19950983 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

J, .

M?TEp
q 5qs3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
September 6, 1995
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402--1890-
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Guilford County, Replacement of Bridge No. 78 over East Prong Deep
River, on SR 1556, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1556(2), State Project
8.2493001, T.I.P. No. B-2833.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 78 will be replaced on a new location
with a three-barrel 3.7 meter x 3 meters (12 ft. x 10 ft.) reinforced
concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. Construction of the proposed project will have no
impacts on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
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 Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(-C) of these regulations will be
.followed in the construction of the project. .
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SVP
wEr??IOS c??
VATER U?+Lk? ` ;.
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, for their review.
*O
.? .September 6, 1905
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
YSincer y,
klin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. -Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer

GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 78
B-2833
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1556
LOOKING WEST
ON SR 1556
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 78
FIGURE 3
4
GUILFORD
COUNTY
B-2833
(I ( ZONE B
ZONE C
BRIDGE # 78
a 55 6i
ZONE B "
it I
i t
80?
_ 4Q1 j
3c
-•-808
807I
Zvi, A.5 `
ZONE B
ZONE C
55
APPR03EMATE SCALE
METERS
0 250 500
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
FIGURE 4
i
• .,
1 a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division
Betty Ray McCain, secretary Willi;
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of T s ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State stork Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
0
DEC 13 1994
DIVISIC
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
log East Jones street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?6
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
!fie 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 protect 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 Warner Creek, B-2874, Wilkes County
We recommend that a comp-rehensive, 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 archaeolo ical_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

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
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
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?.? aeQ
Preservation Officer
Enclosures
?
cc: VH. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??v

TIP # h ze Federal Aid # bF-sip • r; t5& County (ru1LFc ?
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description 1?S(o ?,,?,? DAP PavE?
On --}s4!AAAY , 11-1z; , representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
_N,t?_ Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed

Signed:
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
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 the necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Representative, NCDOT Date
the
,SHPO
////
Date
/- 5--f S
Date
- z 6n - ys
Date
Administrator, or other Federal Agency
If a survey report is preparrd, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
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:
1. 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] Dec 06'94 15:49 No-006 P.07
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 raveneliana)
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.
Also, 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 8 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,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 1c'-: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. S-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,FALLS LADE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:50 No.00E 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, MAI
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
C) E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director.
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, L{??eJ/g?islative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihartr;/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 500,'1 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
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
• State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
a Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resoums
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
cos-C)1 12).
q
After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated t1'tiy need to be obtained
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.
Alt applications, information and guicettnes relative to these plans and permits are available from the dame
Regional Office. Norma, Process
T
ime
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
fern!)
Permit to construct t operate wastewater tnW"MOnt Application 90 days before begin construction Or Sward Of 30 Gays
facilities, sewer system extension, it serer construction Contrac!s On-site in"et+on. Post ,applfc ttion
systems not discharging into state surface waters. ,technical wnfwence casual t90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water artdfor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 110.1200 days
permit to operate and construef wastewater facilities Tarr-application conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPrjES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permitlrhecnever is later.
Water List Pant it Per-application lecnmca) conference casualty netsssary, 30 days
(NIA;
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be reCeireC and permit issued 7 Gays
prior to the ens2anatron of a wail. (15 days)
"- Application Copy must be served on each adjacent npariar properly 55 days
Dredge av+d Fill Permit owner On-site inspection. P:eipplicatron conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of (9C days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to Construct A operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
il
t
/
, 60 days
i
ac
ies and
o
Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. N/A M. days)
Any open burning asspc:ateC wilt,.. suCject proposal
must be in com
%anc
th 15A NCAC 2D
0520
;
e wi
.
.
Cemolit-on or reno.atrons of structures containing
as•;estcs rra!eria' mus! be in compharce with 1SA 6C Cars
NCAC 2D 052: which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contac: Asbestos Control Group
919 733.0820

