19950984 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

N. C `D aR'RENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRA&M`ITTALZ SLIP DATE -
T N? REF. NO. OR ROOM, . BLDG.

FROM: : REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG..

?' S? ', A?GTfON
? NOTE AND FILE ''U ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
-?.? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WfTH; MORE DETAILS,'; ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND f EE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER - ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
? PREPARE BEPLY FOR,MY-' SIG NATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPFjDPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
. COMMENTS.411..

'. ?,

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
?STAIZ
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 '
December 19, 1996
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Dear Sir:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
Chief, North Section
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
REDENED
?C 2 a 1996
ENVjpow " ?c1ENCES
Subject: Davidson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 84 over Fryes Creek
on NC 150, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-150(5), State Project
No. 8.1601101, T.I.P. No. B-2821. Action I.D. 199505678.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridge No. 84 over
Fryes Creek. On August 31, 1996 we sent you a planning document and notice that we
proposed to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A
(B-23). The document described the replacement of bridge No 84 on its existing
alignment by a four-barrel 3 meter x 2.7 meter (10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced concrete box
culvert with traffic maintained by a temporary on-site detour on the east side of the
existing bridge. The design has changed and we now propose to replace the existing
structure with a bridge 14.4 meters wide and 20 meter long (47 ft. x 65.6 ft.) also on the
existing alignment. There will be no change in location or design of the temporary on-site
detour. Construction of the project will have no impacts on jurisdictional wetland
communities. "
We hereby request that the existing Nationwide 23 Permit be modified to include the
proposed'redesign. We are also providing one copy of this letter to the NCDEHNR,
Division of Water Quality to act as notification for the modification of the 401 Water
Quality General Certification.
9

2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincer y,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Water Quality
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. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Philip S. Harris, P & E Project Planning Engineer

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERSCOP
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199505678 County Davidson
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.) Davidson County
Bridge No. 84 located off of N.C. 150. adjacent to Fryes Creek, Arcadia. Davidson County.
North Carolina. State Project No. 8.160110 1. T.I.P. No. B-2821
Description of Activity
Replacement of Bridge No. 84 at the existing location with a four-barrel 10'x 9' reinforced
concrete box culvert resulting in 0.05 acres of impacts to the jurisdictional waters of Fryes
Creek.
_2L-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.
If
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 Si
Regulatory Project Manager Signatur
Expiration
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
?.Q??

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201

q 5,38q
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SFP 11x995
0 _J
WE
NDS TLAAMno
WATER I1bLITY s '-+
SUBJECT: Davidson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 84 over Fryes Creek on
NC 150, Federal Aid Project BRSTP-150(5), State Project 8.1601101,
T.I.P. No. B-2821.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 84 will be replaced on its existing
alignment by a four-barrel 3 meter x 2.7 meter (10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced
concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained by a temporary on-site
detour on the east side of the existing bridge. 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.
We arIt.icipaLe that 401 General Certif ic.ation No. 2745 (Categu rical
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.
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 31, 1995

August 31, 1995 `
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincerel ,
anklin 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. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division 9 Engineer

