19941114 Ver 1_Complete File_19941206

..
?O ya.
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 2S201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 5, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
g 199
3
Subject: Davidson County, Bridge No. 418 over Hamby's Creek,
SR 2017, State Project No. 8.2602501, Federal Aid
No. BRZ-2017(2), T.I.P. No. B-2546.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
p Wing report for the subject project. The project is
bet processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categ rical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
he ore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
B. J. `Quinn
A ant alter
Planning and Environmental Branch

BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
,. 4

Davidson County
SR 2017
Bridge No. 418 over Hamby's Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2017(2)
State Project No. 8.2602501
T.I.P. No. B-2546
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

G
Nich L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
7 4DA

Davidson County
SR 2017
Bridge No. 418 over Hamby's Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2017(2)
State Project No. 8.2602501
T.I.P. No. B-2546
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1994
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
G?I?z L4f
I?J
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
zz,
o ??. .
J b+ ?i a
f 0
sID.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. LGrimes(, .E., Unit Head
Cons t Engi eering Unit
9J, ya., ? - L,--
Phil Harris
Project Planning Engineer
Davidson County
SR 2017
Bridge No. 418 over Hamby's Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2017(2)
State Project No. 8.2602501
T.I.P. No. B-2546
Bridge No. 418 is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey of the area of potential effect will be completed prior to right-
of-way acquisition.
3. A detailed hydraulic study will be performed during the final design stages to determine
the opening size necessary to accommodate peak flows.
4. Construction will be scheduled during summer months to minimize impacts on school bus
traffic.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 418 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a triple barrel 3.7 meter x 3.7 meter (12 ft x 12 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
grassed shoulders for approximately 90 meters (300 ft) on the west approach and 150 meters (500
ft) on the east approach.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site (see Figure 1).
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $536,000 including $136,000 for right-of-way and
$400,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program, is $965,000 including $190,000 for right-of-way,
$650,000 for construction, and $125,000 prior costs.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended
alternate (Alternate A) provides a design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) due
to the existing 135 meter radius (13 degree) horizontal curve approximately 65 meters (210 feet)
west of the bridge. Due to the existing horizontal alignment, both within and outside the project
area, a major relocation of SR 2017 would be required to improve the design speed to 90
kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour). Since the alignment of the recommended alternate is
compatible with the alignment of the remainder of SR 1741 and projected 2015 traffic volumes
are low (900 vpd), the additional costs are not justified.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2017 is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. This
local route serves a rural area of Davidson County approximately 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) east
of the intersection of US 64 with Business I-85/US 70 in Lexington. Land use is primarily
residential and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. A pasture is located on the
northwest portion of the project area. Woodlands are concentrated on upland ridges and through
the creek corridor.
Near the bridge, SR 2017 has a 5.8 meter (19 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent at
the bridge with a 135 meter radius (13 degree) curve approximately 65 meters (210 ft) from the
bridge to the west. The east approach is tangent at the bridge with a 290 meter radius (6 degree)
curve approximately 150 meters (500 ft) from the bridge. The roadway is situated approximately
5.8 meters (19 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 900 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three
percent dual-tired vehicles. The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers per
hour (55 miles per hour). The curve just west of the existing bridge has a posted speed of 56
kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour).
The existing bridge was built in 1960 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of four steel I-
girder spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing
surface supported on a steel floor beam system. The substructure consists of creosote timber pile
end bents with bulkheads and two interior timber pile bents.
The overall length of the bridge is 29 meters (95 ft). Clear roadway width is 4.8 meters (16 ft).
The posted weight limit is 6350.3 kilograms (7 tons) for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 418 has a sufficiency rating of 22.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
2
No accidents were reported at the bridge during the period from February 1, 1990 to January
31, 1993.
An aerial power line is located on the south side of SR 2017 in the project area.
School buses cross the bridge four times daily.
V. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 418. Each alternate consists of a triple
barrel 3.7 meter x 3.7 meter (12 ft x 12 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The approach
roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A (Recommended involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment.
Traffic would be detoured on SR 2014, SR 2005, SR 2123, and SR 2020, a distance of 10.7
kilometers (6.6 mi), during the approximate four-month construction period (See Figure 1). A
design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) would be provided. A design
exception would be required to tie into the horizontal and vertical alignments for the west
approach.
Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge with a reinforced concrete box culvert approximately
15 meters (50 ft) north of its existing location. This alternate would require a temporary on-site
detour or an off-site detour. Due to necessary adjustments to the horizontal and vertical
alignment, traffic cannot be maintained on the existing alignment throughout construction of this
alternate. The west approach roadway would begin south of the existing roadway using a 195
meter radius (9 degree) curve and then cross the existing alignment to the north side
approximately 105 meters (350 ft) from the existing bridge. The east approach would be tangent
at the culvert and tie into the existing curve with a 290 meter radius (6 degree) curve
approximately 150 meters (500 ft) from the bridge. A design speed of 70 kilometers per hour
(45 miles per hour) would be provided. A design exception would be required for this alternate.
This alternate would require four relocatees.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2017.
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.
3
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal $ 8,773 $ 8,773
Structure 113,410 113,410
Roadway Approaches 170,817 232,817
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 55,000 80,000
Engineering and Contingencies 52,000 65,000
Right of Way/Const. Easements/Util. 136.000 245.000
TOTAL $536,000 $745,000
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. A four month road closure period is anticipated. The off-site detour
roadway and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing roads based on 500 vpd and
an average of 10.7 kilometers (6.6 mi) of indirectional travel (See Figure 1). The cost of
additional travel would be approximately $120,000 during the four month construction period.
The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $300,000, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio
of 0.40. This ratio indicates it is not justifiable to maintain traffic on-site during the construction
period.
Construction of the culvert will be scheduled during the summer months to minimize impacts on
school bus traffic.
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 418 will be replaced by a triple barrel 3.7 meter x 3.7 meter (12 ft x 12 ft)
reinforced concrete box culvert approximately 24 meters (70 ft) in length and in its existing
location. Traffic will be routed on SR 2014, SR 2005, SR 2123, and SR 2020 (Figure 1).
Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary on each end of the culvert. Alternate
A is recommended because it is less expensive than Alternate B and does not require any
relocatees.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
approaches. The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour) and will require a
design exception to tie into the existing vertical and horizontal alignment for the west roadway
approach.
4
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis and the 100-year storm, the reinforced concrete box
culvert is recommended to have a opening size of 40 square meters (432 sq ft). It is anticipated
that the elevation of the roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The
length and opening size may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows
as determined by further hydraulic studies.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodoloav
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Lexington East,
N.C.), National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service soils information (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1992), and 1992 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished by the
NCDOT.
The site was visited on October 22, 1993. Plant and animal communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately 75 meters (250 ft) in width, symmetrical
to the existing alignment. However, impact calculations were based on potential encroachment
18 meters (60 ft) each side of the centerline along the existing route and 36 meters (120 ft) along
new alignment alternatives. Special concerns were evaluated including potential habitat for
protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Hamby's Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N. C. Natural
Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter
approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980;
Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (N. C Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) 1989, 1993).
Ecological classifications based on recreational fishing potential was determined by utilizing Fish
(1968). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Listings of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Davidson County were
requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of
field studies. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing this investigation.
5
Physiography and Soils
Davidson County is situated in the central Piedmont plateau. Topography is characterized by
rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate
project area range from approximately 210 meters (700 ft) on the southwest limit of the project
area, to approximately 191 meters (640 ft) along the creek bottom (USGS Lexington East
quadrangle). The project site is in the Carolina Slate Belt and is underlain by metavolcanic rock
(DNR 1985).
Soils in the project area are Enon fine sandy loam on 2 to 8 percent slopes, Poindexter sandy
loam on 25 to 45 percent slopes, and Zion sandy loam on 25 to 45 percent slopes. Chewacla
loam, found along Hamby's Creek, may contain hydric inclusions if frequently flooded. Due
to the well-defined embankments, the lack of flood hydrology and the absence of secondary
indicators of hydrology in soil profiles, Chewacla soils in the project area are considered non-
hydric in nature.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
Bridge No. 418 crosses Hamby's Creek approximately 8 kilometers (6 mi) below its origin near
the Randolph County line. The creek flows from north to south at the present bridge location
before turning west and southwest where it empties into Abbotts Creek. Abbotts Creek flows
south into High Rock Lake. Area creeks and tributaries are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Drainage Basin.
Best Usaee Classifications and Water Ouali
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
A best usage classification of C has been assigned to this segment of Hamby's Creek (DEM
1993). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses are aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area. One point source discharge at Thomasville is
located several miles upstream of the project area (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989). The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. There are
several BMAN sampling stations located both upstream and downstream from the site. Stream
conditions were rated as fair or poor quality at these locations (DEM 1989).
6
Stream Characteristics
Hamby's Creek averages approximately 12.2 meters (40 ft) in width in the project vicinity. The
stream bed is well-entrenched in a steep-side channel. The creek has evidently eroded 7.5 meter
(25 ft) shelves on both sides of the bridge, and a 7.5 meter (25 ft) vertical rock face wall on the
bend to the north of the bridge. A moderate to rapid flow of water approximately 10 centimeters
(4 in) deep traverses the bottom of gravel, rocks, and bedrock. Pools of water remain in the
channel at low water, but the creek probably maintains flow year round. Currently, the main
body of the channel is bridged.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three different plant communities are found in this project area: mesic hardwood forest,
urban/disturbed and agricultural. Mesic hardwoods remain along the creek corridor near the
present bridge. An urban/disturbed community results from housing, mowing and management
that has been performed in residential areas and along the roadsides. The agricultural community
is a result of land cultivation, pasturage for animals and other farming practices. Variations in
each community occur dependent upon their locations and the physical characteristics of the site
(soils, topography, human activity, etc.).
Mesic Hardwood Forest
This community type is located along the creek edges and terraces. The canopy dominants are
river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron ggipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), and
American beech (Fagus grandifolia). The understory/shrub layer is composed of red maple,
sourwood (Oxvdendrum arboreum), dogwood (Corpus florida) and strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus). Herbs include Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), panic grasses (P cum
spp.) and heartleaf (Hexastylis vir inica).
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes vegetation along disturbed roadside margins and the
changes resulting from housing development. Vegetation in these areas is composed of a variety
7
of trees such as white oak (Ouercus alba) and other oaks, red maple, tulip poplar, devils' walking
stick (Aralia spinosa), shrubs and tree seedlings, lawn and wild grasses and weedy herbs.
Agricultural
This community is composed of farm fields, fallow fields and a horse pasture. The fallow field
is in an early successional stage composed of crab grass (Dsp.), aster (Aster pilosus) and
horseweed (Erigeron canadensis). The horse pasture contains an assortment of grass species and
many weeds.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
A summary of potential plant community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge
replacement is shown below.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Hectares (Acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Mesic Hardwood 0.07 (0.17) 0.07 (0.17)
Urban/Disturbed 1.26 (3.11) 1.55 (3.83)
Agricultural
TOTAL IMPACT 1.33 (3.28) 1.62 (4.00)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of proposed construction are restricted to narrow strips
immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. In-place
replacement (Alternate A) results in less impacts than relocation to the north of Alternate A
(Alternate B). Proposed construction on either proposed alignment is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to the plant communities in the project vicinity.
8
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the project area is urban and agricultural. Clearing and conversion of large tracts of
land for agricultural uses and housing has eliminated cover and protection for many species of
wildlife. However, the ecotonal fringes of the remaining plant communities serve as valuable
habitat. Forested floodplains bordering Hamby's Creek have all the necessary components (food,
water, protective covering) for mammals, herptiles and songbirds and would also serve as a
travel corridor between the upland habitats that are traversed by the creek.
Animals likely to utilize this area include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir inianus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern cottontail
(Syvilagus floridanus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitisshrew (Sorex spp.) and opossum
(Didelphis vigr i niana).
Reptiles and amphibians that may be expected include American toad (Bufo americanus), spring
peeper (Hvla crucifer), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
Avifaunal abundance depends on the diversity of habitat types. Avian species likely to occur in
the project area include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides villosus), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), American robin (Turdus mi ratorius), and song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia ,eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) and several species of diurnal and nocturnal raptors.
Aquatic
Hamby's Creek is a moderate to rapidly flowing stream. However, the creek is too polluted for
fish and consequently has no ecological classification for recreational fishing (Fish 1968). The
riparian areas along its borders are likely habitat for semi-aquatic fauna. Amphibians such as
spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmas viridescens),
chorus frogs (Pseudacris spp.) and toads would use the pools for breeding during spring wet
periods. Various species of invertebrates and aquatic animals, in addition to minnows, would
be expected to be found in the stream itself.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed project does not pose a significant threat to wildlife. Some resident terrestrial
species such as passerine birds, squirrel, cottontail and raccoon adapt fairly readily to short-term,
9
minor changes. Some temporary displacements in feeding areas or cover may occur, but
recolonization of these areas will take place after project completion. Infringement on Hamby's
Creek within the project area will likely have some temporary impact on subterranean and
stream-dwelling organisms.
Due to the limited extent of infringement of natural systems, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal
populations. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by sizing the
culvert to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream aquatic habitat from increased sedimentation during construction will be minimized
by the implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters,
as applicable.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
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 soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
Based on this three parameter approach, there are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Floodplain terraces bordering Hamby's Creek, characterized by the presence of Chewacla soils,
fail to show evidence of inundation or saturation for a significant portion of the growing season.
However, surface waters within the embankments of Hamby's Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Culverting
will impact approximately 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) at the crossing point of Hamby's Creek.
Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 has been issued by the COE for federal agency projects which
are assumed to have minimal impacts. Several other NWPs are available for use, including NWP
No. 26 for above headwater impacts and NWP No. 14 for minor road crossings. In addition,
minor impacts due to bridging and associated approach improvement are allowed under General
Bridge Permit (GP) No. 031 issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a nationwide
or general permit. NWP No. 23 and No. 14 and GP No. 031 require prior notification by DEM
before certification can be issued. NWP No. 26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are
greater than 0.13 hectares (0.33 acre).
10
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, it is likely that this project will be subject to the Nationwide
Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). This permit authorizes any activities, work and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency that is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the COE.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to
minimize adverse impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Proposed Threatended and Proposed
Endangered (PT and PE) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Candidate species (C,C2) do not receive protection under the Act, but
are mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected and candidate
species are listed for Davidson County as of July 19, 1993:
Federally listed:
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems originating from a
crown and supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical "sunflowers", is
discernible in the field from other members of its genus by the presence of a tuberous root
system, tomentose to pilose leaf undersides, and harsh upper stems which arch upward in a
candelabra-like fashion (Kral 1983). Flowering occurs from September to frost. The species
thrives in full sun characteristic of relic piedmont prairies, successional fields, forest ecotonal
margins, and forest openings.
11
An onsite survey to determine presence or absence of the species was undertaken on October 22,
1993. All roadside margins and ecotonal fringes were visually evaluated. No sightings of the
plant were noted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Heller's trefoil is an erect herb with villous branches and stems and small, linear leaves. The
flowers are single, small and colored pink and yellow. Flowering occurs from June to
September. The trefoil occurs in dry woods and sunny clearings. This species has habitat
requirements similar to that of Schweinitz's sunflower. Availability of suitable habitat is lacking
at this site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species listed 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. 106-202.12 et seq.). NCNHP
records indicate no known populations of State listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1
mi) of the project site.
Based on field surveys and a review of available information, impacts to Federal or State listed
species are not expected as a result of this project.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement with a culvert will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human
or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. 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.
12
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 31, 1994, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined
that the bridge was neither listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor
located in or adjacent to any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO had no comment on the project with regard to historic structures.
The SHPO commented that the floodplain on the east side of Hamby's Creek is a likely location
for prehistoric archaeological remains and recommended a comprehensive survey be conducted.
NCDOT will conduct an archaeological survey of the area of potential effect prior to right-of-
way acquisition. See the Appendix for a copy of the SHPO letter.
Since the bridge will be replaced at its existing location (with a culvert) the Farmland Protection
Policy Act does not apply.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Winston-Salem Regional Office
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Davidson
County has been designated as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the attainment
date is November 15, 1996. The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
Transportation Control Measures (TCM) for Davidson County. This project will not adversely
affect the air quality of the region nor impede the attainment date of this county.
This project will not increase or decrease traffic volumes and the bridge will be replaced at its
existing location with a culvert. Therefore, its impacts on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
13
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Davidson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same or greater magnitude. All reasonable
measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
14
REFERENCES
Cooper, J. E., Robinson, S. S. and Funderburg, J. B. 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants
and Animals of North Carolina. Report to the North Carolina State Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh N.C.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N. C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North
Carolina, Report no. 88-02 (305B). Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNR). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. N.C. Geological Survey.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Hamel, P.B., LeGrand, H.E., Jr., M.R., Lannartz, M.R. and Gauthreaux, Jr., S.A. 1982. Bird
Habitat Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-
22.
LeGrand, H. E. Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
Martof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R. and Harrison III, J.R. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
Page, R.W. and L. S . Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the
DOE concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1)
guidelines. Washington, D.C. 6 p.
Potter, E. F., Parnell, J. F. and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas, The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
15

Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil Conservation
Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey information provided by the
Davidson County SCS office, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North -
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working Draft of
November 1993. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, DEHNR.
Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F. and Biggs, W. C. Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland, UNC Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
16
t 13
2753
201
BRIDGE NO. 418
7M
2444
2414
Mt. T.b. Uniw
Ch..f Christ
27U f
,yam, 2z3a zaL •?• .-,- 24?
2?z
M7.
DavirT.vmtend I ? .•
'-h• W.4 t
0 214 ? - 24].4
UIZ 3?e3 J H.aT c.w
# If
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
:...?. . • -mow ? w
all urg , •
-52
Hig dui ,.
9 $ iAwaY bi ?S? ?.
Me • ,:
rili _ •
Thomas

6 t
5 I
O N r
0
oc
is v Id l
I

`° ?•O, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
'•. o` BRANCH
.r Oi ?/1 M•O
BRIDGE NO. 418
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B-2546
12/93 SCALE =1:30 000 FIG. I
0 (kilometers) I
Ts; ^`? Y
41-
"
40
--? `
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR NT OF
TRANSPORTATION 1
I _ DIVISION OF HIGIHWATS
PLANNING AND ENVMON14ENTAL
.,
Bn = '
I 111
BRIDGE NO. 41
SR 201? OVER HAMBY°S CREEK
DAVIDSON COUNTY
r.
tK' 8-2540
4/94 SCALE 1:1200 FiG 2
?? r. _ O. 20 40
.

BRIDGE NO. 418
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B-2546
LOOKING EAST
r
777M
Y J-- y
.. .r. fly. r - ......... - -
wr
Ail

LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
TRIBUTARY DAVIDSON COUNTY
RM-DG-2
f0+00 F RM-DG-24-C 60+00
A
• D
A C ?.i
` n
?-- KM-DG-24-A ,
n+oo"
E
HAMBY CREEK
RM-DG-? B-2546
E 21-D a
BRIDGE NO. 418
G ?0
IIU+co
a o F nP?
t f/
?-
F
32
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN I80+00
I
l
Y
FIGURE 4
•1 n,c?
` 'V r
E a C A T Z O INN R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Tr ansoortat ; c
X E.I.S. _._._ CORRIDOR X DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= -8.2602501 _ COUNTY- Alternate _gA of _. Alternate
I.D. NO., 3-2546 F.A. PROJECT, N/A 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT s Rena I awe 13r i den.,#418 Over Haml*v s Creflk „l grate On• Z?J17
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOhE 1.-MJP+..
A e of Minor, .
c l aces Owners Tenants Total I ties 0_15M 15-25M 25---'rM 35-Sw SQ LP
Individuals 0 0 ? Q p Q Q--'--•-? ....-.• ? ,..,._-- ----? ,
Families Q Q 0 q (? p Lt p n
Businesses a 0 0 0 _ VALLE OF DWELLING ?- OM DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
M 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale Fat- Rent
,5n ri-....
Non-Prat i t 0 0 0 0 0-20M D 0-15€3 0 0-20M 1 0-1
_ ANSWER ALL QUESTION5 20-40M 0 ISLI-250 ? 0 20-ILDM 21 150-250 - D -
YES NO ID(PLAIN ALL AYES" ANSWERS 40,-7tH 0 250-400 0 40-70111 _ 68 '4Q-40[l Q -
. X 1 . W i l l 909c i a l relocation 70--100 0 4.00+-600 0 70-100 66 4130-600 Q
- services be necessary
X+ 2. W i I i schoo Is or churche5 be . 100 LP 0 600 LF 0 100 LP 63 X500 UP 0
---- - affected by displacement
--- - ,?-
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL Q 0 .`219 ?
-- be available after mrp lect ._ . -... ._., __ -- ?.
4. Will any business be die- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size
tvice, estimated number of 3. No businesses will be taken, gore#are, ell
-- emolovees, minorities, etc. serviags tkat exist will remain,.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. WI Ii relocation cause a
hous i nee shortage
b. Source for dvallaible hous- b.
ing (list)
7. Will additional housing
oregrgrns be needee!
8. Should Last Resort Housing 11.
be considered
9. Are, there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
X 10, Will public housing be
needed for orcject
It. Is nubile Housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
enuate 006, housing available
durins relocation coplod
13, Will there be a problem o4
X housins within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number niontks estimated to
complete RELOCATION a - 10 I
Multiple Li3ting Service, newsoamiprs) Realtors
and visual survey.
It Is available fr. the neishborinv_ CiteS oc
Thomasville and Lexinaton.
12, Based an available housing list.
14. No businesses will be effected by this oro.iect.

e2
- L:::<7
oTHRoaK a -z -9 ,0-
3 -z9'- f
Relocation Agent Date Aomroved Date
Form 15,4 Revised 5/90.- Oricinal & 1 Coov; State Relmeatien Agent
2 Cuoy: Area Relocation. File
nKI -Ml :GI Z0:80 NOW b6 . -b0-Z?dU -
? 19- Ct=12 L -94 or t2
-A ' I o N k t d l7 a `t" Ncrtk Cara l i na1 08aartinent of Traneaartat i bn
x .I. COMUM 8 OE5IGN RELOCATION ASSI5TA4d-
PR0.ILCT i 81 Y ?. Davidson A 1 t*rnate ? of Alternate
I.O . NO. i _8_25?ib i` . A. PROJECT= N/A
10MMIPTtON Or I0001ECT: Rb-- i ate Br i dsa #4i8 Over i-?bv's Creek Located On ? 20 7
E'STIMATM L -4UCEM
T tea of Ml riar-
Urkahts, Tou i I t 3 as CI_ISM i5-25M
DYsas i at#6 Oql
Indlvlduals Q t3 0 p p
Ftlmilt es ' 2 4 13 0 1

BUS 1 MOMops 0 0 0 0 VAL Lrz OF 1wt..L I1JG
Farms .0 a 0 a OWtillfrll TOnants
Non-Prafit 0 0 0 a 0-Zi l 0 a-250
*M" ALL 0-W1 0% 2t??4t3M 0 1503-250
YES NO MAIN ALL JJY MU&S 40-7tH 2 250 4130
X 1. Will 604 141 W ocation 70-100 0. 400-600
Derv i ces be hot> 5garv
X -2. W i I I §choo i D or thurches be 100 UP l3
affaeted by dlsclAcomgnt
x W I I I butIna9! 4&pvIcat stIII TOTAL 2
be dva 1 i dtb i # df for cro fact
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X,
x
2
4. Wi I i snv bus I Mess b@ dis- ROMS (Resoand by Number)
ME DAM-LINGS AVAIL48LE
For Sa I e For Rent
0-20M 1 S 0-I,50 7.
20-40M 21 1513-250 9
ILD- -MM 68 2SO-400 13
70-100 66 400-600 5
100 U' 1 63 1600 !.P i a
21,9 1 1 34
014ced. If 5d) ihdiceto D12e
tynaf .*stlMttb<l numbor of 3. No businesses will be taken therefore, all
4mo1oyees, minol-Iti#si etc, sopvIeos that do exist will remain.
5, W i l l r o i acit 1 qn +~,'1444 A
hau3 I ng 8h6ptAte
6. Sourc6 for AvaIl6bIa 14ous- 6. Local newsmeoers: Realtors and visual survey.
Ing tltat)
7. Will additiamAl housing
Program9 ba! n#6d4d
5. Should L#st•Rllkdrt Housing 8, Will be 1molemented as netessarv,
b# considered
9. AriP tk"e 1 #rgg3 d i lab l ed,
#tderlyt Ott. 4m11164 11. Is available In the nelaliboring Cites of
la. au c 5M ng a --
mb4dad foe ordj#ct
11. 16 public kwaiho ovaII-
Ab Itai
12. ID it felt thtra will be ad-
adu8to DIM Mug Ihj ava11ab1s
during relocation earl cad
13. Will thgrr.6v # aroblem of
Mtluging wlthlh f1hanclal
104na
14. Art au l tab l i buli 1 i oso sites
avi l l ab l# ( l i s t sbui-co )
15. limb@r months alit i mated to
Como l ete RELOCATION a-Z-U
r.
K01=4t t an Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
Thomasville and Lexington.
12. Based are available kousing list.
U. No businesses will be Affected by this arolect.
M, AR 3 0 R14
Q3-24-94
Oate
nN -711
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M 3-7-513M ;illy'
0 ? 0
1 2 a
0
2
fl
0
LP 1 0
to
Original & 1 Ccov, State Relocation Agent
2 Coov, Area Relocation Flte
:G1 T0:80 NOW b6 b0-i:ldtt.?.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
.Project Number: C( y -c County: z24
Project Name: C2
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box' 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
__t,__?This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewe
/?/-6r
Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Ae-eir'-1 ///8194
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Cvotina
Department of Environment. Health, and Niatural Resoums Reviewing Of fit*: INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. 14? 4 Tue Date-
? ? y 8S
After review of this project It has been determined that the EIriNR permit(s) andfor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for"project to Wmply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regionii Office indicated on the reverse of file Corm.
Alf apphcatPIrm. WofMabon and puidelrnes relative 10 these plans and permits are available from the same
RagiCftal Office.
Normal Process
T
rine
PERMITS
? SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUiREMENTS fatatutory two
limit)

D Permirto Construct t operate wastewater treatment
m
iliti
t
t
i
f
r
i Application 90 COO before begin construdion or award of 20 says
e
ex
ac
es. sewe
sys
ens
ons.
sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Poat•apPI"ipn
systems not discharging into stale surface waders. NChricat conference us" AO cap)
NPO£S • permit to discharge into surface water armor Application 180 says before begin activity. Or*site aispectron. ti4120 says
n permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities P+e-application Conference usual Asditionarty. obtain permit to
iJ discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
time. 3b days after receipt of pans or issue of NPOES
permil- whichever is later.
D Water LOW Peenlt Pis-appfication lechri cat conference usually necessary 30 days
1NIA)
D Wolf Constriction Permit Complete application
al
ceired and Permit issued
°i
ns
a on o 7days
l
prior
i
t
f a w
all (1S dews)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent rioarian property 65 says
edge and Fitt Peeen owner On-site inspection. Pre-application t:.onference usuai filling
awy require Easement to Fill from N.C Depanment of M days)
"Ministration one Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
?srmif to t Onstruct t opiate Art Pollution Abatement
f
i
r
• 60 days
ac
lities and
o
Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 211K WA (90 days)
A opln burning associated with subject proposal
crust be in eompr.anct with 15A NCAC 20.0x.+20.
Dornolitron or renovalrons of structures containing
astiesios ma!eria' must to in comptrance with 1SA W days
D NCAC 2D 052: which requires notification and removal NSA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0820 19C days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.

D The Sedimentation Poliution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any Land disturbing; activity. An erosion S sedrmentatro
control plan wilt be required if one or more acres t0 be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouatity Sect.) at least 30 20 days
em is before be^•nn.n activity A fee or S3C for the first acre and 52000 for ea_h additro"a' nto of an mus! accom an the tan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrericed Local Ordinance: 00 days)
On site Inspection usual Surety bond fired with EKNR Bond amount
Mining Perm" varies with type mine end number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received t>efore the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning perm" On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it perm" 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
D Special Ground Clearance Burning Perm" • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -11 more 1 day
Counties to toasts: N.C. with orp,ank soAtt than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved inspections (NW
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'
-
- 9o 120 days
IA
Oil Refining Facilities -
NIA (N
)
If permit required. a:)ptication 60 days before begin construction.

D Appticartl must hire N C. quatdred engineer to- prepare plans. 30 days
Darn Safely Permit, Inspect COnsiruc•':• , cep i onsiruclion fs according to CHNR epprOr•
' ed plans. May atso rvquae permit under mosquito conlrof program. And (60 drys)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is neees•
sa-y to verily Hazard Crassdication. A minimum fee of $20000 must ae'
company, the applica';on. An additional processing fee based on a
w•rr.efa^? Or the 1Ctat OrOitLt lost Witt be --;-d upon Completion

Nomy? ?reCess
iwne
•ERMfTS XPECtAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS tsut
time

o
IYmit
hit)

]
RnnM m tt1?ta eapi mory on or
n wn FIR suety done of ".000 with ErtNlt running to $We of NL.
n
iti
l 10 ars
i co
ona
d
t"t any well opened by drill operator owl. upon
- _ aDandonehenl, a plugger according to EKNR rules and regulations.
3 Peopfrrait:at Esploraton genial Application tad with CHNR of Mast 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
1 Application by letter. No, Stand" applitatron loon INCA)
Etatt Uka twoructioa permit Application fee based on atructm silt Is charged Must kwuee W220
tsars
descriptions a drawings of structure l proof Of owrrotwup #&A)
of nparon poperly.
ACS water Ouaatr Cenifrcalron •&A i0 days
n>o ars)
t'.A1,tA hnett be bil"M devetoprnent 44230-0 in mast
acc°e'pa"r application 5s days
I150 tsar:)