- (9C days)
Comple¦ Source Permit require! under 1-A NCAC 20.0800.
o e Sedimentatron Pollution Control Ac! of 1573 must be property addressec for ary land d+sturbins activity An erosion 8 seameruauo
COMM' plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with p,c;m Re;iona' Office (Land Cualrty Se:! 1 si least 30 20 days
Cass Wore be^-nnrn actrvrt A fee of S3^. for the first acre a-e Sn 00 lot each a!d liana' acre or an mus' accom^anr the Dian 30 davsl
The Sedimentation PplfUlron Control Act of 1973 must be adlre-.se1 with respec! to the re'errencec Local Ordinance: (3C days)
On site Inspection usual Surety bond filed wilt: EHNR B,)n(: amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be perntted. The ap;re;naie bond (60 cars)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Pormit • 22 Cn ,ite inspection by N 0. Division Forest Resources required ')f more 1 day
counties In Coasta! N.C. with organk "I,.A than five acres of ground cfearing ac!ivlties are invotved Inspections (NIA)
should be reques!ed at least ten days before actual burn is planned
i 9o 120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (NrA)
If permit requirr,•d, a:pricat;on 60 days Ullore tx-:n con-.!ruction.
Applicant mus: hire; N C. qualrf.rd eng;r•eer to pre^3:e plans 30 days
D.m r.
a!N.y Permit.

- ,
in,^2c1 '
;r•nslrv:• .
r -? :.e:.., pr.;lruCl,pn it. Y_COrdrnG IC (. wun a;.Pror•

'
e•: ;rar•s. f!ay afs require pt:mit under mosq?)Io con:rcj program. And /
(60 CAYS)
a ACit pe!rnit from Corps of Enra:ace!j An inspection of s;:C is neces-
sary to verLer IS,:ard Cta_srfeation. A minimum fee e! lr =•= LY must AC-
eo-nIany lire e;pf ca! con. An ad!(t;vn.' p•ocCG.inC fue ed on a
..a,..nra^r Or :l•C tc!.! p, c,
CCs! V.;;: (rrt rr? • rte. n
J•rc V::" C= Elio

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
// _K
Reviewing Office: ,-r el
Project N_umoer: Due Date:
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 Proces•
Regional Office.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS (statutory :imp
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
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
Q permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
iiscnarging ;rto state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA) j
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
C Vvater Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)

7 days
!
rl Wgll Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
LJ prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
i
I
Application copy must be served on eacn adjacent riparian property 55 nays
C Oredde anc F•,I Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of i90 oavs;
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
i
t-, ?rmif •c ;arstruct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 cave i
LJ `ac,tu!e=_ anc!or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA :90 da•:s)
Any open ourning associated with subject proposal
r_,I must be to comoliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demow;on c, -enovations of structures-containing
asoestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 oavs
NCAC 2- "!Z. __ vnicn requires notification and removal NIA
prior :c :er^c,.t:on Contact Asbestos Control Group
?ta.7 3Q82n (90 •7aysi
r Como'e, Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
he Sac rnenranor Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion & seeimentarto

1 control «lan :+iit be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Cuality Sec:.) at least 30 20 oavs
aa.s s ^erore :=ctnnma activity. A tee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or part must accomoanv the plan (30 •oavs)

C The Sec rn,-- tion Pollution Control Act of 197 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: t30 Tarsi
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
mmmg Perm varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
` '-.-..., :;tq! •-.:9 Surn!ni? permit On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit i :
I exceeds 4 days (NJAI

?::a
Clearance Burning Permit 22
S
11

On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -it more

1 day
T- unti-s :n csastal N.C with organic soils
Z0 than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIAi
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is olanned.'•
i

=
90.120 days
Oil R-ittnirr,
acdities NIA (NIAi
If permit required. application 60 oavs before oegin construction

1-

Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. i

30 clay:
-- •:•ri?i) inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR apprnv
ed plans Mav also require- permit under mosquito control program. And I '60 .:: /•.;
a :0a permit froin C,)rp, of Engineers .:r, inspection of site is neces
sary to verify Hazard Classification A minimum tee of $20000 must ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total profect'cost will be recluifed tlDon completion
Continued on :..i n.