1
NC 150
Bridge No. 84
Over Fryes Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(5)
State Project No. 8.1601101
T.I.P. No. B-2821
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
?.
-71ZS-Z? 5-
t. 1ZL
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
7 z? ,S
DATE Cw-Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
y y v
NC 150
Bridge No. 84
Over Fryes Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(5)
State Project No. 8.1601101
T.I.P. No. B-2821
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Q?Y?t1Lev ? , N??um?gq?
Pamela R. Williams .•°?tN ?A?0?/4-Proj t Manager a?•?? c?ESS?.,'0 °?•.,?
SE AL L
752.1
40 0
J s Wang, 151h. D., P. E. ,,••yGINE??•'•v
rincipal °92jES?S,??.wP?••.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
i Grimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Phil Harris, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
NC 150
Bridge No. 84 Over Fryes Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(5)
State Project No. 8.1601101
T.I.P. No. B-2821
Bridge No. 84 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 prior to construction and archaeological site
31 Dv414, if impacted, will be tested to determine its eligibility for the National Register. If
site 31 Dv414 is determined eligible based upon results of the testing program,
necessary appropriate additional work in the form of data recovery or mitigation will be
conducted in consultation with the FHWA and SHPO.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 84 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a reinforced concrete box culvert, four barrels, 3 meters x 2.7 meters (10 ft x 9 ft).
The roadway grade will be the same as the existing grade of the bridge. The existing roadway
will be widened to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2
meter (4 ft) paved, and minor improvements for approximately 150 meters (500 ft) on the south
approach and 130 meters (425 ft) on the north approach.
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour on the east side during the
construction period (Figure 2).
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $922,500 including $147,500 for right-of-way
and $775,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $806,000 including $106,000 for right-of-way and
$700,000 for construction.
NC 150 is classified as a rural major collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily agricultural and residential in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. Cultivated fields are located on the both sides of NC 150 in the project area. An
approximate 1.2 meter (4 ft) base drainage ditch parallels NC 150 on the northeast quadrant of
the bridge.
Near the bridge, NC 150 has a 6.4 meter (21 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders
of which 0.6 meters (2 ft) is paved. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the
northern and southern approach. The vertical alignment is relatively flat from the northern
approach with an approximate 7 percent incline on the southern side. The roadway is situated
approximately 5.5 meters (18 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 7800 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 17800 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include four percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 90 km/h (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1940 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck on steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of
timber caps on timber piles and timber bulkheads.
The overall length of the bridge is 31 meters (102 ft). The clear roadway width is 7.9 meters (26
ft). The posted weight limit is 17,252 kilograms (19 tons) for both single vehicles and truck-
tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 84 has a sufficiency rating of 21, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
This low evaluation warrants replacement of the bridge.
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 eastern side of NC 150 in the project area. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low.
School buses cross the bridge eight times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment. A relocated alignment would result in excessive
cost and undesirable environmental consequences. Detouring of NC 150 traffic via other routes
in the area during construction is impractical due to the high volume of traffic utilizing NC 150
and the inadequacy of the available detour routes. Therefore the existing alignment should be
retained and an on-site detour used during construction.
Replacing the bridge on existing alignment utilizing a temporary on-site detour on the east side
to maintain traffic during the approximate five month construction period was studied. Bridge
No. 84 would be replaced with a reinforced concrete box culvert with four barrels at 3 meters
(m) x 2.7 m (10 ft. x 9 ft) along the existing alignment. The existing roadway would be widened
to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved.
A temporary detour on the west side of the existing bridge was considered, due to the proximity
to the power line tower southwest of the bridge this alternate was eliminated.
2
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 150.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 13,400
Structure (proposed) 158,000
Roadway Approaches 137,600
Temp. Detour Structure & Approaches 243,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 112,200
Engineering and Contingencies 110,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 147.500
TOTAL $ 922,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 84 over Fryes Creek will be replaced on its existing alignment by a four barrel 3
meter x 2.7 meter (10 ft x 9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be maintained by a
temporary on-site detour on the east side of the existing bridge (Figure 2).
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved,
will be provided on the approaches. Improvement to the existing approaches will be necessary
on each side of the culvert. The design speed is 100 km/h (60 mph).
The structure and approaches will be designed to arterial design standards due to the traffic
importance of NC 150 as a major arterial and the significant current and future volumes.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 50 year design storm, the reinforced
concrete box culvert is recommended to have a opening size of 33.4 square meters (360 sq. ft)
and a length of approximately 24 meters (80 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation of the
roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and opening size
may be increased or decreased to accommodate peak flows as determined by additional
hydrologic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the bridge be replaced at the
existing location with a temporary detour on the east side.
3
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Davidson County (Figure 1) and incorporates
agricultural, residential and commercial areas. The project area contains agricultural, low-
density single family residential, commercial and undeveloped land uses. The project site lies
within the central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Davidson County's major
economic resources are agriculture and textiles.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Welcome); 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 (Welcome); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Program's (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. 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 12, 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 meters (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. The project site is
located on Fryes Creek approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) east of its confluence with
Muddy Creek. Elevations within the project limits range from approximately 216.4 meters
(710.0 feet) to approximately 219.5 meters (720.0 feet) above sea level. The general vicinity of
the project study area has experienced some low-density residential development, with some
agricultural and undeveloped land uses.
This portion of Davidson County contains soils from the Chewacla-Wehadkee soil association.
Chewalcla-Wehadkee soils are characterized as being somewhat poorly drained and poorly
drained soils having moderately permeable loamy subsoils on nearly level bottom lands,
floodplains and old alluvial deposits.
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.
4
Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and Mixed Hardwood Forest are the two terrestrial communities found in the
project study area. 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 in each community
description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility line easements, pastures and
agricultural fields. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), regress (Lolium sp.), white clover
(Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain.(Plantago rugelii), wild onion (Allium
sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by
those species previously listed as well as sweet gum (Liquidamber styraciflua) saplings,
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dog fennel (Eupatodum
capillifolium), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), tick-seed sunflower (Bidens ahstosa), joe-pye weed
(Eupatorium purpureum), and wild blackberry (Rubus sp.).
The animal species present in these 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. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciu?us
carolinensis), red-wing blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark (Stumella
magna), bluebird (Sialia sialis), starlings (Stumidae), vultures (Cathartidae), and red-tail hawks
(Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to roadside and agricultural habitats. Many faunal
species, such as the Virginia opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled roadways
become vehicular fatalities and forage items for other animals, such as the turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura).
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas adjacent to Fryes Creek and on a
gentle slope approximately 121.9 meters (400.0 feet) southwest of Bridge No. 84. Vegetation
along Fryes Creek includes riparian species such as red maple (Ater rubrum), sweet gum and
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) saplings, Eastern sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
seedlings, and black willow (Salix nigra). The herbaceous layer includes such species as
Japanese honeysuckle, wild blackberry, and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Animals
previously listed may also be found in this community. Vegetation within the wooded area
southwest of Bridge No. 84 includes American beech (Fagus grand?folia), tulip poplar
(Lidodendron tulipifera), white oak (Quercus alba), and hickory (Carya sp.).
Due to the proximity of agricultural land uses, large mammals such as white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) would be expected to regularly inhabit this area. Small mammals such
as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floddanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon
(Procyon lotor) and field mice may take advantage of food and protective resources offered in
this habitat.
5
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Fryes Creek. Fryes Creek flows
southeast to northwest through agricultural and pasture land, and is a perennial tributary of
Muddy Creek, which is located approximately 4.0 kilometers (km) (2.5 miles) downstream of the
project crossing of Fryes Creek. In addition, one unnamed perennial tributary to Fryes Creek
flows parallel to NC 150 from the northeast to a confluence with Fryes Creek near the toe of the
existing bridge's northern approach.
The banks of Fryes Creek and the unnamed perennial tributary are moderately sloped, well
defined and somewhat eroded downstream of Bridge No. 84. Fryes Creek is a moderately
flowing stream with a coarse sand and sift substrate. No submerged or emergent vegetation
was observed in Fryes Creek or the unnamed tributary during the time of the site visit.
Vegetation typical of riparian areas occurs along the banks of Fryes Creek and includes sweet
gum, red maple and black willow. Vegetation along the unnamed tributary includes secondary
colonizing species such as greenbrier, blackberry, joe-pye weed and honeysuckle. Animals
such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and salamanders likely
reside along the water's edge. The macroinvertebrates observed within the stream include
crayfish, dragonfly larvae (Boyeda vanosa), mayfly larvae (Stenonema sp.), and damselfly
larvae (Calopteryx sp.). Chironomid larvae and oligochaetes would be expected to dwell within
the sandy and silty substrate. Fish species expected to inhabit Fryes Creek include shiner
(Notropus sp.), bream (Lepomis sp.), darters (Etheostoma sp.), and mosquitofish (Gambusia
sp. ).
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. Potential adverse effects will be
minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices fro 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)
NC 150 Man- Mixed
Bridge No. 84 Dominated Hardwood Aquatic Combined
Replacement Community Community Community Total
Impacts 0.38 (0.94) 0.03 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.43 (1.06)
6
Terrestrial Communities
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those communities have been
fragmented and reduced due to past and present agricultural activity. 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
replacement of Bridge No. 84 may impact 0.38 hectares (0.94 acres) of man-dominated
community and 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres) of mixed hardwood community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Fryes Creek and its unnamed perennial
tributary. The replacement of Bridge No. 84 will result in 0.02 hectare (0.05 acre) of impact to
aquatic communities. Construction of the project is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads
to this aquatic habitat. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations
of invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile organisms
such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation, preventing their
feeding. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of the
NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters" with 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 limits are located on Fryes Creek within the Muddy Creek/Yadkin River
watershed.
Water Resource Characteristics
Fryes Creek originates near Midway, NC and is a perennial tributary of Muddy Creek in the
Yadkin River watershed, and is approximately 6.1 meters (20.0 feet) wide and 0.3 meters (1.0
foot) deep with a sift and cobble substrate. The banks of Fryes Creek are well defined and
somewhat eroded. downstream of NC 150, and the plane of ordinary high water appears to be
approximately 3.1 to 3.7 meters (10.0 to 12.0 feet) below the top of the creek bank. Fryes
Creek flows southeast to northwest through agricultural and pasture land. Vegetation typical of
man-dominated and mixed riparian areas occurs along the fringes of the creek and at the top of
the creek bank.
An unnamed perennial tributary to Fryes Creek flows parallel to NC 150 from the northeast to a
confluence with Fryes Creek near the toe of the northern approach of the existing bridge. The
unnamed tributary is also well defined by topography and the plane of ordinary high water
appears to be approximately 1.5 to 2.4 meters (5.0-8.0 feet) below the top of the bank. This
tributary is approximately 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3.0-5.0 feet) wide with a coarse sand and silt
substrate, and is partially obstructed from view by a dense herbaceous layer including
blackberry, greenbrier, honeysuckle, joe-pye weed and pokeberry.
7
The North Carolina Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
Division of Environmental Management does not maintain any fish or macroinvertebrate
monitoring stations in this location, due to the small size of this creek.
According to the Division of Environmental Management, Fryes Creek, from a point 0.48
kilometer (0.3 mile) upstream of SR 1512 to Muddy Creek, is classed as a WS-IV stream. The
unnamed perennial tributary would also be classified as WS-IV. This best usage classification
means that these waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds, point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted,
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required,
and these waters are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses include fishing, fish
propagation, boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
No waters classed as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-11 are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources 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. NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" will be implemented to minimize impacts.
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 proposed project. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods from the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), and project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Approximately 0.02 hectare (0.05 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts
will occur due to the proposed culvert.
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).
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
8
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 Wilcher 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 are in decline either due to natural forces or due to
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Davidson 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 Davidson County as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Helianthus schweinifzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1.0 to 2.0 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 3.3-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and
are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region 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
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of this
species were observed in or adjacent to the study area during the site visit in October
1994. It 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 one (1) federal candidate species listed for
Davidson County and its state classification. 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
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Lotus purshianus var. belled C No
(Heller's trefoil)
notes:
* C denotes Candidate species, which are considered by the State to be rare and need
population monitoring.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat does exist in the study area for the federally-protected Schweinitz's sunflower. A search
for this species was conducted along the project limits, and no plant individuals were observed
in or adjacent to the project limits during the site visit. No habitat exists in the project area for
any candidate species known to occur in Davidson County. Also, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records east 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, coded 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.
Bridge No. 84 is the only property over fifty years of age located within the area of potential
effect for historic architectural resources. In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that the bridge was not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The Deputy SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, recommends a survey of the
project area and testing of site 31 Dv414, located east of NC 150 and north of Fryes Creek.
This site has not been evaluated for the National Register for Historic Places. An
archaeological survey will be conducted for the project prior to construction. 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 0.045 hectare (0.11 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
101,366 hectares (250,471 acres) of prime or important soils found in Davidson County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
11
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 63.5 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Davidson 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 Davidson 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 Fryes Creek with a new box 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 maintenance area.
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.
Davidson 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
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.
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 (September 1994 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,
Massachusetts.
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:15A NCAC213.0306. Sutton, A. and M.
Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1972.
General Soils Map of Davidson County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (September 1994 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.
13
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
DAVIDSON
SCALE = 1:30 000
0 (kilometers) 1
1 I
DAVIDSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 84
B-2821
LOOKING NORTHEAST
ON NC 150
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
ON NC 150

UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 84
FIGURE 3
DAVIDSON
COUNTY
B-2821
antral Ra.
E 7 .C
ZONE
ONE A3
15 J,
1.
P
i
ONE B
i10 0 YEAR FLOODPLAIN lj5
5% h 2? RM-DD-9
9
ZONE
'ONE B
25, ?,,
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
0 X00 1000
ZONE C
FIGURE 4
V& ST
n't
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-Eariey,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
.Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw

Preservation Officer
Enclosures
?
cc: "H. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
TIP Federal Aid # ?pArP - 140 County 'D',vM'10 l
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
1' SrLA&E, ! ??GC ??. ?. too cvt Fey CacE
On 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
-sue Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential 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 ? •rj w t4o - 1,4 are
considered not eligi for the National Register and no further evaluation of thenrqg necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
wAA& the Division Administrator, or other

/ S
Date
sr
? Date
.S
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Division
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State storic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
CE I\
O
DEC 1 3 1994
MVISI
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 ???
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 "arnd 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 Warner 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

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-11$$, 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,FRLLS 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,FRLLS LRKE 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
heeleplitter (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
This stream provides a fair fishery
catfish. We prefer that the bridge
spanning structure.
10. B-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2630
Creek. This stream is too small at
of fishing significance.
over Muddy Creek.
for sunfish and
be replaced with a
over Richland
this location to be
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 LAKE 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. 2-3175, 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 4
Division of Environmental Management '?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F1
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 Projedts
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 501. 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
Department of Environment, Health, end Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office: C,L?S ?O
Project Number. Due Date:
cos-oa•c,?Ag l?;X-I 9
After review of this project It has tyeren determined that the EMNR 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 appficalions, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Norma! Process
Trine

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to c;.7lslryct t operate wastewater treatm»nt Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facititia, sewer system extensions. t sewer Construction Contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface wafers. ."chnical conference usual fm days)
NPDES . permit to Qisc!-.arge into surface water and/or Application 1W days before begin activity. On•sile Inspection. 90•120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Prte•applit:ation Conference usual Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment fa:ility•granled after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 Clays after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit•whichever is later.
water use permit
Prs?spplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA;
J Well [gnstruci,an Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be sewed on each adjacent nparian property 55 days
71 Dredge and Fill Permit owner On-site inspection. Preapplicatron conference usual Filling
rRay require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federaf Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to Construct t operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
il
'
i
/ 60 days
ities and
ac
o!
emiss
on Sources as per 15A NCAC 21k. NIA (90 days)
Any open burning asS:C:i'ed will,. subject proposal
!
must be in Com
anCe with 15A NCAC 2D
0420
,
p
.
.
Cemolil'on or rrenc,al,ons Of &',ruclufes containing r
as:eslcs rra'e!ia' must be in Comptiarce with 1:A 6% dayf
J NCAC 2D 052= whit` requires nwificai on and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Asteslos Control Group
919.733.0820 (9C Cla
s)
Complex Source Pefmil require! under 15A NCAC 20.0800 - y
e Se:imenlal.on POliulror. Conlrp? AV of 1973 must be pioperfy addressed for any (and C,sturbins bVivlty An e'Cs,on 8 sec:mentalr0
contro! plan will to required if one or more acres to be d slurbeC Plan filed with pro;.e• Re;iona' Office (Land Quality Sec' ) a! least 30 2C days
Cass bero'e be^,nn,n aLLvit A fee of S3C for the first acre a^C 57000 for ea^` a!C-t,ona' acre or art mss! accompamv the plan (30 c2ysi
The Selrmentat,on Pollution Conirol Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the re'erlenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On site inspection usual Surely bond file! with EHNR Bond amount
M-ning Permit varies with type mine and num 4r of acres of affecle! land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must Ce permite-1. The a,,pro;,nate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can bt issued.
j
J North Carolina Burning permit On site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
l Special Ground C:earar•ce Burning, Permit • 22 Casale inspection by N D. Division Forest Resources required -Ir more 1 day
counties In Cea;ta! N.C. with organic "I.,% than five acres of Around clearin activities are involyed Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at feast fen days before actual burn is planned.-
90120 days
Oil Refining Faculties NIA (NIA)
If pelmlt required. a:pfic3lion 60 days before bc,:n construction.
Appl:canl must hire N C. quanbed engineer to prepare plans. 30 days
_ C.m sa!e!y Permit in:?CCi Cr reSlr r: :, re:. , on,iruc!icn IL accOrd.ng to E?'.1:A S;prov.
ed ;rar,s. F.?3y a!s•.; lcquiie permit under mosq;ilu control program. And (6' days)
• a ACC rn,Curlil from Corps of Enr,inCCrs An in?pechon of site is neces•
t:a•y to vtrlly tf.:ard C:&!'.-fica?ion. A minimum fcc c! 5::7:•06 must ac-
com"ar.y lice a;p!?ca: on. An adliGuna p•occc.in0 fvc .,-..cd on a
•. r••• .Ma-r or lice 1C'i! r^rC:r•C? CCLl vii': t.e rc^.,?e:! ? -^ C ;np,coort

2t/
N &2t,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Numoer: Due Date:
?i./-?-/-,5; (?
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 t,m.-
limlt) i
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post -appfication
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. obtain permit to
i
iisc.targing into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NlA1
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
r' j :eater use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary

7 days
7 well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
f prior to the installation of a well. (15 caysl
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 aays
r-i Dredge and F::l Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 90 oavst
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
t
aern-ii c construct 3 operate Air Pollution Abatement 5G days
u) `aciw!es an...or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A 50 ca•:sl
Any open ournmg associated with subject proposal i
Fi must be !n compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demot;t;cn , -enovattons of structures containino
asbestos mate•ial must be in compliance win 15A 60 days
NCAC ? .1Z5 vntcn requires notification and removal NIA
prior :c ocmc..t:on. Contact Asbestos Control Group
910.7'3.062 ,92 .av51
!-

`- Ccmc:e,. Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
? I
l
ne Sad;-e^:a::rn Pollution Control Act of 1972, must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An Bros on 3 secimentanod
?
L1
`
` Contro: p;ar. :tilt oe required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Cualiy Sec:.f at least 30 20 aays_
- ) acs oe,ore c-o:nnino activity. A fee of S30 for 'he first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or part must accomoanv tm.e oian i30 '.avs)

C Tit? ?cc!m-;-non Pollution Control Act of 1973'must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: I (,.. ,ar.)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Ir__. Mining Pere: varies with type mine and number of acres of affected rand. Any area :avs
mined greater than one acre must be oermited. The appropriate bond !60 :aysi
must be received before the permit can be issued.
` ...... ,,. ,. , Surn!nc; peerml On-site insoecion by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit ;.
? exceeds 4 days I
NIA;
Su4:c:w Clearance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 'if more 1 Cav
counlie:; :n cGastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections iN%A1
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
, 90.120 days
C (
Oil n--imuiq -acilities N/A I
tNIAI
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction '
_ Applicant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepare plans. I C rays

?
.net
... inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR acorov
l ea plans Mav also require permit unrier mosawto control program And
a -;C- permit from Coms of Englneels An in%0eCjirn of site is neces
sary to verily H.zzard Classification. A minimum 4ee of $200 00 mu st ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be rpouirn? upon completion
// _V
Reviewing Office: /! /'1 /-?
/CAL ,
Conunuea or r
4

\V I. Lt C..' !?? !'?'i I .1?•I { a. L. I. { L'. ,•\ ! ! ' I
i
Response
Cltet'-A"'Cr cy P!•O)Cct ReViCNV Response
-, o

=rte /c;. Nalll /vt(1?J7 -- Type of Project

The applica,cit should be advisecf chat plans and specifications for all wacer system
i-.-? m1prove.neacs must be approved by cllc Division of Evvu'onnlental Health prior co<che-award

ec. seq.).
of a contract: or file iniclatloll of cdnscruccioli (as requ :-ed -by 15A NCAC 18C.0300
For information, contact the Public Waco` Supply Section, [phone].
?---- This project will be- classified as a. non-coil mullicy DuC is water'supply and must comply Wit-
}
t _._ I stacc and federal drilllclllg wacer i110nitOrlllC, rPqu:renle::CS. For nlorC ;nformatio+l the apiolica
should concact the Pudic Water Suppler Seccicn, (91`: ! 733-232-1.
--? .1f this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of _ feet-of adjace n•.
r 7raters to the hardest of shellfish. For information rtgardirg che-sb.ellfis a anlcation progr?
m, the ac-olicant should concact the Shellfish S~nicac ?n Branch ac [phone].
The spoil 61sposal area(s) proposed for this project. rla-•' produce a mosquito breeding-proble _.

?--? r
For inrormacion concerning appropriate mosquito _ontrol measures, the applicant shcuc
contact the Public Health Pest.Management. Section t (919) 726,-8970.
--? The applicant sllouia be advisees that Dnor to the re.noval or demolition o. di.,apida_e
!
' r Cxt,. nslve ro?i"n c control l' cram . be n ' ,r lz er6er co.p!zvent-
st: uc.u,.•es, an 2ro? nza-.• ecessa_, tr
r
I iaracion of-t1he rodents cc adiacen_ a_eas. The :-_ormatioj. co:.lcerning rodCn t .contrc
aim-rent or thc•-Pubilc Health Pest Mal:aaen:en_.SeCtlOrl.«t (9i`
tact the local heaic h de
p
con
733-64-07.
- TRe a11i,llcanc should be advised to c?ntzc; the local healcll departl_l.cn, regarding he

! j /- t A•? ; rhi r tee::
ias
=0:' lnfc>:maclon car .e- ?:nb _rnt:•r t ;7 ; ?f ;! ^thA.r ?' SI!:?: waste C!SD!,S11 n•1e!_hods, conr.act =-
?
r
!--1 TI-le appl:Can.t Should be %IdVI'X.d I:O C;OI'..r?tC1. 111e. IOCZ! !le-.11di'1 dep<cm-,etl;: l•egardln b the Sanic?,
'lcllltl..: rc.C1lllred 1,01, (Ills {,f(,!l::a

!
!
) I rt r" tl r 1 y 1 ;?
l f Y.l.rii:.? Vd:1CC,' ll.. ; R ll t)P_ nih lr h .C.oIIstruCi:IOII. of .,15 )r t{1C W:1C(.1
Public \VaLev sul)'
llll:tecl cc) the "'r-slot; o1' in • I I Jnt11C ntll 171eAcll
ibi
d
t l
s
- --
t ..
,
L
.
r'
ocac:.cil nllus
,c
-
1111 Revie;v P,ral.lcl'I, 1330 St. ?afar; :, Scrcc, f2.ale;hh Nc)r!.h Chn2., (°19) 733-
Scct:ioll
,

sect/ io•6/Branch;
AD-ate'
4:?i.••itl?v!:_:.J?Y.....•.?y?."'?Z%1..in?? r:o[C_.._-. .. .. ... _. _ _
1
46
.f?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COlXENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _ q 5 - 6 Z f? County: , /ti vL 7-1
Project Name: p Z q,P
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) -1 a Co^^!'' '" ?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
.No comment
Date
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.
c/ 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.
t/ 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].
G1(/?1k.' 11 ? e///-1/9"A
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
ti

gtJ1' L CORNMAK M
PCANMNO OOMC M
•J 'G
v r +? 'a
r "ice
DAVIDSON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
913 GR£'cNS M STR££T
POST OFAC£ BOX tab?
LEMOTOM, r 0RTH CAROUNA vn3-toa
H. Franklin Vick, P.E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
!;i-?CEI
NOV 15 399
DlviSION. ©F
*? tGHWl?1?S
TAIL FRK !NUMBERS:
LE76rWON n+242.2ZZQ
THOMAMAX 910-472-9018
"NSTOWSMAM 910-724 Off. 2220
09NTON MA-WP-N" M 2226
November 16, 1994
In regard to the replacement plans for three of our county bridges,
we appreciate the priority with which the NCDQT is placing on these
replacements.
The social, economic and environmental factors which may be
involved with these projects should be minimal other than the minor
inconvenience from routine commuters. There does exist two large
residential subdivisions located in the immediate vicinity of
projects 84 and 139. These being Meadow Lily Estates and Willow
Creek respectively. This could produce unusually high amounts of
traffic at certain times of the morning and evening.
These factors, I'm sure are not uncommon to all other bridge or
road construction, therefore the only factor we as a planning
department would like to stress is centered under the heading of
Environmental. All three projects are located within a designated
water supply watershed, therefore we would like 'to ask for this
Consideration in regard to any disposition of materials away from
the water source.
Overall, we welcome and appreciate the replacement projects and
foresee no major inconveniences for the DoT. All three projects
are easily accessible and all three have plenty of room to work
around. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us
at our new location in the Davidson County Governmental Center at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Scott ?onar
County Planner
CC: Norman Shronce, County Mgr.
Guy L. Cornman, Planning Director

"Pkming For A Beth Tomorrow"
iJ
J.S. Oeoar:ment of Aoneurture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 I7J •7e corto/ersc ov Agency) I Date of Lana evarwtion Accurst /2jq q
Name C t aroiec: K - ?? L I ??1 D Feomt Agency rnvoweail? •7?
Procosea Lana Use \? I County Ana State N] 1 C '
PART 11 (To ae comolered by SCSI I Oats Revues, a V1u,3vq b W El.a
Does me site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes/ No Acres Irrigated 'Average Farm Sise
(If no. *Pe FPPA does nor cooly - do not compere additional pars of this form). xl Q 1 'Vwgg I Ct 4-
Major C.001SI Fertnaote Lana in Govt. Junsatetson Amount Of r:arimana As Oerinaa in rP?A
C or.n I Acres: ZI 5 . Z-34 %I $ . 4 i Acres:. 2 5a , 4 -7 % " 1 1.4-
Name Ot Lana. Evaluation System uses N&M of Ww Site Assaament System Oate yna cva,taauan Returnee aY Jia
A/ 131S,
PART Ill (76 be complered by ^ederal agency) L Arternanve Site manna
I Site A I Sin 3 I Site C I Site O
A. Totai Acres To Be Corver-ec Oirec iv I n. ( I I i -
S. Totai Acres To Be Convened Indirecdv I I I I
C. Total :acres in Site ( Q, 1 I I I _
PART IV (To be complered by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information I i
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I O I I I
3. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Fwmland I O. OCN 1 I I __
I I
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Goyt. Unit To Be Converted I FT 66
0. Pwtentage Of ?srmiana in Govt. Jur:sdicaon Yrtm Sure or Migner Retative value I 7'9 .4- I I I
.PART V (To be complered cy SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (SQieofOro 100Pain=J ! 3? S I
PART VI (76 cc complered by =edera! .".gene)
Siat A essrnent Critsna Inera chtsrfa are eztslained in 7 CFR 6W.51W ` maximum
Points
f
1. Area In Nonurjan Use i /5 I Q I I I -
2. Perimeter In Nonuroan Use I /Q I /) I I
3. Percent Of Site Being =armed I 9? I O I I
4. Protection Providec By State And Local Government I ZO I D I I I
5. Oirance From Urban Buiituc Area I I - I I
6. Oistance To U=n Succor, Services I 1 -' I I I
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average I /// I /O I I I _ -
& Creston Of Nonfarmaoie Farmland I 2J? I O ? I I -
9. Availability Of Farm Suooort Services I I I I I
10. On-;arm Investments ZD I ID I I I
11. Effe= Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Services I 25 I _Q - - _ I
12. Comoatibility Witn =xistina Agricultural Use 1 /10 O I I
TOTAL. SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 ZS
xART VII (To be complered by Federal Agency) I I I I I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 ( `
38•S I
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI aoove ora local I 160
S7te assessment! 2$
TOTAL POINTS (7 oral of aoove 2lines) I 260 f 63

ltd Selected:
I Oats Of Selection I Was A LOW Site A=MWnlnt Used?
Yes ? No ?
:teesan ;or St+eCion: