o a a s `a an 38 r.?
- J ? 0 0 D O
°o o ? m E, ? f
Sam
a m o 's s
am
o J
O
Ilii? Ili i I+ a
I+i In I I 2 ? ? m I ? D? ? + 9?? O
I I I I m m I I
0 0 0 0 T? ?
D O O O 9 y y
y S S S S J =
a > > > 7 a_ ,? Z
a ° ° ° o o m
e (? oov m ? 0 0
Y ? a 0 ? y S
? ,? S S G
f1 ? O o J o
D' T
p y O
= o_ o
a o
O
p °O ? °E ? E a' ? •p° ? ?
m• s a 0 O j O J m
P
3 0? C m m
T 0 9. o 3 ° o
e? 9
O E ° 0 o T O O
E o v o 0
? ? J O O
J a o
N °
C
m
y N T p T T = ; m m
0 0' 4 a $ ? ° z J. J.
n? c° °n O o mn 0
m o R m° a c° P° ? P?
o n n.
E E m ° ° ? J
? ? S K 3 J m
O n
v m o C
n c n
f m !y
p o 3 C?•
J r_
n J
m m
a
e
I
I f v
® }H o a ®? } 1 ®m ® o } o-• e ? 3 g
I I I m i ^
I
7 7 n
3i x ° ° m
^ D O
N o. ? c
m O S N
J O'
0 g
g A 'O
Y
ao?.

J J
° ? G7 i ?
?
s
a
N
a
° q
q
E?
N
Y1 T n N O O
a ? o E n ; in
n J ? o J
J S

O J
?
C C
J E
e
J o
O

in
I
I
I I .

4
F
I F g r 0
C
J
n
D
a
J ? O
O J
O
C
m
I
I
I
° I - ® O
I
• o ?O .? y N
p
M
T ?1 = S
T OS -i ` D
U ` n J
o ? o-
O 9. °c o 0
n
n o Tn
o I •,

C
T
4
T
I
I

I

I
I
I I
I
I
?
pR,?fff;
m' a e 4 D
a a p
C) 3n ? = 0 3 ;
C a a ° S
a??a
O `
D
C
m
I
I
I
o ® o
i
I
n
0
Z
M
Z
I
0
Z
D
r
Z
2
M
N
0
r
N
w
O
R
C•

CND
b
e?
rn
b
0?
CA

1
ZAI
o
O
• ?w
N L Z?
`S 1 :\
C
r
7• N
+
O
W o°
C O
CL
o t
ID Z N
m
8
r
? I
0
N
2
m H
m
4 0l
4
n
y r
m
O
z all
p m
o ?A
`
k 2 !
N
G
m o

u f

E e

£g
$I

?
N
? m

N
8
°
o m
" 0
o

N
Y z
Z

u p

V V
Y

Q
7tn
N
I
O
V
N
N
0
I
k

D
r
N
m
Q
O
Z
Z
O
N
k
w
E
A
P
f
T
CY
C
I
ZC
rt
C
F
P_
T
u
O
8
C
H g
D
O
I h
r
? C
c -? m m v o n
W n
N

m
K m
> ym>a '
y °
°
?' ?' °
y >' >' D

O .
.
0
a
• xmya

Zv>9 s

y a
m
>y
m9 a

m9 m
o
9>e ya

y -ia

v
/

w
w _
12 >
x _
m
S. = Z \
P
s w i-r n
m O y OT9 <9 yOm9 O9
' 0m9 G9 <'
m9 rn
9 T 9 m TT
< .? y
> 99 =m m0 w> a >m

m
> z:m °m ox v x zmvm ox °m ."
e r 9
miay m. •Tyz yY i y T N

T

<>x

0
M

=
y
x _ rn
T >
= . _ 2y
mm?
• y o m m mm? ym mm
ov M> o >v >v o9 m ov z
'
m 9 92Tx T T m _
T
•
l+? T
S y 9r ar y+r Tm +y
'-1 >
0rm 0y m0
< m
? mrs m> rO
mYy r0 y
0y0 y
>9 ?0y rti m9
mn m m m mm 0
v,
z9m m ymm mm m
mm z am

+
a
ti
w
w a
vn
P ^

= m
= a
v
`
°m a mom om na y n
a
..
z<o m
om riz
C
=.0
oT
<n
moo m smm m
m mom m om
?. a
<n >m?
z• mm .
v o
<a
wn rn

c _
? v
mm ? Nam
w mm my
m > '

m
a
a
m
^?
nm v
m m
a00 0? : 2
? ?

90T
9
9
my
<
C y
TS
>v0 < <T <A y

yZN
9
mm• m m m
Nm
P
9 m
' s
e
P
y0 m ya m
>
0
m• m 1
a y
om ? m rn
v m
o =
m
m
m
0
m

R
1-
D?
r
N
m
9
O
Z
z
0
k
b
E
P a
m
u
+ +
+ Q n
Np" r
gp N
889
{ } z
tt O
N ?
++ r
+ N
V O
8
-'fF)
1-
qm?
F
?B 4622_0dy_sum.dgn
a I' fb
? saga
,. s
I $?a
lag
i
E
E
?I
Sip
E ? C
E I
4 C105
C
E '
?a
? gg
O!
O 9
Ail
O?

. 8

Y

Y
T
h
H
I
H
H
d § 3 p

a

0
e

55 ?
t

$QE

?9g

7
y

s

C)
b
h

J il l ! 11 1 1 1
a

a.
O
ba
C
C
O
Nl?
n to
C
yC'xH
l?
H
Oy
h

F P?
a_

'C

12/06/07
? Z
k

y 7

?i
O
C xi

C ?o

C
O

2f
TmT
1
O 49 N
17
?
Z
S
m p n
O
l I ? ma
q
V
' =
V I w
Z O
T
0
T
2
D
m
r m
A
O
v '° I } m M
o 9
3 Z
n 33 m Z
O m
g
o O
5
a z
m I H
O
=m }

a ?
? m ? e v

? A I
N m
V
?x
V

0
O
Z
O
N
m
3
m
z
0
/ va9Am[ xvmn T
ali
pgj;
?-} m
u
AR ? ti_
r
??-Ir ODT \1? p@d °„
m II II II II 11 O }C 3S an? _
L
` (+
} s
F
m;D?r ODT ;M O
n u n ?u+ u nin ? °
go Sq $
y «
\ 52. ?I
m m ?YroD?
n u.nl?niu nln
i
n

Eo
m ^ M,
m
m
N ].BOAw??-?
m_ :6['559
y
P
T
0
i
r /
I
p I
m

ma?roDv
u u n u uvl
eroUO)w°
r
} >l

O I$
a
0 0
ash

a?
0
64E ?•
z aE_,^ om +
b ?
T ?a
Y ^?O
o?
8
a a s°o -
? x
C ^gS .
g am_
is ;m
0
$ E\

o ??' nO
mrr e?D

T a m

f

'

m
P
?
a n

\ x
?

3 { ? I

a
o

e

r
l

t

t\ Z

.y•

'n its
20
0
R
R.
A G>
O 5!R
Nqp 8 0?
> © pG1 G>
i

0

in85.dgn
B/I
O Match Line
Sto 23+50
I
A Q
So glTr•1 K
'r g m SV 3 `° ul f O 4p
+u n i 8? T p
o=
x
o
T
v I ,
No, H ? a
I
n
A? I ? s
o asf o, a aI : .
m I D a? g3 p? 4
N 8
Y? \
3.OL[L \ \ '.
I `V y I \ \ '. ?' r
[g? J
O I _1 W
0 LI 9?
LOW-
:I ? I ? gp??my
4ri,, I I ? I I oll ?I
I t I I
I I
1 I ? I
I I / ? I
I I
I I ? I
I I 1
I I 1 i
I I / 9L'll[
? I I I I
,151 I ? I
• II
2 II
N
00
J
O
J
m
X00"
St

+
0
0
0
0
N
+
O
t
O
O
A
t
°o
+
mmm
T
Tea
PZ
Og
JT?
nt0
U
N O
nPnP
P " P P P
t
%ZT
a?
Y
NT_N?
Z T H
i
EZ
O y
T N
N
4 i
0
H
1
w

-------------
3
u ?R0 aR n
+ e i 3

9y?R9; ?R9?R
_
V

O

O ------------------ - -- -
??z3

O N
Z ?^

ZT?
T
+ +
J ~
C Z
o mN
roq
oO
,T
P
a P
y
m p`
+
o
a
9

P - I . P II
O
N
N
+
NBC
ym+
O V
NQ
mNa
u?
mN N
y
Zm>
V
Q
PZ
mN
OWP
Y py
Q V
z
Z a
O
;c
i
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 54 on NC 65
over Rock House Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-65(4)
State Project No. 8.1512301
W.B.S. No. 33801.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4622
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-Tlilol
DATE

-1110161
DATE
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
John F. Sullivan III, PE
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 54 on NC 65
over Rock House Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-65(4)
State Project No. 8.1512301
W.B.S. No. 33801.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4622
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 2007
Document Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
598 East Chatham Street, Suite 137
Cary, NC 27511
6al -1 e '4 " /---
Gail . Kogut, PE
Project Manager
\\\\\11111 III///
?Of••?ES S CARQ<z
• SEAL _
23563 j
F. K?
/11111111\\\`Gro 2Ft9r
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation:
amela R. Williams
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
John . Williams, PE
Bridge Project Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 54 on NC 65
over Rock House Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-65(4)
State Project No. 8.1512301
W.B.S. No. 33801.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4622
Wetlands
Division 7 Construction, Resident Engineer's Office and PDEA- NEU
The National Wetland Inventory has mapped a forested wetland adjacent to the southeastern
portion of the PSA. Due to its location, over 200-feet east of NC65 and outside of the PSA
limits, and low potential for impact, the area was not delineated. Should the project limits
increase, this area will be evaluated according to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and
field delineated using mapping grade Global Positioning System.
Categorical Exclusion B-4622
June 28, 2007
Green Sheet
Page 1 of 1
r
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 54 on NC 65
over Rock House Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-65(4)
State Project No. 8.1512301
W.B.S. No. 33801.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4622
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 54 is included in the 2007-2013 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in
the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency
rating of 28.0 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered
structurally deficient due to the structural evaluation rating of 2 out of 9 according to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards and therefore eligible for FHWA's
Highway Bridge Replacement Program.
Bridge No. 54 is considered narrow since the clear roadway width of the bridge is
20.0 ft. which is equal to the approach roadway width of 20 ft. According to current
standards, the roadway width of this bridge should be at least 4 ft. wider than the
approach roadway width. Due to this insufficient width, the deck geometry was rated
2 out of 9.
The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 19 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 23
tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST). By comparison, a new bridge would be
designed for 25 tons SV and 45 tons TTST.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 54 is located on NC 65 in Rockingham County over Rock House Creek
(Figure 1). NC 65, is, classified as a Rural Major Collector Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
Bridge No. 54 was constructed in 1932. The existing structure is a two-lane, three-span
bridge with an overall length of 134.0 ft. and a clear roadway width of 20.0 ft. The
bridge consists of a reinforced concrete T-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The
interior bents are reinforced concrete post and web and the abutments are reinforced
concrete spill-through. Bridge No. 54 currently has posted weight limits of 21 tons for
SV and 25 tons for TTST. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. The approach roadway for
Bridge No. 54 is a two-lane 20.0-foot wide road with 4.0-foot grass shoulders.
Page 1

Within the project limits, the existing roadway grade is in a sag vertical curve which
meets a 35 mph operating speed.
The creek bed to roadway crown point height is 22.0 ft. and the normal depth of Rock
House Creek is 1.0 ft.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Aerial power and telephone lines
run along the southern side of NC 65. Southern Bell also has underground telephone
lines along the southern side of NC 65. Water and gas lines are located just east of the
project area.
The 2007 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 6800 vehicles per day (vpd).
The projected ADT is 14,000 vpd by the design year 2030. The percentages of truck
traffic are 2% dual-tired vehicles and 1% TEST. The project area is located within the
Wentworth City Limits. Wentworth is the county seat. NC 65 is the main thoroughfare
connecting Wentworth with the western portion of the Rockingham County.
NC 65 is not a part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as needing bicycle accommodations. There is no indication
that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during a recent three year
period. All three crashes were the result of the inadequate bridge width.
Eight school buses cross Bridge No. 54 for a total of 16 trips per day.
Land use within the project area is cultivated or pastureland with scattered single family
residential.
There are no U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) geodetic survey markers located within one
mile of the proposed project.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a minimum 30-foot clear roadway width to allow for
two 12-foot travel lanes with 3-foot shoulders. The approach roadway will consist of
two 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders 4 ft. of which will be paved. The design
speed will be 50 mph.
The estimated structure requirements are based on the historic performances of the
existing structure and field observations of the site. Based on field reconnaissance of the
site and a preliminary hydraulic investigation, the existing structure will be replaced with
a bridge with an approximate skew of 70 degrees. The length and width of the proposed
bridge may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined from a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final
Page 2

design phase of the project. A minimum gradient of 0.3% will be utilized to facilitate
deck drainage and deck drains should not be placed over the stream channel.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 replaces the bridge in-place while traffic is maintained on an on-site
temporary detour bridge. The proposed structure length would be approximately 145 ft.
The temporary detour bridge would be approximately 110 ft. in length and would have .
two 11-foot wide travel lanes. The roadway grade would be raised approximately one
foot over existing. However, a design exception would be required for the vertical
alignment with a safe operating speed of 35mph.
Alternative 4 (Preferred)
Alternative 4 proposes to relocate Bridge No. 54 just north of the existing structure.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing alignment during construction. The proposed
structure would be approximately 145 ft. long and the vertical alignment would be
raised 7 ft. above existing. No design exceptions are anticipated.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
The "do-nothing". alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge effectively
removing this section of NC-65.from traffic service. This is not acceptable due to the
service NC 65 provides for a high volume of traffic.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Portions of the bottom layer of reinforcing steel of the girders is exposed and in some
areas exhibited a 25% loss of section. The bridge is narrow according to current
standards and in order to widen Bridge No. 54, a two T-beam section would be required
on each side of the existing bridge. This widening, combined with rehabilitation
necessary for the structurally deficient girders, is comparable to the cost of materials for
new bridge. '
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would replace the bridge in-place while traffic is maintained on an off-site
detour. The proposed structure length would be approximately 145 ft. The roadway
grade would be raised approximately one foot over existing. However, a design
exception would be required for the vertical alignment with a safe operation design
speed of 35mph.
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours for Bride Re lacement Proiects
considers multiple project variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the
average road user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project
would include NC 65, SR 2145 (Settle Bridge Road), SR 2127 (Panne[ Road), NC 87, and
Page 3

SR 2124 (Hancock Road). The majority of traffic on the road is through traffic. The
detour for the average road user would result in 6.5 minutes additional travel time (3.6
miles additional travel). Up to an 18-month duration of construction is expected on this
project with the off-site detour in use for 12 months. NCDOT Division 7 has indicated
that the condition of all roads, bridges and intersections along the detour are acceptable
without improvement.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate an offsite detour is preferable but a
stronger evaluation of other project variables is required. In this case, Rockingham
County Emergency Services has indicated that due to the increased call response time to
homes and businesses in this area, the delay is unacceptable. Rockingham County
School Transportation has indicated that rerouting buses around this project is not
preferable and would prefer summer construction if road closure were necessary.
However, with a construction period of 12 months, summer closure would be
insufficient. In view of the objections from Rockingham County Emergency Services and
Rockingham County Schools, an offsite detour is not preferred: NCDOT concurs with
these concerns and believes that an offsite detour is not justifiable.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would relocate Bridge No. 54 just south of the existing structure. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing alignment during construction. The proposed
structure would be approximately 290 ft. long and the vertical alignment would be
raised 7 ft. above existing. No design exceptions are anticipated.
Alternative 3 was eliminated due to the higher costs associated with R/W costs and
longer approach work. In addition, Alternative 3 has the greatest amount of stream
impacts.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 4, replacing the bridge slightly north of the existing bridge while maintaining
traffic on the existing alignment is the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 was selected
because it has the least impacts to the natural environment while maintaining traffic on-
site. All alternatives have similar impacts to Rock House Creek. However, Alternatives 1,
2, and 3 each impact more linear feet of UT2 than Alternative 4. In addition, Alternative
4 improves the vertical alignment and may eliminate the need for design exceptions.
NCDOT Division 7 concurs with the selection of Alternative 4 as the preferred
alternative.
Page 4
?i
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on 2007 prices, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Costs

Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Detours Structure
and Approaches Alternative 2

45,000
502,000

409,000 Alternative 4
(Preferred)
60,000
502,000

0
Roadway Approaches 200,000 714,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 319,000 414,000
Engineering and Contingencies 225,000 260,000
ROW/Contt. Easements/Utilities 31,000 56,000

TOTAL $ 1,731,000
$ 2,006,000
V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. Physical Characteristics
The project study area (PSA) is an area of thirty-five acres centered about the
intersection of Rock House Creek and Bridge No. 54. Not all of the PSA will be affected
by the project.
1. Water Resources
The proposed project falls within the Roanoke River Basin, within the NC Division of
Water Quality subbasin designated 03-02-03 and the US Geological Survey 8-digit
Hydrologic Cataloging Unit Code 03010103. Rock House Creek (Stream Index No. 22-34-
(2)) and two small tributaries (UT1 and UT2) to Rock House Creek are the lotic systems
within the Project Vicinity. Rock House Creek (Stream Index No. 22-34-(2)) and the two
small tributaries (UT1 and UT2) are perennial streams located within the PSA.
Rock House Creek has a classification of "WS-IV". Class "WS-N" waters are used as
sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those
users where a WS-I, WS-II, or WS-III classification is not feasible." Rock House Creek
has a use support rating of "fully supporting", based on the evaluated method. All
tributaries to Rock House Creek will have the same classification and use support rating.
Rock House Creek and the two tributaries (UT1 and UT2) do not appear on the Final
2004 303(d) list. No waters classified as Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed,
or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or that appear on the Final 2004 303(d) list occur within 1.0 mile of the PSA. At
the time of this report, the Roanoke River Basin was not subject to riparian buffer
regulations.
Page 5
t'
2. Biotic Resources
Land use and land cover classifications for the natural vegetative communities occurring
in the Project Study Area include Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest, Cropland and Pasture, and Residential. Cropland/pasture and residential,
the most human influenced communities, account for less than 25 percent of the total
land use within the PSA.
Table 2: Impacts to Natural Communities in Proiect Studv Area
I
t Direct Impacts acres
mpac
s
Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Preferred
Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary
Cropland/Pasture 0.30 0.32 0.61 0.31
Dry Mesic Oak

Hickory Forest 0.40 0.04 1.39 0.76
Piedmont/ Low
Mountain Alluvial 1.08 0.85 1.05 0.90
Forest
Residential 0 0 0.15 0.03
B. Jurisdictional Topics
1. Surface Waters and Wetlands
The National Wetland Inventory has mapped a forested wetland (Palustrine, Forested,
Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded) adjacent to the southeastern portion of
the PSA. Field investigation within this area noted a broad flood-prone area composed
of broad-leaved deciduous trees. Chewacla soils are mapped for this area. These soils
usually have pedon colors of 10YR4/4 with mottles of 7.5YR 4/6. Samples taken during
the field investigation yielded colors of 10YR6/5 with very few mottles present. In
addition, evidence of recent hydrology in this area was not noted. Investigation
traversed only that portion of it adjacent to the PSA. The area has been modified by the
placement of a narrow gravel road, logging activities and forest regeneration. Due to its
location, over 200-feet east of NC65 and outside of the PSA limits, and low potential for
impact, the area was not delineated. Should the project limits increase, this area will be
evaluated according to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and field delineated using
mapping grade Global Positioning System.
NC Department of Transportation will ensure that Best Management Practices are
employed to prevent or reduce water pollution as described in the NC Department of
Transportation handbook Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters Rockingham County is not a mountain trout county and Rock House Creek does
not support trout. Smallmouth bass and anadromous fish are not known to utilize Rock
House Creek or its tributaries.
Page 6

Table 3: Stream Impacts in.PmiPrt ctisd., Aron
Stream Identification Permanent Direct Impacts feet
Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Preferred
Rock House Creek 30 30
UT1 0 0
UT2 260 190
2. Permits
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has made
available Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 2002) for CEs due to
minimal impacts to waters of the United States expected from bridge construction. The
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) has made available a General 401 Water
Quality Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). If temporary structures are necessary for
construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020,
2087: January 15, 2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification
(GC 3366) will be required.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical
integrity of waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation must be considered in
sequential order.
In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District" (MOA) July
22, 2003, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be requested to provide off-site mitigation
if necessary, to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) compensatory mitigation
requirements of this project. Determination of final compensatory mitigation
requirements rests with the USACE.
4. Protected Species
The US Fish & Wildlife Service list two federally-protected species for Rockingham
County as of the January 29, 2007 listing: James spinymussel (Pieurobema co//ina) and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea iaevigata).
Page 7

Table 4: Federally Protected Species for Rorkinaham Countv
Common Scientific Federal State Habitat Habitat Biological
Name Name Status Status R uirements Present Conclusion
Invertebrates
Found in waters with
slow to moderate
current and
James P/eumbema relatively hard water
spiny- collina E SR on sand and mixed No No Effect
mussel sand and gravel
substrates.
Documented record
in Mao River.
Vascula r Plants
Smooth Echinacea
E
chi
c Open woods, cedar
coneflower n
a
l8evIgat E E-SC barrens and Yes No Effect
roadsides
E -Endangered. A taxon which is in danger of exbnctlon throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
SC - Special concern.
SR - Significantly rare.
Pieurobema co//ina (James spinymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 22, 1988
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A survey to detect the presence or absence of James spineymussel was conducted on
October 3, 2004 by Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Survey limits began over
1,300-feet downstream and ended more than 300-feet upstream of Bridge No. 54.
Survey methods employed included visual and tactile searches. Species observed
included a native snail (Eiimia Proxima) and an exotic clam (Corbicu/a fluminea).
However, no freshwater mussels were observed. The Mayo River is located upstream of
the confluence of Rock House Creek and the Dan River, approximately 15-stream miles
from the Project Study Area. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will have
no effect on the James spinymussel.
Echinacea iaevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION; NO EFFECT
The dominant vegetative communities within and adjacent to the PSA include Basic-
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest, neither of which
is suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower. Available roadside habitat is limited due
to the lack of well-maintained right-of-ways in this area. Therefore, it can be concluded
that this project will have no effect on the smooth coneflower.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program County electronic database of rare species
and unique habitats was reviewed in January 2005 and showed no occurrences of
Federal Species of Concern or C1 species within 1-mile of the Project Study Area.
However, there are four recorded occurrences of state protected species within or within
Page 8
s.
1-mile of the Project Study Area.. Three of these occurrences are of Goldenseal
(Hydrastis canadensis), a state protected plant species which is listed by the state as
endangered. The fourth occurrence is of the state protected animal species Roanoke
hog sucker (Hypenteiium roanokense). The Roanoke hog sucker is listed by the state as
"SR", indicating that it is significantly rare throughout its range. Neither Goldenseal nor
the Roanoke hog sucker are federally listed or Federal Species of Concern species.
5. Bridge Demolition
Dropping any portion of the structure into the waters of the United States will be
avoided unless there is no practical method of removal. In the event that practical
method is feasible, a worst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering
waters of the United States. The existing structure consists of concrete T-beams with
an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of concrete abutments and
reinforced concrete post and web interior bents. There is the.potential for the concrete
superstructure and western interior bent to be dropped into Rock House Creek during
removal. The maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the removal of, the
concrete deck, beams, and bent is approximately 90 cubic yards.
VI. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that Federal agencies to take into account the effect of
their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated October 31, 2005 the State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) conducted a search of their files and stated that they were aware of no
structures of historical importance that would be affected by the project.
Therefore, no further compliance with Section 106 is required. See memorandum
dated October 31, 2005 included in the attachments.
Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), in a memorandum dated October
31, 2005 noted that they are "aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project". A copy of the HPO memorandum is included in the
attachments.
Page 9

B. Community Impacts
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of this project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). According to the Soil Survey for
Rockingham County, four types of soil are present in the PSA. One of these soils, Cecil
sandy clay loam (2-8%), is considered prime farmland. Another of these soils, Chewacla
loam, is considered prime farmland only if the soil is well-drained and protected from
flooding. The other two soils are not considered prime or locally important farmland. The
impacted area of the PSA with Chewacla loam soil is currently not farmed nor does it
appear drained and protected. Of the areas with Cecil sandy clay loam, the alternatives
have the potential to impact these areas. See the table below.
Table 5: Farmland Impacts in Acres
Alternative 2 Alternative 4
Farmland Soil (Preferred)
Chewacla Soil

Prime if drained and protected 1.6 1.2
Cecil sandy clay loam
Prime 0 0.5
TOTAL 1.6 1.7
Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative. While this alternative does not have the least
impacts of all feasible alternatives, it does have the least impact to the Chewacla soil.
The impacts to the Cecil soil is minimal or none for all alternatives.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmentally effect on any minority or low income population.
C. Noise and Air Quality
This project is an air quality neutral project in accordance with 40 CFR 93.126. It is not
required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and project level
CO or PM2.5 analyses are not required. This project will not result in any meaningful
changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, location of the existing facility, or any other
factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts relative to the no-build
alternative. Therefore, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air
Page 10
Cl
quality impacts for Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any
special MSAT concerns. Consequently, this effort is exempt from analysis for MSATs.
Any burning of vegetation shall be performed in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Noise levels may increase during project construction; however, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial considering the relatively short-term nature of construction
noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The 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 proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. There are
no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
An examination of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section records by the
NCDOT GeoEnviron mental Section revealed no hazardous waste sites nor groundwater
contamination incidents in the project area.
A field investigation by the NCDOT GeoEnvironmental Section and an examination of
records of DENR's Division of Waste Management, Underground Storage Tank Section,
revealed that no regulated underground storage tanks exist in the project study area.
Rockingham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Rock
House Creek is not included in a detailed FEMA flood study. Areas inundated by the
100-year flood are.determined by the methods of the detailed study. The proposed
project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
VIII. COORDINATION AND AGENCY COMMENTS
NCDOT has sought input from the following agencies as a part of the project
development: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, N.C
Page 11
r
Wildlife Resource Commission, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, and the
Piedmont Triad Rural Planning Organization.
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in standardized
letters provided a request that they prefer any replacement structure to be a spanning
structure.
Response: Bridge No. 54 will be replaced with a bridge.
The Rockingham County Department of Emergency Services has requested that NC 65
remain open during construction. Any off-site detour would greatly hamper response
times of emergency services.
Response: Traffic will be maintained on-site.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, and the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources have not responded to requests for
input.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve
them in the project development with scoping letters. For this bridge replacement study,
the selected alternative will provide for the maintenance of traffic on-site during
construction of the replacement structure. There are minimal impacts to surrounding
properties and no anticipated relocatees.
A newsletter has been sent to all those living in an area bound by NC 65, SR 2145, SR
2127, NC 87, and SR 2124 including any cross streets intersected by these roads. One
comment has been received to date. The property owner was in favor of replacing the
bridge with a wider structure since the existing narrow bridge is a major factor in the
high accident rate of this section of NC 65.
Based on the one response to the newsletter, a Citizens' Informational Workshop was
determined unnecessary.
There is not substantial controversy on social, economic, or environmental grounds
concerning the project.
X. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is
therefore considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
Page 12
-1
11
? ,?
?;;
L
VIEW LOOKING EAST
VIEW LOOKING WEST
NORTH CAROLINA
DF,P,PROJ
CT Ern OPMF ANALYSTS
Ory I
ROCKINGIMMCOUNYY TIPNO. B-4622
REPI ACEMENFT BRIDGE NO..54
OVER ROCK HOUSE CREEK
on NC 65
PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 3-1
i

VIEW OF UPSTREAM
FACE OF BRIDGE
(LOOKING NORTH-
EAST)
VIEW OF DOWN-
STREAM FACE OF
BRIDGE (LOOKING
SOUTHWEST)
NORTH CAROLIYA
DFPARTMEN70FTRANSPORIATION
PROTECT DElWLOPMFNT &
EhVIRONAIENTAL VALINTS
ROCKIlVGHAMCOUNTS' TIPNO.B-4622
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE NO. 54
OVER ROCK HOUSE CREEK
on NC 65
PHOTOGRAPHS
Figure 3-2

y P ,,,.y
P?au?
Michael F. liasley, Governor
lisbeth C. Evans, secretuy
Jeffrey J. Crow, D"ty Scaetuy
October 31, 2005
MEMORANDUM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office'
Peter M Sandkek. Adminotretar
I?Ih:?dt"+?5i g
Office of Archives and tfistary
Division of M otmical Resources
David Brook, Director
NOV 1 7 2005
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck
SUBJECT: Bridge #54 over Rock House Creek, NC 65, TIP No. B-4622, Rockingham County,
ER 05-2409
Thank you for your letter of September 5, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would
be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: May Pope Fort, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION 5117 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Semi, Raleigh, NC
4617 Mail Semite Center, Rdeigh NC 276994617
4(17 M.1 Smite Center, Rdeigh NC 27699A617
4617 Mail Semte Center, Raleigh NC 276994617

3
From: Renee Gledhill-Earley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:57 AM
To: 'Dolores Hall'; 'Matt T. Wilkerson'
Subject: RE: B-4622 CE comments from FHWA
IF our memo or letter said " no historic resources or properties" that includes archaeological resources.
When we get the CE, we will also respond and let FHWA know that we are fine with the document's
treatment of historic resources. Dolores says that, OSA is okay with no survey for archaeology.
Renee
From: Dolores Hall [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:56 AM
To: Matt T. Wilkerson; Renee Gledhill-Earley
Subject: Re: B-4622 CE comments from FHWA
Renee:
I went back and looked at the record for B-4622. My no comment, or no request for archaeological
investigation, was based on the poorly drained nature of the soils in the floodplain and the low probability
for the presence of eligible archaeological sites.
Would you like me to email FHWA or NCDOT or do you think it should come from you?
Dolores
Dolores A. Hall
Deputy State Archaeologist-Land
Office of State Archaeology
[phone]
E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public
business, is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt T. Wilkerson
To: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Cc: Dolores A. Hall
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 8:32 AM
Subject: B-4622 CE comments from FHWA
Good morning,
Note that the TIP project in question is B-4622 not B-4662. Sorry for the confusion.
Felix Davila, the FHWA area engineer for the B-4622 project, has
requested that NCDOT secure either a letter or email from the HPO
clarifying that the October 31, 2005 HPO "no comment letter"
means that no archaeological investigations were requested by
OSA. Mr. Davila made this request after reviewing the draft CE
for the subject project. The letter or email from HPO clarifying
the 2005 letter would be included in the revised draft CE. Thank
you for your assistance in addressing FHWA's request.
Regards,
Matt Wilkerson