Nj'?'II.I`! I :`,!. L IL':;\: i
n:er-/N,vcnc)r P...oject .l\eviC-V Response
.? q i1 rl l' ?J -
?1_74, .
J,%1.1 Ly.G ?14
l••ypc of Project -,t2f?J
The applicaac should be advised that plans and specificacions for all water syster
-.--? itnprovemerlcs n-lust be approved by the Division of Ervirorin cntal Heal.Cl-i prior CO:the'award
of a contract Or the iniclatton of ccnscruccioii (as requ °ed by 15A 1NTCAC 1SC .0300 ec. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Wam- Supply Se_ti.on, [phone].
r-? This project wi11 be classified as a. non-coillmutlicy pu? iC water supply and must COrliply wic±
l-•-J SLai:C anCl redC!'al 6l"1t11Clf:g tivaCer i110n1t01"Ulu I"e%lllrenleE':tS. For more :nfOl'rT?1C:on the ap-plica!1!
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (91c ? 733-232-1.
r--? • ' this project is conscrucred as proposed, we -Till recommend closure of feet. of adjacen?
?--? wavers to the harvest o: shellfish. For information -?gardirg the shellfis-isanitation progr:
In, the appiica.nt should concaci. the Shellfish S nicatiDn Branch ac (9i9) 726-6527.
r •
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed ror this project ma-: produce a mosquito breeding -pro blCr _
?-J For tnrOrnlacion concerning appropriate Irosqui:o _ontrol measures, the applican:'shoul<
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section =: (919) 726-897C.
!---, The appliCanC should be adVisea that: prior to the reinovai or demolition of di:api _ate
structures, an extensive rodem control Prom. m be necessu!;T in order to -prevent. :i:
r
m1-ration Of Lhe rodents Lc .'.C1lacent:e?s. The : =corm?.Clop. COilCernltlg rGdCnt COi1:r0
contact the local heats h departmnem or dhc Pub-iic Health Pest I?Jfallagen:en: Secclgrl:. at (91`
733-64-07.
TI e atlp(-anc should be ad%,ised to concac: the ?.ocal Jhealth department regarding the
1 •..1? -- T .? : r•.nn 1as !'P(,1!, r?; AL i8.
C?T?.der•'' C A 1 ,` 1 •Yt 1 9 CC. e!_. se?-e^ti? C+ r !^ tal_a.__. . • .
-Fo101 fo: mr t!orl c^n rnin-0 'n-?'3l' tarp: ?nd ^C'rPr Om-slrc 7!?.sCe disposal mc! hods, colltaC..t
r ` • J ? - 111111,•
Vii•v i..... •:' ??':'.:C: ?1`nr \?r-1?, 1J ;, Sr.,_/ l _71 -Ln. _ .
r---? The applicanc should be advised to contrt:_L l le.. local health deparunenr. regarding the saniui
mC1Itl'1!_. "'.(pure M1' Ems
ex1SL':'? will I)•_ Li?:`. COIISCJ1CI:li)11, iii:1 ;1S irJr Cl)C ?V:lt:C,I 1:
1- --? fCIOCaC.Cn -lusc be subalincd C0 L11C :llvision Ot =11••'11,011111ental -iea?tll, 1'Ltb11C Water Sups
JCCCtOtI, T_)1-111 1\e\'ICrJ Bt'at1Cj'I, 1330 SC. Mal-V'S 1C1'CCl' i\.alethh, NC?1-t. ,l <_.arolltlz., (919) 733-._=r
;cvlevier.. - ScctloBranch. ate'
' rr?y„••!•/ice Mil .V N.K 1•r!:: .. .. Y
J.
6

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW 00A44ENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _ q S - 6 Z rJ' Q County: _ /tl cvL 7-
Project Name: D Z q'91
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.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) a C?^^!'*? ''?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewert_),C Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This projeclt 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.
r/ 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.
s/ 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 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Af irmadve Action Employer
t
J.S. -'eaartment of :,aricuituv!
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I !-,o .7e cctrolere= 7/ =9-ceril Age.^.ct^y-l? I Date at Lima Evaluation Aeouest
/ C I Feoenl .:genet/ Invoireowt,p
Name r 2ro1ec: ?7Q
Prooosea :.Jna use I County Ana State 6=)V 1 L ;? 0 2? .
r? Cs-E vJ A" - - -
PART 11 (70 7e c7mD/erec.7y SCS) I Oats ;eptoy RS w M W
Does me site contain prime, unique. statewide or lool important farmland? 1 Yes No IAcres imgatea a?a" ?srrn Size
Of no, :rte FPPA does nor aool y - ac not complete aOditiona/ pars of this form). I j O
me-or Croolsi Farcnaoie no in Govt. Junsoicion Amaunt Of hrmatso As uenneo in PPPA
C OV N-N I A== 32(y , to a Z %_7 $ . 5 I Acres: 3 zee & $2 % ? 8, r.
Wane at Lana eva,uauon System uses Nance Of Locni Site Aamment Svste,n
G k4-o?? 1.-F, I ND Ala Oat* Li ustian Returns* ev SCS
l 7/;'j 9 5 W 4 c..)
PART 111 (76 ce campierec by =ecerai A genc/) i
I Site .a Aite anve Site Ranne
I Site 3 I Site C ? Site O
A Total Acres 7o Be Corv•r•a Oirec:ly ( 0 f (o I D. 7 I I(p
S. Total Acres 'o Be Converted Indirecov 1 1
C. Total Acres In Site I D. 14.0 1 0 .1 S 1 o, l& I
PART IV (To be como/errd by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland ( I
3 Total Acres cmtewice Anc Local Important Panniand I . I O • Z-\ I Q. !
C. Perc_ntace Of Farmiand In Countv Or L=I Govt Unit To Be C-nverted I D, O 01 1 O .O O 1 0,001
I
D 9ementage Of Farmtana In Govt Junsdi=on Wiry Same Or Migner Re,ative Value 1 -7 0r. fl I -1, c i -7 4, I
PART V (7o be =rnoiera; cy Sw") Land Evaluation Critefion
Relative Value Of Farmland To BeConverted(Sa%ofOro f0OP0ints)
50.3

23 t 1

5 0.3
PART V1 (76 be comolerec by Federal Agency) Maximum
S ? I I 1
Site Assaosrnant Cntana (77cce crita,r a an v=14ined in 7 CfR 6WXb) I ?taints
1. Area in Nonuraan Use I /S 1 D 1 O I O I
2. Perimeter In Nonuroan Use ! /0 1 D I O 1 O I
3 Percent Of Si to Being =armed I 20 1 D I D 1 d
4 Protecton P-ovidec By State And Local Government I ?Q I D I D I D I
S. Oistance F-om UrOan 3uiituo Area I 1 _ _ _ _ -- ( 1
6 Distance To Urman Suction Services I ? i I -? I I
7 Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Aver-me 1 /Q I /D
8. Creation Of Nontarmabie Farmland I 95" 1 D I O 1 D
9 Availability Of Farm Sucoort Services 1 S I 5 I 5 I 1 I
10 On-Farm Investments ( M I l0_ _ ) /D I /O I
11 'ffe= Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Services i 25 I D O D 1
_
12- Comoatibiiity Witm Existing Aorietlturai Use I /0 1 D I 1 O I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I ZS I Zjr I 25
'ART VII (7o be coma/eyed by Federal Agency) I I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI I 100 _15,00 23,/ 50.3
Toai Site Assessment (f=rom Parr VJ above or a /oor
pre asseamenrl 160 ) 25 I ZS ? . Z$

TOTAL POINT'S (; oral of above 21inesl (
2W i
'1$i3 I
08,/

'I$•3
its Seiecmd:
sawn =or Se,ec:on:
I Oats Of Selection
Yes C No

Guilford County
SR 1556
Bridge No. 78
Over East Prong Deep River
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1556(2)
State Project No. 8.2493001
T.I.P. No. B-2833
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9s
tw_a
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
?f Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
-7/2- 717-5-
DOE
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
.. . . I
Guilford County
SR 1556
Bridge No. 78
Over East Prong Deep River
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-15556(2)
State Project No. 8.2493001
T.I.P. No. B-2833
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
'001111u,,,,
a?...?-- ? •.•`' ? CAROB
Pamela R. Williams Z??a4EEl?
Project Manager = SE A?
•. 7521
? 61 I +GIt1E% '
James Wang, Ph.D., P.E. ,4S ?;??•?
Principal
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
cx a&t' 6/u?'
L. Gail ri es, P.E., nit Head
Consulta t Engineeri g Unit
Phil Harri P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Guilford County
SR 1556
Bridge No. 78 Over E. Prong Deep River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1556(2)
State Project No. 8.2493001
T.I.P. No. B-2833
Bridge No. 78 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."
1. 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. Additional information requested by David Brooks is included in the subject document. If
the SHPO recommends a survey, a survey of the proposed project area will be
conducted prior to right-of-way.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 78 will be replaced on new location as shown in Figure 2A, Alternate B. It will be
replaced with a reinforced concrete box culvert, three barrels at 3.7 meters x 3.0 meters (12 ft x
10 ft).
The roadway grade will be revised as required for the vertical alignment to meet the design
speed of 80 kmh (50 mph).
The 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 180 meters (590 ft) west and 244 meters
(800 ft) east of the proposed culvert.
During construction traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and bridge.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $719,000 including $169,000 for right-of-way
and $550,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $744,000 including $169,000 for right-of-way and
$575,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1556 is classed as an urban minor arterial route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily commercial and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1556 has a 6.6 meter (22 ft) pavement width with 2.1 meter (7 ft)
shoulders. The approach vertical alignment in the immediate vicinity of the bridge has a design
speed of 50 kmh (35 mph). The roadway is situated approximately 3.8 meters (12.5 ft) above
the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 6470 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 14,250 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include 6 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer and 4.5 percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 70 kmh (45 mph) at the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1953 and is shown in Figure 3. The superstructure consists of
timber deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of
timber caps and piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 18 meters (59 ft). The clear roadway width is 7.5 meters
(24.5 ft). The posted weight limit is 9,988 kilograms (11 tons) for single vehicles and 18,160
kilograms (20 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 78 has a sufficiency rating of 9.4, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported on the bridge during the period from May 1, 1991 to April 30, 1994.
Aerial utility lines are located on the north side of SR 1556 in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. A sewer line crosses E. Prong Deep River approximately 10 meters (33 ft) south of the
bridge. Water lines parallel SR 1556 on the north side. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
Guilford County School currently have nine buses that use SR 1556 daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 78. Each alternative included replacing
the bridge with a reinforced concrete culvert with three barrels at 3.7 meters x 3 meters (12 ft. x
10 ft). The 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.
The alternatives studied are shown in Figures 2A and 2B are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment, maintaining the
existing substandard vertical alignment and utilizing a temporary on-site detour to maintain
traffic for approximately four months. This alternative will require a design exception for the
vertical alignment and therefore is undesirable.
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge with a culvert on new location,
revising the vertical alignment to meet the design speed and maintaining traffic by utilizing the
existing alignment.
Alternate C: involves replacing the bridge with a culvert on the existing alignment, revising the
vertical alignment and maintaining traffic on a temporary on-site detour.
2
In conjunction with Alternates A and C, which utilize temporary on site detours, consideration
was given to detouring traffic along existing roads during construction. A road user analyses
showed the out-of-direction travel to be 3.1 times more costly than an on-site temporary
crossing.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1556.
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, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal (existing) $ 10,300 $ 10,300 $ 10,300
Structure (proposed) 92,000 92,000 92,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 150,000 0 225,000
Roadway Approaches 82,700 262,700 192,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 100,000 115,000 155,000
Engineering and Contingencies 65,000 70,000 100,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 180,475 169,000 180,475
TOTAL $680,475 $719,000 $955,475
VI.
Bridge No. 78 will be replaced on new location along Alternate B with a reinforced concrete box
culvert with three barrels at 3.7 meters x 3 meters (12 ft. x 10 ft). Traffic will be maintained on
existing bridge during the approximately four month construction period.
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 approaches. The approaches to the culvert will be designed to the design
speed of 80 kmh (50mph).
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the reinforced
concrete box culvert is recommended to have an opening size of 33.4 square meters (360 sq.
ft.) and a length of approximately 18 meters (59 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation at the
proposed culvert will be approximately the same as at the existing bridge. The length and
opening size may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that the structure be replaced on new
location. Although the cost is slightly higher than Alternate A, Alternate B alignment is
significantly more desirable.
3
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Guilford County (Figure 1) in a developed area on the
southwest side of Greensboro, North Carolina. The project site is located in the north central
portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Guilford County is rapidly growing into an
industrial and urban area within the Piedmont Triad.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Guilford); NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National wetlands Inventory Map (Guilford); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique habitats
and N C Division of Environmental Management Benthic monitoring Ambient Network (BMAN)
data. 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 13, 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. The actual construction impacts
should be less, but without speck replacement design information (culvert, pier intrusions,
etc.), the worse case was assumed for the impact calculations.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently sloping. Project area
elevation is approximately 244.0 meters (800.0 feet).
This portion of Guilford County contains soils from the Enon-Mecklenburg soil association,
which are characterized as being gently sloping and sloping, well drained soils that have a
sandy clay loam, clay, and clay loam subsoil on uplands.
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 community found in the project study area is man-dominated old
fields with tree/shrub margins and buffers. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas will be discussed in the community description. Many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned in
each community description.
4
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches, as well as the old fields and tree/shrub buffers along the stream. 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 rugelii) and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). Vegetation in the old fields and along the stream banks include, Eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), American sycamore (Plafanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra),
tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.),
lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.).
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), starling (Stumus vulgaris), and the
American robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the East Fork of the Deep River. Within
the project area the East Fork is approximately 5.0 meters (17.0 feet) wide and 0.3 meter (1.0 ft)
or less in depth. On the day of investigation, the stream was clear with a moderate flow to the
south. Wrack lines and debris in the riparian vegetation indicated a flood level of 1.5 meters
(5.0 feet) above the normal level. The stream bed was generally sandy within the bridge area,
but more rocky upstream.
The stream banks were moderately sloped, 1.5 to 3.0 meters (5.0 to 10.0 feet) high, and
vegetated with sycamore, black willow, and Eastern red cedar. Animals such as the Northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) reside
along the waters edge. Within the stream one would expect to find various small fishes, such
as shiner (Notropis sp.) darters (Etheostoma sp.) and bream (Lepomis sp.).
Marcoinvertebrates likely to inhabit the stream include mayfly, dragonfly, caddisfly and
chironomid larvae, oligochaetes, and crayfish.
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.
5
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge No. 78 Man-Dominated Aquatic Combined
Replacement Community Community Total
Impacts
Alternative A 0.47(l.19) 0.012 (0.032) 0.482 (1.51)
Alternative B 0.29 (0.73) 0.006 (0.016) 0.3 (0.75)
Alternative C 0.47(l.19) 0.012 (0.032) 0.482 (1.51)
Terrestrial Communities
Few natural communities occur in the project area, and those communities have been highly
fragmented and reduced due to past development. The man-dominated community will receive
the greatest impact from project 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 0.29 hectare (0.73 acre) of man-dominated.
Aquatic Communities
The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.006 hectare (0.016 acre) of
stream bottom. Some siltation and water quality degradation from urban runoff has already
impacted the stream. The new culvert construction and approach work may increase sediment
loads in the stream in the short term. 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 guidelines.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Cape Fear River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
The East Fork of the Deep River is one of several perennial streams forming the Deep River
which flows southeast from the High Point / Greensboro area and joins the Haw River near
Moncure, NC to form the Cape Fear River. The East Fork flows north to south through the
proposed project area with a variable width of between 4.4 to 6.0 meters (15.0 to 20.0 feet). The
average depth of the stream throughout the project limits is approximately 0.15 to 0.3 meter (0.5
to 1.0 ft). The creek substrate is composed mostly of coarse sand. The East Fork has a Class
6
WS-IV rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, indicating that
these waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds and are suitable for fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other
uses requiring waters of lower quality.
The East Fork of the Deep River is a typical urban stream that receives a variety of pollutants
from non-point sources. The stream runs through a developing commercial area just south of
Interstate 40 and just east of NC 68. Stormwater runoff from these areas may contain oil and
grease, sediments, nitrogen and phosphorus.
The N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of
Environmental Management maintains a benthic monitoring station on the East Fork of the
Deep River at SR 1541, which is 3.2 km (2.0 miles) upstream of the project crossing. According
to the results of a February 1993 sample of the ephemeropteran, plecopteran, trichopteran
community, the stream has a fair bioclassification. Only two species of mayfly larvae, three
species of caddisfly larvae, and no stonefly larvae were common or abundant within the stream,
reflecting the impact of non-point source runoff and siltation on the stream.
No waters classed 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 project construction. 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 East Fork of the Deep River has well
defined banks within the bridge replacement limits. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project impact area was conducted using methods from 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).
Permits
Construction will be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
7
Nationwide Permit NO. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusions 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
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 WIcher, 1991). However,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented,
as applicable, to minimize adverse impacts.
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 Guilford 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 one (1) federally protected species
for Guilford County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR GUILFORD COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle E
notes:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Adult Bald eagles have white heads and tails, a brownish body, and yellow bills, eyes and feet.
The juvenile birds have a dark brown body, tail, and head irregularly blotched with white. The
overall length of the bald eagle ranges from 860-1090 millimeters (34-43 inches), and the wing
span averages approximately 530 millimeters (21 inches). Bald eagles usually lay eggs
between mid-January and mid-March. The bluish-white eggs are laid two to a clutch, and
incubation lasts approximately 36 days.
8
The bald eagle forages along the coast, along rivers and large lakes. Nesting sites are located
in the forks of tall trees, consist of sticks lined with moss, pine needles, grass, and feathers, and
are usually remote from human activity. Nests are usually less than 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile)
from feeding areas. The bald eagle typically feeds on fish; however, waterfowl, muskrats,
rabbits and squirrels are not uncommon prey.
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the bald eagles due to the project's
are being urbanized, lack of water and adequate trees for bald eagles to nest b can be
concluded that the proposed project will not impact this Endangered 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 Guilford
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
GUILFORD COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Cambarus catagius SR No
(Greensboro burrowing crayfish)
Nestronia umbellula SR No
(Nestronia)
notes:
SR denotes species for which population monitoring and conservation action is recommended.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No federally protected species are currently listed for Guilford County by the USFWS. No
habitat exists in the project area for any candidate species listed for Guilford County. Also, the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare
species or habitats in the project area.
9
VII. 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, of 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 properties either listed in or eligible for 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.
Additional information requested by David Brook in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, is
included in the subject document. If the SHPO recommends a survey, a survey of the
proposed project area will be conducted prior to right-of-way. A copy of the SHPO letter is
included in the Appendix.
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 0.32 hectare (0.78 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
132,273 hectares (326,682 acres) of prime or important soils found in Guilford County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 48.1 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
10
The project is located in Guilford County, which is within the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance"
for 03 on November 7, 1993. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).
The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Guilford County. The
Greensboro Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is October
25, 1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is January 24, 1995. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. The project is
to replace the existing 2-lane bridge over E. Prong Deep River with a culvert; hence, the project
is classified as a neutral project. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area. There has been no significant changes in the project's
design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project and the bridge will be
replaced at its existing location with a culvert. Therefore, its 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.
Guilford 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.
11
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards. NCAC:15ANCAC2B.0306.
State of N.C. Division of ENvironmental Management. 1993. 7 Bethic Moinitoring Ambient
Network Data for East Fork of the Deep River at SR 1541. February 15, 1993.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, N. Y.
York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of
Guilford County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
12
•
•
0
a
\ qC ?
9

1NyAN RD. 9

284

V
N NW ?
? FIRE MAMMAL

c PIEDMONT TRIAD

c o afe
INTERNATIOy'AL AIRPORT
°ioo
o

RIEND
SHIP
W ?o 283
a0. WE

Ott
z a
;\ R SQ4
IND ATRIAL PARS(
It

' 4
0
p EX77
^
2t0 ? ?J ?p oq
. BOo
v a ? i ? 0
4
°? wQa 'Po
.
R 0. 27
353 era. ao? ??? 82
o
v / "'. R alp'1'4
G ?' , \ '? ,CT ? d Jgtir ry4C
O
N
rA
k?ON C.4 ?? ap ROUE / RO
O a??- i ..¦ y •J
u ? 52
..:x.¦.¦
a• ¦•••• '
z .
.•
`
aY? ...•` ??.
EXIT
212
ap ...." c
.. i .

1? ap /70
s
rro
T
O BRIDGE # 78 . !, Qo> b s??
/ I
??
-
o
+
+
ale '• _ _ ____ _ `
t\y?K !7 150 r• Osceola'
ulnm.,1101 Summit I
Monticello 10
'Ridge 6 ?.axr Oa 29 soe l
awl Os
°
' D
riileG _, iV'- R
c (ptisrlo 1 sonin 0
i t ff ryd'oTt1% a •11 W. Mc
j 011•ege 10 'eaaha 00
1 5 ? 7x )' - 6 a;!1 10 Ntutse! i
Alar
eOQefill l + I
me ow Fijensboro 1
1 70A 29A 2
17
Pteasanl Gamen ° 1
a 70 r i 5 021 62 Klmel
610 'J a
Julian
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND MARIONMENTAL
o,?,,ar BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 78
GUILFORD COUNTY
B-2833
3/95 SCALE= 1:30 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
1 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEE Q D
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199505679 County Guilford
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent NC DOT / Frank Vick
Address Post Office Box 25201. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No.
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.) Guilford County
Bridge No. 78 located off of S. R.1556. adjacent to East Prong Deep River, Greensboro.
Guilford County. North Carolina, State Project No. 8.2493001. T.I.P. No. B-2833
Description of Activity
Replacement of Bridge No. 78 at a new location north of the existing location resulting in 0.06
acres of impacts to the iurisdictional waters of East Prone Deen River.
_ X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
NWP 23 Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and
conditions of this permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent
Regulatory Project Manager Signa
Expiration
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.