CAMIL Permit br MlWR developrrrent
00.00 fee must accompany application 22 oar:
as ars)
Several Wdetrt: N10numents Wt located in or nea• the project area ff and rn0nurnents need 10 be moved Or destrOred. Was" notify:
M.C Geodetic surrey, Box t76d7, Ita?aigh. N.C. 27611
Abar4wr*nt of any wolfs. if reQuirac. must Ot in accordance with Tale 13A, Subchapter 2C40100.
Notification of the peoper regional offree is requested 0 -wphan' undergroune storage tanks (tlSTS) are discovered during any excavation Operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 a4astat Stonewater Rules) is requited. e5 days
1r41A)
Oltwl comments (attach edd,tronar paper as t»cessary, b0ing certain to tale comment authonty):

TI

I
I
L
t
t
L
L
C
C
s
REGIONAL OFFICES
Oueslions regarding these permits should be•addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
U Ashevilfe Reptonat ONrce
fi
59 W
P ? Fayetteville Regional Office
n
ood
lace Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] (9191486.1541
0 Mooresville Regional Ottiee
919 North Main Slieet, P.O. Box 950 ? Ra'eiph Regional of rice
3&)0 Earfett Drive
Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 ,
Ra'e;gh, NC 27609
(7041663.1699 (9191733-2314
?Vtashington Regional office 111:itmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington. NC 27889 Wilmington. NC 28405
• (91919-6-6481 [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A r4**
WA
Division of Environmental Management
dft
James B. Hunt, , Secretary p E
Jonathan B. Howes, SecreLats
H N 1?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy
FROM: Monica SwihartthWater Quality
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0485; Scoping
Replacement of Bridge #418 Ova
County, B-2546, SR 2017
Development
Planning Branch
- NC DOT Proposed
ar Hamby's Creek, Davidson
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a 'section of Hamby's Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10490er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program &W.,LA4
DATE: January 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 418 on SR 2017 over Hambys
Creek, Davidson County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2546,
SCH Project No. 94-0485.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have conducted a site visit on January 21, 1994 and
have the following preliminary comments on the replacement of
Bridge No. 418 on Hambys Creek in Davidson County. Our comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC
25).
Hambys Creek is a wide, shallow stream with fair fish
habitat and has a possible wetland area at the Northeast corner
of the bridge. We have no fish sampling data for this stream.
We recommend the bridge be replaced onsite with an offsite
detour. If wetlands are impacted, appropriate mitigation is
requested.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
requests 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
A .
Memo
Page 2 January 27, 1994
habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David Cox,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
cc: Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
?w w?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
January 31, 1994
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
4911 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Replace Bridge No. 418 on SR 2017 over Hamby's
Creek, Davidson County, B-2546, ER 94-8106, CH
94-E-0000-0485
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse, as well as your letter of December 29, 1993.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this
structure is not located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition; the structure is
neither listed in nor eligible for listing in the National Register as an individual
property. We, therefore, have no comment on the project with regard to historic
structures.
The floodplain on the. east side of Bridge 418 over Hamby Creek is a likely location
for prehistoric archaeological remains. This opinion is based upon analysis of
other site locations in the Hamby Creek vicinity which suggest a high frequency of
occurrence within similar topographic situations.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the treasurer, J. Barto Arnold, III, P.O. Box 13265, Austin, Texas
78711-3265. Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist,
may be contacted to conduct the recommended investigations.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Lisa S. Hilliard
January 31, 1994, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 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.
Sincerely,
r
ID! Broo?
4-)-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosure
cc: "State
Clearinghouse
N. Graf
H. F. Vick
B. Church
P. Harris
1
PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Intergovemmental Review Process 2216 W. Meadowview Road fRECEIVED
Gr eensboro, NC .27407-3480 0 ? )gQ
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] JAN
REVIEW & COMMENT FORM z ;
Coo R
The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information abou?a p Usal ich
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you'believe• eed to be
informed.
If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification of Intent".
If you wish to comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it to the
PTCOG office by January 28th, 1994.
We will send your comments to the. State Clearinghouse to be included in a
recommendation to the proposed funding agency.
State Application Identifier #94-E-0000-0485 Bridge Replacement - Hamby's Creek
Commenter's Name & Title Norman Shronce. County Manager
Representing Davidson County Phone # [phone]
Mailing Address County Courthouse, Lexington, NC 27292
D '
Date Signed
-•??-`?'
i ture
COMMENTS: (You may attach additional sheets.)
0->'1*a?Wro6BAa,rJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
January 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
4 4
?EHNR
DrI FEB - 1 119,094
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart*,hWater Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0485; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #418 Over Hamby's Creek, Davidson
County, B-2546, SR 2017
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Hamby's Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10490er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper