19950941 Ver 1_Complete File_19950907

IV
ST/VFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 29, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:

R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
Subject: Cabarrus County - Replacement of Bridge No. 148 on SR 1132 over the
Rocky River; State Project No. 8.2662201; T.I.P. No. B-2808
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration.as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, 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. 2745 (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, nor their review.
U
August 29, 1995
Page 2 • i '
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
B. G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Philip Harris, P. E., Planning & Environmental

• ,
Cabarrus County
SR 1132
Bridge No. 148
Over Rocky River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1132(1)
State Project No. 8.2662201
T.I.P. No. B-2808
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-71ZEZ?5-
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
26 S a ?a
DATE Jam., Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
"t" ' Division Administrator, FHWA
J ?
Cabarrus County
SR 1132
Bridge No. 148
Over Rocky River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1132(1)
State Project No. 8.2662201
T.I.P. No. B-2808
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
,???«urrrrrirr? ?
Pamela R. Williams ••??N.CARp??
Project Manager ?,.?4ESSlal? '
SEAL
7521 r'
lit"C
P.E.
mes ang, Ph.D., 'q'hES 3 ??•WP?•••
Principal ?o ;4olor+
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
??&41 alu_?
L. ai rimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Phil Harri , P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Cabarrus County
SR 1132
Bridge No. 148 Over Rocky River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1132(1)
State Project No. 8.2662201
T.I.P. No. B-2808
Bridge No. 148 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
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 will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project
prior to construction.
3. In-water work will not be permitted in April or May as requested by North Carolina Wildlife
Resource Commission.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 148 will be replaced on new location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a
new bridge having a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length of approximately 100
meters (328 ft).
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
grade at this location.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders including 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved, for approximately 320 meters (1050 ft) north of the
bridge and 100 meters (300 ft) south of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,300,000 including $50,000 for right-of-way
and $1,250,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $1,542,000 including $42,000 for right-of-way and
$1,500,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1132 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily forest land, residential and agricultural in the immediate vicinity
of the bridge. Three stone piers from a nineteenth century bridge stand approximately 16 m
(52 ft) west (upstream) of Bridge No. 148.
Near the bridge, SR 1132 has a 5.4 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
shoulders. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the south side and has a 220
meter radius (8 degree) curve at the end of the bridge on the north side having a design speed
of 75 kmh (45 mph). The vertical alignment is relatively flat. The roadway is approximately 9.8
meters (32 ft) above the river bed.
The projected traffic volume is 2200 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 4000 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 90 kmh (posted 55 mph) at the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and
piles for ten spans and reinforced concrete post and beams for the main three spans over
Rocky River.
The overall length of the bridge is 97.9 meters (321 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.9 meters
(19.2 ft). The posted weight limit is 9,080 kilograms (10 tons) for single vehicles and 11,804
kilograms (13 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 148 has a sufficiency rating of 23.7, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994.
Aerial utility lines are located on the northwest side of Bridge No. 148 and east side of SR 1132
in the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Cabarrus County School buses cross the bridge eighteen times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 148. Each alternate consists of a bridge
approximately 100 meters (328 ft) long with a clear roadway width of 9.2 meter (30 ft). This
structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on
each side. The approach roadway will be a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders including 0.6 m (2 ft) paved.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment with a
temporary on-site detour. An off site detour was also considered but due to an inadequate
2
t F
detour route available and the considerable volume of traffic (eighteen buses daily), it was not
economically feasible.
The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. A design exception
would be required to tie into the horizontal alignment from the north approach due to the curve
with a radius of 220 meters (8 degree) having a design speed of 75 kmh (45 mph).
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 12 meters (40 ft)
west of its existing location. The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the
same as the existing bridge. A design speed of 90 kmh (55 mph) will be provided. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1132.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 43,400 $ 43,400
Structure (proposed) 547,200 547,200
Detour Structure .125,500 0
Roadway Approaches 256,600 241,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 291,300 249,600
Engineering and Contingencies 186,000 168,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 42,000 50,000
TOTAL $1,492,000 $1,300,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate B is recommended because it improves the horizontal alignment to provide the posted
speed, costs approximately $192,000 less than Alternate A, and maintains traffic on the
existing bridge during construction of its replacement.
The Division Engineer agrees with the recommendation that the structure be replaced on new
location.
Bridge No. 148 will be replaced approximately 12 meters (40 ft) west of the existing location
with a new structure approximately 100 meters (328 ft) in length. A 9.2 meter (30 ft) clear
roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current
NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3.0 ft)
shoulder across the structure.
3
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved, will
be provided on the proposed approaches. The design speed will be 90 kmh (55 mph).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 100 meters (328 ft). The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Cabarrus County (Figure 1) south of
Concord, North Carolina. The project site is located within the southwest portion of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province. Cabarrus County is primarily agricultural but is rapidly
becoming an industrial and urban county with close ties to the Charlotte metropolitan area.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Concord SE); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Concord SE); USFWS list of protected and candidate
species; N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and
unique habitats; and N. C. Division of Environmental Management fisheries database.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast
biologists on October 11, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
using a variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meter (80.0 feet)
wide right-of-way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 158.0 meters (520.0 feet) above sea
level.
This portion of Cabarrus County contains soils from the Enon-Mecklenburg-Poindexter soil
association, which are gently sloping to very steep, well drained soils that have a clayey or
loamy subsoil. The project study area can be characterized as a moderately sloping, mostly
wooded area with an old roadbed along the west side of the northern approach and a cleared
utility line right of way along the east side of the southern approach and bridge.
4
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Plan-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches, as well as the old roadbed on the west side of SR 1132 and the utility line
easement along the east side. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.),
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain
(Plantago ruge1h) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas including
the old roadbed powedine easement are vegetated by some of the above as well as, goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), kudzu
(Pueraria lobata), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and saplings of box elder (Acer
negundo), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along the Rocky River. The dominant
canopy trees in this area include river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica),
American sycamore, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). An
understory of dogwood (Comus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis), and other saplings could
also be found in this community. The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle,
greenbrier, muscadine grape (Vids rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), switch
cane (Arundinaria giantea), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron). Animals previously
listed may also be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon lotor), Cooper's Hawk
(Accipiter cooperii), red-bellied woodpecker (Centurus carolinus), and a variety of woodland
birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
5
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists in the Rocky River. Within the project area the
Rocky River is approximately 22.8 meters (75.0 feet) wide. On the day of investigation the
stream was flowing swiftly and was very muddy from a moderate rainfall (1.5 inches in
Charlotte) the day before. The stream bottom was not visible, but the shoreline was rocky and
boulders were visible within the stream. Wrack lines and debris in the trees indicated a flood
level up to 3.0 meters (10.0 feet) above what was observed.
The stream banks were moderately sloped, 1.5 to 3.0 meters (5.0-10.0 feet) high, with some
rock outcrops, and vegetated with sycamore, river birch, and box elder. Animals such as the
belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and
Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) may reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkin seed (Lepomis gibbosus), creek chubs, and darters
would be expected to be found in the Rocky River. Due to the large size and depth of the river,
macroinvertebrates such as mayfly, stonefly and caddisfly larvae would be confined to the
shallow rocky areas and snag habitats along the shoreline. The macroinvertebrate fauna within
the main channel would be dominated by chironomid larvae, oligochaetes and freshwater
molluscs.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. Temporary impacts to downstream aquatic
habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES(ACRES)
B-148 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.24 (0.69) 0.24 (0.69) 0.04 (0.10) 0.52 (1.48)
Alternative B 0.15 (0.46) 0.58(l.35) 0.02 (0.05) 0.75(1.86)
Terrestrial Communities
The man-dominated and mixed hardwood communities will receive the greatest impact from
construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal
species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.15
6
hectare(0.46 acre) of man-dominated and 0.58 hectare (1.35 acres) of mixed harwood
communities
Aquatic Communities
The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.02 hectare(0.05 acre) of
stream bottom. The new bridge construction and approach work may temporarily increase
sediment loads in the stream. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential
adverse effects will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" and the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as
specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Pee Dee River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
The Rocky River originates near Mooresville, NC and is a major perennial tributary within the
Pee Dee River basin entering the Pee Dee just south of Lake Tillery near Cedar Hill, NC. The
stream flows east to west through the proposed project area, with a width at the bridge of 22.8
meters (75.0 feet). The shoreline is rocky with coarse sand. Large rocks are present in the
river. The Rocky River has a Class C rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or
other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management does not maintain a Benthic
Macroinvertebrate sampling station on the Rocky River within or near the project area. They do
have a fish sampling station on the Rocky River at the project crossing. According to an
October 1986 sampling report, the fish community is dominated by the satinfin shiner
(Moxostoma robustum), bluehead chub (Nocomis heptocephalus), shiners (Notropis spp.) and
perch (Percina crassa).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project
construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No.
148 with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short
term impacts to the aquatic community will result due to the placement of support piles in the
creek channel. 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 the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Rocky River has well defined banks
within the bridge replacement limits. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact
area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). Approximately 0.02 hectare(0.05 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur
due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 148.
Permits
Construction will to be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Nationwide Permit NO. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusion's due to the
expected minimal impacts. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, mitigation will not be required. Mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due
to natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed
for Cabarrus County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Cabarrus County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
8

TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR CABARRUS COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Lasmigona decorata' Carolina heelsplitter E
Helianthus schweinitrii Schweinitz's sunflower E
notes:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
""" indicates that no specimen has been found in Cabarrus County in at least 20 years.
The Carolina heelsplitter is the southernmost mussel in the genus Lasmigona on the eastern
coast. It has a shell that is an ovate trapezoid and can reach a length of 118.0 mm (4.6 inches)
with a height of 68.0 mm (2.71 inches) and a width of 39.0 mm (1.5 inches). The dorsal margin
is straight and may end with a slight wing. The umbo is flattened. The beaks are depressed and
project a little above the hinge line with a double looped sculpture. The unsculptured shell can
have a yellowish, greenish or brownish periostracum with greenish or blackish rays.
Historically the Carolina heelsplitter was recorded from the Abbeville District in South Carolina,
and around Mecklenberg County in North Carolina. Sampling in 1988 (Kefed and Shelley)
produced specimens in Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union County, North Carolina. All
specimens were found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs
along steep banks with a moderate current. All individuals were found in less than 1.0 meter
(3.0 feet) of water on substrates of soft mud, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel.
Although listed for Cabarrus County, the Carolina heelsplitter has not been found in the
County within the last twenty years. According to the habitat described above, the
heelsplitter prefers small, high quality streams. At the project location the Rocky River is
fairly wide, fast moving, and loaded with sediment after a rainfall. Mr. John Alderman,
Non-game Biologist with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, also
confirmed that the it was unlikely that the Carolina heelspitter would be found within the
Rocky River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1 to 2 meters (3.28 to
6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or
above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the
lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick
texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of
yellow flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3 to 3.5 millimeters (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long
and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and
edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high
gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
9
-11
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched by Resource Southeast biologists on October 11, 1994 for the
presence of Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of this species were observed in or
adjacent to the study area. It can be concluded that the proposed project will not impact
this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Candidate
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened or Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Cabarrus
County and their state status. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
CABARRUS COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Federal/State Present
Dactylothere peedeensis W No
(Pee Dee ostracod)
Nestronia umbellula * SR No
(Nestronia)
Lotus purshianus var. helled C No
(Heller's trefoil)
notes:
"*" denotes no specimen from Cabarrus County has been found in at least 20 years
C denotes Candidate species are considered by the State as being rare and needing
population monitoring.
SR denotes significant rare species for which population monitoring and conservation action
is recommended.
W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concern,
but not warranting active monitoring at this time.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat exists in the project area for the federally protected Schweinitz's sunflower, but no
individuals of this species were found during a habitat search. No impacts to protected species
will result from any of the proposed project alternatives. Also, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare species or habitats in
the project area.
10

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in 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 alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned 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 Historical 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 the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of
the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested "that a comprehensive
survey be conducted by experienced archaeologist" prior to construction. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project will
be conducted prior to construction. A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA
to the SHPO for review. Further consultation will be conducted if necessary.
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 U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.53 hectare (1.31 acres) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 73,129
hectares (180,611 acres) of prime or important soils found in Cabarrus County. The impact
rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating,
11
indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 79.7 out of a possible 260. A
score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Cabarrus County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
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 SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
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.
Cabarrus County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The detail
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.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due
to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
12
5

-? _ - •--? - - fib'
sdn- 36 10 • senheimer
5 19 Kanoapoli ? ;
III : •
36 ?• 12 t
l3
13 "cor?;*
svllle 3 1 7 ? Moun Pleasant
29 4 !49 •?"
A '. A 4i`R U S,?
X11.,.
_', /8
ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
RANSPORTATION
IVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
RANCH
BRIDGE NO. 148
CABARRUS COUNTY
B-2808
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
1 1
CABARRUS COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 148
B-2808
LOOKING NORTH
ON SR 1132

LOOKING SOUTH
ON SR 1132
al M
A.1t1

CABARRUS
COUNTY
B-2808
ZO

_ O.

C7

m q UMIT OF- 92c^ UM
-? STUDY S
ZONE X - 27

UMIT OF LIMIT OF =
Jt7/?CJ
STUDY
rf

Z o
r
Onc STUDY
ON l
_ - -
weoo LANE
BOST -
A ZONE X
ZONE X _ -
RM _ --
:
ZONE-
X -_
RM 198
_ti _ - = ip qq4 _ - q IMIT OF
STUDY
- PR;DGE ZONE
R M 19
148, X
--
-__
= - ---
_ ZONE -- - _-
-= --_ -~
_
_ _ _
'_ ZONE -T ZONE.._ - _--
?
x X _ - -
AE ZONE .: _ LIMIT OF
32 X STUDY Z ONE-
_ ZONE X =
_
.
Cabar
1 00 YEAR FLOOD ZONE U rl l Il C O T'
- ZONE X = 3.

.? ZONE X '
`` °..
•' .
ZONE' „3z _ i
AE;

ZONE: X
71.

:?PPROX[ATE SCALE
NdETERS

0 I
:00 ?
lIJUU
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
STATI N
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1995, transmitting the concurrence forms
for nineteen bridge replacement projects. I have signed and dated them, and they
are enclosed.
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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
V
Preservation Officer
Enclosures
cc: VH. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 PEP
Federal Aid # 1 County
-TIP n
CONCURRENCE FOPOYI
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1`eeucc, V7r-toi?r;. 49• i4b co 5tz. tt3z- evt:r- p-czky R?ve{Z
On Jx-Mun.p_y G , 1'1'15 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highwav Administration (FHwA)
V North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed Nr'-, 4,r<a- rlet-l ' VwA 1?1'" uKh?n, ? J? ??? opt ?FFKh?d 1;? {- b,.{
Wer+ i?w.yii J:•(;cvt .tn arcinnu t<??}'?,1
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's rea of poten`ial effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therrrrrs necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
Z::?z r Tzy:2.2? ///// 9
FHwA, (W the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer
c;d17;,ArF UC,
/ -2-6-
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
s?
T
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary williat
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tcatsportation
FROM: David Brook
State stone Pre ervatOfficer
Deputy
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
?El?
O
DEC 1 3 1994
D1VISICNI n?
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2822, Davidson County on SR 1743 over Abbott's Creek on which
we commented by letter of March 22, 1994 to Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway
Administration, we have no recording of having seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
Wang Engineering Company, Inc., to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-
Earley to check our maps and files or to have her review aerial photographs or
maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge #3 on SR 1547 over Duck Creek, B-2647, Union County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
may be located in the floodplain and first terrace areas of the proposed project.
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.
Bridge #148 on SR 1132 over Rocky River, B-2808, Cabarrus County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 pl ?
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 2
may be located within the proposed project area. 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.
Bridge #90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-2857, Randolph County
Bridge #404 on SR 2830 over Richland Creek, B-2858, Randolph County
Bridge #1 on SR 1526 over Grants Creek, B-2865, Rowan County
Bridge #78 on SR 1556 over East Prong Deep River, B-2833, Guilford County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the immediate project
vicinity. We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed project upon as yet
unrecorded resources until we have a location and project details.. Please forward
this information when it is available.
Bridge #56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV401 is located on both sides of NC 150 north of Reedy
Creek and may be affected by the proposed replacement. As soon as the project
location- and details are available, please forward them to us for our review. If
affected, 31 DV401 should be tested to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Bridge #84 on NC 150 over Fryes Creek, B-2821, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV414 is located east of NC 150 and north of Fryes Creek.
It is probable that this Archaic and Woodland period site will be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement. We recommend that the project area be surveyed
and, if affected, 31 DV414 be tested to determine its eligibility for the National
Register.
Bridge #139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Although no archaeological survey was recommended in our preliminary comments
concerning this project (our letter of March 22, 1994), a thorough staff review
suggests the proposed project area may contain unrecorded archaeological
remains. Our earlier comments did not incorporate the recommendation of our
staff which indicated a high probability factor for the broad floodplain and first
terraces within the proposed project area. Therefore, 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.
Bridge #72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River, B-2804, Avery County
Bridge #54 on SR 1122 over Warrier Creek, B-2874, Wilkes County
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
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 3
activities.
Bridge #59 on NC 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard RR, B-3089, Yancey
County
We recommend an archaeological, survey, be conducted if this involves a new
alignment or if there--is any other new disturbance.
Bridge #74 on SR 1695 over US 421 and Southern RR, B-3175, Guilford County
Bridge #101, SR 1917 over Norfolk Southern RR, B-2867, Stanly County
Bridge #50 on SR 2245 over Kings Creek, B-2817, Cleveland County
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
PIC
`LNi }1 i., _ .?! ...w'. Yeti... a'???•
9 -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: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program , <•.;
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Group VII Bridge
Replacement Projects in North Carolina, SCH
Project No. 95-0298.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have the following preliminary comments
on the subject bridge replacements. 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).
After reviewing the information provided and data we
have on the subject streams we have the following comments
and recommendations:
B-2126, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
Two small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridge. There is a broad,
forested floodplain along this section of stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
wide with sandy substrate and has fair fish habitat.
There are no known endangered or threatened fauna
concerns at this site. We recommend that the bridge be
replaced with a spanning structure, on-site with road
closure. NCDOT should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
2. B-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River.
The North Toe River is habitat for many pollution
iCWRC,HCP , FALLS LAKE TEL : [phone],59 Dec Ut " 94 1t :4J No. UUt F. U r
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at
this site. We also stock this section of the river
yearly with catchable-sized trout. Downstream we have
found the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravencli.ana),
federally listed endangered (E) and the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni), state listed endangered.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect: the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
3. B-2808, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky River.
At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested
floodplain some of which may be wetlands. This section
of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a
rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing
excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened
or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that
the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No
in-water work should be performed in April or May.
P.lso, no in-stream cover should be removed including
the old granite bridge abutment located upstream from
the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for
wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and
erosion controls throughout the project. If possible,
we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for
fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for
bank fishing.
4. S-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek.
We have no recent fishery data at this site and no
threatened or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our District 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau,
[phone], on this project.
5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do not oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a "dry" box to allow wildlife passage.
6. B-2822, Davidson County, on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek.
Abbotts Creek is a small stream with a fair fishery.
There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at
this site. We have no specific recommendations at this
time.
4CWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15 50 No.006 P.08
Memo
Page 3
December 6, 1994
7. B-2647, Union County, on SR 1547 over Duck Creek. This
may actually be on Goose Creek. Goose Creek is a small
stream with good pools and riffles, rocky substrate and
excellent in-stream cover. There appears to be quality
bottomland hardwood wetlands on both sides of the
stream. Goose Creek is excellent fish and wildlife
habitat and serves as habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) which is federally
listed endangered (E). We recommend that NCDOT hold an
on-site visit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and NCWRC personnel to discuss this project.
8. B-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Deep River. The stream at this location is too small
to be of fishing significance; however, it is a
tributary to the water supply for High Point. We
recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this
location. This stream likely serves as an important
wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer that this
bridge be replaced with a spanning structure.
9. B-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek.
This stream provides a fair fishery for sunfish and
catfish. We prefer that the bridge be replaced with a
spanning structure.
10. B-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2830 over Richland
Creek. This stream is too small at this location to be
of fishing significance.
11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek.
Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools.
The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands, possibly
wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey for wetlands.
We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with
road closure. We also request that there be no in-
water work in April or May.
12. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over
Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment.
13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek.
Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately
25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel,
cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard
soil and erosion control measures be used at this site.
14. B-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Railroad. This section of the North Toe
River contains many pollution intolerant species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elktoe
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:50 No.006 P.09
Memo
Page 4
December 6, 1994
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), federally listed endangered
(E) effective 12/23/94, has been found. Approximately
2 miles downstream of the project the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni), state listed endangered,
has been found near the mouth of the South Toe River.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
15. B-3175, Guilford County, on SR 1695 over US 421 and
Southern Railroad. No comment.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
expects the NCDOT to 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 all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David
Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects .
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
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., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihar,,Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be considered in
the Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions)
prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the stream classifications of the streams
potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50'. recycled/ 10`x, post-consumer pcper
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
J. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
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.
10777er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
• Ctato of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Ra=urcas
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. Due Date:
q5-OaG? 1D, I _Cl

After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicted may need to be obtaineC In
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicted on the reverse of the form.
All appfications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the tz=

Regional ONico. Horinat Process
Time
•
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS tstatutory time
hmill
Permit to eonutruet A operate wastewater trsatrrwnt Appfication 00 Cays before begin construction Or &waM Of 30 clays
facilities. sewer system extensions. L aawrer construction contra:!s on-site inspection. Post,applitation
aysterlts not iSiscitarging into state Surface water&. .101-nnical eanfefencu usual aays)
NPDES • permit to Ciw.arge into surface water ar'Wor Apalrcation 130 cars before be;rn activity. on-site inspection. cc-12!: Cars
permit io operate and consituc! wastewater f=i=shes
l tart•applicslion confetence usual Additionally. Obtain permn to
Otschargin.; into slate sur
ate waters. gnstruct wastt+rater treatment fa;ility•grantec after NPDES Reply (NIA)
tint. 30 Cays after receipt of pla.:s or issue of NPDES
permit-whiCnern to Latta.
Water (1st Permit
Pit-appfiuttOn tecnnrCa) conference usually r+cCCSSary 30 cars
(NIA)
Well C441firuCiton Ptrmil Complete a7pliCitron molt be recti.eC and permit ilsurd 7 aays
prior to the installation of a wail. (15 days)
- '-
Fit
D
P Application Capy must be s_-ved on tack adjacent nparian prcperifr 5! days
t
trma
redge arvd owner On-site inspection. Prt-a;pNcalron conference usual Filling
May repuire Easement to Fill from N C 11e;artment of (90 clays)
A rianislratlon anC Federal OrMge and F,II Permit.
Permit 10 Construct L ope.ale Air PLllution Aeatemeni
f
E
il
i
t 60 days
a:
it es ana
miss
o•
on Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. NIA (9C days)
Any open burning assx:a:e6 wilt,. subleci proposal
must t>e in eom;%ance with 15A NCAC
G.emolifron or ten0•aLons of s!ruc!ures contarmng
asresiCS malaria' must be in compliance with 1SA 6C days
NCAC 2005.5 whrcr. re,uires nctiftiatrcn and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contacl Ast?esles Control Groin
gig 733.0820 (9C da
s)
Complex Source Fe!mit required under 1_A NCAC 20 0800 , y
ZI?e Scdimentatron Poliui,on Control Ac, of 1$73 must be prc;.erfy addressed for any rand CrsturJin; aclivlty An eres-on 8 se=.mentalro
? control plan will be required if one or more acres to t:e d,Stur"•.ed Plan flied with prc;.e! Re;,cna' C!f-ce (Land Cual.ty Sec', I aI least 30 2'W days
da.s berore be-.nn nn act v t A fee or 130 for the first acre and Sn 00 for ea_` aav-ona' acre o! art mus! acco-.:anv the clan 130 davsl
J The Se^.rmenlztron Pollution Co.n.lro! Act of 1972 must be addresses with res;e•cl to ace re'e!lence_ Local Or(:inanes: (30 days)
On site Inspection usual Surety bond filed wilt: EHNR Bond amount
Mning Permit varies with Type mine and number c! acres of affected fang Any area 3v days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. Tt a a;;r0;nale bond (6u" Cays)
must De received berore the permit can Ce issued.
North Catalina Burning permit on site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permil 1 day
exceeds a days (NIA)
Special Ground C:earance Burning Permit • 22 Cn site inspection by N D. Cirision Forest resources requ(md -if more 1 day
Couni;ct In eoaSta! N.C. will. organk "Ill% tl:an lire acres of ground clearing aC!ivllies art (nro!•ed lnspections (t11A)
should be requested at feast ten days t.cfere actual burn is planned.-
i l;J 120 Cays
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (N:A)
If pe!mlt requite-d. a;pl;cv;on &I days before bv-.:n ccn:!ruction.
Appl.canl must hire, N C. quzliLed eng;r•eer to pre;a!e ;fans. 33 days
J C.rn Cry Permit in.?,,rt G .nslrri:• _.,; cc! . J)-Iruc:icn IL BSCOrd-n? IC CHN' i a;prov•
r
e-i plan_.
Mzy al-,-.: icqu;le pC:mit under mo5gC;fo ror.:rcl pro;ram. And (Es drys)
a Lr,< pC!rnil from Cops of En,iaCCrs Ar. inspection of site is nKcs•
sary to veiny Ii,:are C:e::.rica!ion. A minimum fee c! S ^? CY rr.usl ad•
eor ;any tr.e a;;lica! e,n. An eddfliuna p•occc.ir•g fuc L .:cd on a
^",. •^!>^r Cr IL.e lc!. .'C_-S! ce_ w.. L,.T ... , rc+ G!roon

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Numoer: Due Date:
, ? 7 S -C,.: ? I01;_ /-? - /-mil (?
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Prcces:
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutcry tern?
limit)
---- Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
!
?1
L! facilities, sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post -aopiication
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days) i
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. ootain permit to
l_ iiscnarging ;nio state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply IN14l
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 pays

III
Darer Use Pelmit I
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
_....__ (NrA)
7 days
( jI Well Cdnstruc:ton Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 Gays)
t
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 cavs
r-- Dredge ano F•.t Permit owner. On-site Inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 9G ca.r
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
r e!r..t c _-nstruc: & operate Air Pouutlcn Abatement 60 ca._
__ any ,,. Ernisslon Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 I
NIA 190
Any oven turning associated with sublet: proposal i
r- must ce n ccmoliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
e nou; c? . cyaucns of structures containing
asbesics mate•iai must be in compiiance with 15A 50 .avs
N%:.C 2D .52. vnicn requires nclificat:cn and removal N/A j
pricr :p :=!r.--:.t:cn Contact Asbesics Control Group
ofo.7 s3 Oc"2? i9'2 -Si

r-I Ccmp:e, S ice aermit recurred uncer 15A NC:.C 20.0800.
i
Pcfluticn Controi Act of 1973 must be properly addressee for any land disturbing acnvity An eresion & secimentatio.
rl ctn:ru p a r. a ce requirea if one jr more acres :o be disturbed. Plan filed with prover Regional Office (Lana Cualir/ Sect i at least 30 20 oa._ I
--_rrtninn ac:ivrty. A fe° it S30 for •ne first acre and S20.00 for each acciltonal acre or part must .accomoanv :re Oran I?G ;-

?I Tn, =
_-.c?-..;^•;icn Ponuhon Confrcl :.ct Of 197? must be addressed with respect to the relerrenced local Ordnance: I
13r :..•si i
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
(- Mining Perm,. varies with type mine and number of acres of affec:ee land. Any area G :a.s
mined greater tnan one acre must be oermitea. The appropriate bond 160 :aysl
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
r .. :: .. . .,,,.r• ng permit On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit :..
l exceeds a days N;A
- Suec:a: ': :..r : Clearance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 'if more 1 ca;
:OUrttir:;; :n Yastai N C with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections N, A,
should be reduested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

C 90 12C =ay_
Od P,.iwwq ractlitles NIA (N1Ai
if permit required. application 60 days before begin construction
- Applicant must hire N.C qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
nu inspect construction certify con5truc:ien is actor,mg to EHNR aoprr)
ed plans Mav also require permit unner moscuito control program Anr I ?•i" '...
a -C: permit !tom ?rUS •A Engineei:; '%Ceclien ;I site s neces
nary to verily 11azara (_:asSiflcancn A minimum 'ee of 520000 must au
company the aupucatlon. An additional crocessing fee aasea on a
percentage or the 10131 orciect cost wid be reouugp upnn comtletion
// _K
Reviewing Office: 1 AL 1 e)
Conimued or.
i'A
V L
1(l C l' l??CnC}' CCI' 1\CViC\V 1\CSp011.iC

? 4
N /??C (1 <?T Typc of Project -?-
34
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water sYstenl
t -•-J in'lprovernenCs must be approved by the Division of L• r.vu'onnlental Health prior to:the'award
of a Contract or Ci1c iniclaCloll of c6cisci-mcci0l1 (as requ -ed by 1SA. NCAC 1JC .0300 cc.. seq.).
For information, ContacC the Public W>.cer Supply Se_C.on, [phone].
?----? This-project will be classified as a. non-communicy puclic water supply and must comply "Witt
? -J state and fegeral 61-111!:i11g WaCel' i110nltOrlll- C°_QClirellleE':CS. ].'01' 1110 CC ;nf01•rT?aC:011 Che ap'pllca!'Lc
should contact the Puu!!c Water Supply Section, (91c'! 733-232-1.
_ feec? of adjaceri
.If this project is con.m%, e-6 as proposed, we will _ recc:mrcicnd closure of
waters co the har,.,esc of shellfish. For information rzgarding the shells' sTi sanitation pro-r-,
m, the aoolic:int should contact the Shellfish S nicaci :,n L'ranch at [phone].
din
r--, Tne spell, alsposal area(s) proposed for c`?is pr'cject ::.a-.' produce a mosquito breeg•problez_
?--J For information concerning appropriate mosquito ._ontl'ol measures, the applicant shoal(
contact the Public Health Pest.Maragement.Se-ction at [phone].
1---•1 The applicanC S!10u16 bC ?.dV1SCQ Chat prior t0 t[ic re111oval or 6emolit10I1 of dilapl-ate
i
?---J stiuctures, an extensive rod'Cnc C011U'oi pCO?:ai71 i?l?.•' be !1 CeSS.i?' !.rl Crd'er CO-prCVent• ti:
mi.oracion O{ the 1'oderus cc adiaccil are? The : _tocmatlOn. CO11clr .1ild CGd.C COiltrO
contact tl,e 'local healsh depa.-u-lent or cac•- Pubilc Healcil Pest Managen:en._ Secclori. ac (91C
7 3 3-6. 07.
T11e an„iwant .shouIC be- advised to Cam.^.taC: the .Cal h--tIC 1 dc,',artl_.Cn- , haCQ na L•i e
i i it _ (v. nOC :. .^.,,;?llat.=^c f?c •Nr„I,r.'-i ti,?rler..l:?!'•. L`i?_•??, i??. .1.900 e:. SeU
1'Or 1 nrO:CTl?.t!0r. Cnnr?rnii,a ^?ntlr.f(1:^„1 ?1;' ^Lh° !??. SI!° C?/aStC G!SC?0s11 rnt-(hods, CU11LACt Z.
1-- The applicant: should be ;,dv!sed c.0 con.rac:. 1`.1e. local rlCalt:li de;)..rtnlenl- re;ardinl; tl1C sarli.C.I
t_ . .1 facilitlc:; rcc?llircd for Chi,; I)rr);c::a
will hC lr..i0 .-on- dl,'.!ilh dl?-- C011St1-UC:rI(_)I1, ,)i'.1;1S LO. dic \V'.11:Cr l
!- -) rnI0C-,1 1.1 1-nusC i)C sub111lI:CCCI cc) C•h:: .,1•:!:;1011 Qi :=n . tr'onmenta.l -[Ca`CI1 Public V acc.- Sul)
JCCUOil, :Mall 1\'VIC"V BI'1CIC11, 1'530 SC Mal'y 'i SC1 er' i\.:11CIn11, NC.11'!.!1 73 3-2? t
?12
-: % > ?s ? ;cvie ic1.. ' Section/Br.Incli'
:!7•iY •:113-( ..y?.?T:.'.?:i? 1'1n.[n:.. ? ?: •O??'?.^=r.::... .- .. .. .. ...
?„RA
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor PROJECT VIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: g S- County: vL T l
Project Name: 0 Z 9 ,?
Geodetic Survev
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.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
-----,,,,-'Other (comments attached) a Cv^^!`'?"'`?
For more information contact the Geodetic survey office at [phone].
Reviewer2 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.
v"' 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].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
N PEPPY ArFm TO
DEPARTfdEUT OF THE ARr1Y
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF E 4GI14EERS
P.O. BOX irm
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA2II=4SM
December 19, 1994
Planning Division
Fir. H. Franklin Vick, P,E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
CEI?
O
DEC 19 1994
L CIVISIC"d CP
HIGHViAVs
r? RONN1?t'?; .
This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1994,
subject: "Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement
Projects." The bridge replacement projects are located in various
Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed.
comment on this project. If we
please contact us.
Enclosure
We appreciate the opportunity to
can be of further assistance,
Sincerely,
r
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Ms. Peggy Goss (CEORN-EP-P)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
December 19, 1994
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARWY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 11I0IIlOTON DISTRICT. COMMITS Oil:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC -
All of the bridges, except for those in Avery and Yancey Counties, are
within the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
Wilmington District. These bridges are located within counties or communities
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From the various
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), it appears that both approximatc study and
detail study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-
year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A suanz ary of flood
plain information pertaining to these bridges is contained in the fallowing
table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study unless otherwise
noted.
BRIDGE ROUTE STUDY. DATE OF
No, NO. COUNT STREAM TYPE FIR14
56 NC 150 DAVIDSON REEDY CK. APPROX 5/80
148 SR 1132 CABARRUS ROCKY R. DETAIL 5/81
50 SR 2245 CLEVELAND KINGS CK. APPROX 7/91
84 NC 150 DAVIDSON FRYES CK. DETAIL 5/80
139 SR 1743 DAVIDSON ABBOTTS CK DETAIL 5/80
3 SR 1547 UNION DUCK/GOOSE CK. APPROX 7/83
78 SR 1556 GUILFORD E FORK DEEP R DETAIL 11/88
90 SR 1928 RANDOLPH MUDDY CK. APPROX 7/81
404 SR 2830 RANDOLPH RICHLAND CK DETAIL 7/81
1 SR 1526 ROWAN GRANTS CK DETAIL 11/79
101 SR 1917 STANLY NONE-NO FL HAZ --- 12/81
54 SR 1122 WILKES WARRIOR CK APPROX 5/91
74 SR 1695 GUILFORD NONE-NO FL HAZ --- 9188
* within city of Greensboro jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
For the detail study streams, hydraulic computations may be required
to show that the now structures will cause no rise in the 100-year natural
water surface elevations. If changes in the floodway are required to meet
the 1-foot maximum surcharge above the natural, these changes should be
coordinated with the respective counties for modification to their flood
insurance maps and reports. lie also suggest coordination with the counties
for compliance with their flood plain ordinances.

December 19, 1994
Page 2 of 3
U S AR14Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTOtl DISTRICT, COj1?1E S ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects° in various
Western North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAIN5 (CON*
Avery and Yancey Counties are within the planning jurisdiction of the
USACE, Nashville District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with
respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. The
Nashville District does not currently have any projects in the area.
Therefore, there would not be any impacts to or from any Corps projects due to
the proposed project. Ms, Peggy Goss should be contactad at (615) 73fi-5055
for further information and comments from the Nashville District. Flood plain
concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process.
A 26a permit is required for all construction or development involving streams
or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Flilstead at
[phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting
process. The projects should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance with all local
ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain
regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
AND WETLANDS: POC - Ral
Branch (Individual POC's
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the River and Harbor Act of 1977, as amended, within the State of North
Carolina is handled by the Regulatory Branch of the USACE, Wilmington
District.
Section 404 permits will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated
wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements, including
disposal of construction debris. The replacement of these bridges may be
eligible for nationwide permit authorization (33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a
Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the amount of jurisdictional wetlands
to be impacted by a project and the construction techniques utilized. Please
be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits within any of the
25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comission and a
letter of concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer. In addition, any
jurisdictional impacts associated with temporary access roads or detours,
cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should be addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by Nationwide
Permit No. 23. If such information is not contained within the Categorical
Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.

December 19, 1994
Page 3 of 3
U.S. ARF1Y CORPS OF EHGIHEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CUREES 0`i:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects' in various
Western North Carolina counties
WATERS A- NEIL,.ANDS COHgENT§ (CON T' 1.

When final plans are complete, including the extent and location of any
work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a project-specific
determination of DA permit requirements.
IFIC COMMENTS FOR 9-2647, SR 1547 OVER 0
..The bridge in question is over Goose Creek instead of Duck Creek as stated
in the letter. It appears that the project is at or very close to a known
population of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter clam. As such,
Nationwide Permit No. 23 would not apply and an individual DA permit would be
required. It is recommended that North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCOOT) immediately contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servica, Asheville
Field Office, to discuss this issue and get more specific information on
heelsplitter locations in this area.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
POC - John Thomas at [phone],
Guilford, and Wilkes Counties
POC - Jean Manuele at [phone],
Asheville Field Office -
Stanly Counties
NUC - Steve Chapin at (i(re) Z%i-4014 for Avery and Rowan Counties
POC - David Baker at [phone] for Yancey County
Extension 25, for Davidson,
Extension 24, for Randolph County
POC - Steve Lund at [phone] for Cabarrus, Cleveland, Union, and
3. U PS OF i1 N 4• I 4 UL -
Aannar rant Rranch_ at (9101 251-4826
The Natural Resources Management Branch concurs in the Bridge No. 54
replacement over Warrior Creek in Wilkes County. However, this replacement
may involve Corps lands from the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir project. Ile
request review of preliminary'plans and environmental reports so that we can
grant the NCDOT an easement, right-of-entry, or other real estate requirement
if the work is outside of the Department's existing right-of-way.
y ?
l
i a
J.S. :)eoar;rient of Agrlcuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 !7•J •7e cOlnO/e: °7 by '°-er?l Age rC%l I Cate Qt Una Evaluanon ritouest 1-/ 7
/ 7
Hama at a•oicct A - 2p O p L?RI DL?E '3t 146 I Feoaral Agency Involvell
Prooosea una Use H , l `G` `" W ,?Y I County And Stun o
ri jprg A22y , 1?1 G
Request Racsrvea 3v SC-3
`
PART II (To be completed by SCSI Oats
I % R?10equ (qr? w'EtaJ
Does tste site contain prime. unique. statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres lmsatta Average Form Sus
(If no. the FPPA does nor apply - do nor complete additional parrs of mis form). ? I A/0 N e- I 14-2.
Sulor tracts/ Farrrsola Lam in Govt.:unsaictian Amaunt ut Ferrrraoa As Cetineo In ,-P?A
CON-In Aces: Z 01, 3 5 f'O % ?? • 2 I Acres:

r.-..
Noma of 1..2na EValuation system Usea Name at Local Site Assrttment System Cato ursd Evaluation Astu eat d etc
C. a? a?c?c.,.s 1..t I N o 1J C I II t 3 1 9 tz,

BART 111 (To be ccmp/ered by Federal Agent/) Site A Alternauva gate Hann
Site 3 Site C I Site C
A Total Acres To Be Converted Oiree:ly 1 O, /a I /, 3 l
3. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecdv I
C. Total Acres In Site I , l I , 3
'ART IV (77o be czmplerrd try SCSI Land Evaluation Information
? I
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O ( O
S. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Far-miand I 'O. O lib I D. SIB I ?
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Caunrv Or Laal Govt. Unit Ta Be Converted 1 6. 00\ 1 O. 0 0
D Pwcxrrtags Of Farmland In Gavt 'unsdie-:on Mitts Sarno dr Nigner Ralanve Values I , . ?- 1 -r 7 • 1
'ART V (To be completed by SCSJ Land Evaluation Cnafian
_. RaiativeValue 0fFarmland ToBeConverted (Sca/eof0ro100Point;/ (
A't)•3
154.E
'ART VI (To be completed by Federal Agent/)
;to Anessmenc Crittris (There crittria an exviawed in 7 CFA 6W-51b) I Maximum
Poina
'
I
1 Arpa In Nnmurtnan Use
Z Perimeter In Nonuroan Use I /Q I 19 I D I I
Q P.rr-.nr(lf (;:rn Ppinn i-nrm.ri I ?::, t) 1 0 1
4 Protec^on Provided By State And Local Government I ?? I D I O I I

_
5. Distant From UfDiR 3uiltuo Area
I -
I I
8 Oistancp To Urban Suooort Servicas I - I - I I 1
7 Sze Of P-esent Fans Unit Ccmcared To Averages I /? I /Q I /(J I
& Creation Of Noniarmabie Farmland I I
9. Availabilitv Of Farm Sucoart Services
10. On-Farm Investments I
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucocrt Services I I I
12 Compatibility Witt Existino Aariculturai Use I 1 I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSINENT POINTS I 160 I ZS ( ZS
ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agt7cy)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI -,6'4 Z
Total Sites Assessment (From Parr Vl above ora lo= (
sirs assemnienr) 180 ZS 25
TOTAL POINTS (7-oral of above l /intts) I 250 I `L, i

to Sele=ed: I
Data Of Selection I Wra A Lout Sits Asaamertt Uaalal
Yu ? No ?
neon i:cr Selection: