19950979 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
9 Sq-79
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
September 7, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
a SEPIi10
WETtJ4t, ,.'°
_,<.:, xtMATER Ull!!3Y Sci ri?3I?I
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 404 over Richland Creek on
SR 2830, TIP No. B-2858, State Project No. 8.2571001, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-2830(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771,115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality 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.

T .. M f 9,- }
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: ' Ms. Jean Manuele, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. E. V&tesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Philip S. Harris, PE, Project Planning Engineer

t* ?
Randolph County
SR 2830
Bridge No. 404
Over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2830(1)
State Project No. 8.2571001
T.I.P. No. B-2858
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-71U195 Lo
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ilallqS P,.,L
DATE Nicholas . Graf, P.E.
f&Z'
Division Administrator, FHWA
p• . « ,
Randolph County
SR 2830
Bridge No. 404
Over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2830(1)
State Project No. 8.2571001
T.I.P. No. B-2858
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
••.• ?? CAR014
Pamela R. Williams
'••.?
Project Manager ?.?`??_• ?.•'EESS o
SE AL
i 7521
•'•? fyGINE?••'??
mes Wang, Ph.D., P.E. ?''•,,?4,yj fs'S •?'?P,•*
Principal
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail imes, P. . Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
A ac
Phil Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Randolph County
SR 2830
Bridge No. 404 Over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-2830(1)
State Project No. 8.2571001
T.I.P. No. B-2858
Bridge No. 404 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
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
'Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts.
2. NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of this project to minimize
impacts to the Cape Fear Shiner:
a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout
construction of the temporary detour and main line.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas.
C. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow debris to enter the
stream. Removal efforts are to avoid asphalt in stream.
d. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission prior to
construction.
li. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 404 will be replaced on existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with
a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft) and a length of approximately
39 meters (128 ft). The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as
the existing bridge grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
grassed shoulders, for approximately 80 meters (262 ft) each side of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure during the construction
period as shown in Figure 2.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $676,750 including $51,750 for right-of-way and
$625,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $398,000 including $48,000 for right-of-way and
$350,000 for construction.
111. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2830 is classed as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily agricultural and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. SR 2830
is signed as an access route to the N. C. Zoological Park. Bridge No. 404 is located southeast
of Asheboro and within 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) of the N.C. Zoological Park.
Near the bridge, SR 2830 has a 5.4 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 2.1 meter (7 ft)
shoulders. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 195 meter radius (9 degree)
curve approximately 110 meters (360 ft) north of the bridge. The bridge is situated in a sag
vertical curve. The roadway is approximately 5.4 meters (18 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 1000 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 1900 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kmh ( 55
mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1956 (Figure 3A and 313). The superstructure consists of timber
deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber
caps and piles with concrete footings.
The overall length of the bridge is 38.4 meters (126 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.9 meters (19.3
ft). The posted weight limit is 11,804 kilograms (13 tons) for single vehicles and 14,528
kilograms (16 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 404 has a sufficiency rating of 18.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported on the bridge during the period from June 1, 1991 to May 31,
1994. The accident occurred at the north approach when the vehicle ran off the right side of
road at a high rate of speed 97 kmh (60 mph).
Aerial utility lines cross SR 2830 at the existing bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Randolph County School buses cross the bridge nine times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Bridge No. 404 will be replaced with a structure approximately 39 meters (128 ft) long with a
clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft). This structure will accommodate a 6.6 meter (22 ft)
travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side. The existing roadway will be widened to
a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders.
2
Alternate A (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge along the existing alignment. This
alternate would required a temporary on-site detour downstream of the existing bridge. The
detour structure length would be approximately 32 meters (105 ft.).
Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge along the existing alignment utilizing an off-site detour.
Traffic would be detoured along NC 42, SR 2826, SR 2824 and SR 2834, a distance of 8.9
kilometers (5.6 miles) of indirectional travel, during an eight month construction period. The
cost of additional travel would be approximately $403,920. The estimated cost of providing an
on-site detour is $278,950, resulting in a cost/benefit ratio of 1.45. This ratio indicates that an
off-site detour is not economically feasible. This route is also designated as an access to the N.
C. Zoological Park.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2830.
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
Structure Removal (existing) $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Structure (proposed) 198,600 198,600
Detour Structure and Approaches 198,000 0
Roadway Approaches 35,900 35,900
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 89,000 53,500
Engineering and Contingencies 91,500 50,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 51.750 47,800
TOTAL $676,750 $397,800
VI.
Alternate A, which includes an adjacent on-site detour, is recommended because an off-site
detour is lengthy with poor roadway conditions. SR 2830 has substantial traffic volumes and
school buses and is designated as an access route for the N. C. Zoological Park. Bridge No.
404 will be replaced at its existing location with a new structure approximately 39 meters (128
ft) in length. Traffic will be maintained by a temporary on-site detour immediately east of the
existing bridge (Figure 2). Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary on each
end of the bridge.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
approach work. A 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement
structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22
3
ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3.0 ft) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 90 kmh
(55 mph).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 39 meters (128 ft). The elevation of the roadway will be approximately the
same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure should maintain a minimum 0.3 percent
grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and opening may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The Division Engineer agrees with the recommendation that the structure be replaced at the
existing location utilizing an on-site detour.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area is located in a rural setting of Randolph County (Figure 1)
southeast of Asheboro, North Carolina. The project site lies within the central portion of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province. Randolph County is a predominantly rural county with some
textile based industry.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Asheboro); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Asheboro); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats; and NC Division of Environmental Management Benthic Macroinvertebrate 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 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.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently sloping. Project area
elevation is approximately 170 meters (560.0 feet).
This portion of Randolph County contains soils from the Tatum-Nason-Goldston soil
association, which are soils that are commonly rocky, stony or gravelly with moderate
permeable silty clay subsoils; on short, narrow, sloping ridges and hilly land. The project study
area can be characterized as a moderately sloping, wooded and rocky area with a narrow
4
wetland floodplain on the north side of the stream near the bridge. The soils of the small
floodplain area are probably from the Chewacla-Wehadkee association which are characterized
as wet soils with moderately permeable loamy subsoils.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated,
mixed hardwood forest, and floodplain wetlands. Dominant faunal components associated with
these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are
adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be
mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches, as well as the old field southwest of the bridge and powerline easement along the
roadway. 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). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by the above,
plus, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), and greenbrier
(Smilax 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 (Cardnalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratodus) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along Richland Creek. The dominant
canopy trees in this area include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and black walnut (Julglans nigra).
An understory of dogwood (Comus flodda), mountain laurel (Kalmia lahfolia), and privet
(Ligustrum sp.). The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle, greenbrier, muscadine
grape (Vids rotundifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Animals previously listed
5
may also be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon lotor) and a variety of
woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Floodplain Wetland Community
This community consists of a 6.0 to 12.0 meter (20 to 40 foot) wide area along the north side of
Richland Creek near the existing bridge. It is well defined between the stream bank and a rock
outcrop. The National Wetlands Inventory Map (Asheboro) identifies several palustrine,
forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PF01A) wetland areas along Richland
Creek near the project area. Vegetation within the wetland area consists of American
sycamore, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sweetgum, tag alder (Alnus semilata), joe-pye
weed (Eupatorium frstulosum), and poison ivy. Soils within this area were typically dark gray
(10YR 4/1) with some yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) mottles. Hydrology factors present in the
floodplain wetland include scouring and debris line.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Richland Creek. Within the project area
Richland Creek is approximately 19.5 meters (64 feet) wide and 0.6 to 1.5 meters (2.0 to 5.0
feet) deep. On the day of investigation the stream was clear with a slow to moderate flow to the
southeast. The stream bottom is very rocky with large rock outcrops and cobblestones within
the creek and very little sand or gravel.
The stream banks are moderately sloped, 0.6 to 6.0 meters (2.0 to 20.0 feet) high, and
vegetated with mixed hardwoods. Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon),
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 macroinvertebrates
such as mayfly, stonefly, dragonfly and caddisfly larvae in the shallower areas and along the
stream margins, under stones and leaf debris. Chironomid larvae and oligochaetes would
occur on the substrate within the deeper waters. A variety of fish would be expected to inhabit
this moderately size stream, including shiner (Notropis sp.), sunfish (Lepomis sp.) and darters
(Etheostoma sp.). Although mussels may inhabit the creek, none were observed in the project
area during the natural resource site investigation.
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.
6
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
Bridge No. 404
Replacement
Impacts
Alternative A
Permanent
Temporary
Alternative B
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES (ACRES)
Man-
Dominated Mixed
Hardwood Floodplain
Wetland
Community Community Community
0.09 (0.22) 0.09 (0.22) 0.01 (0.02)
0 0.29 (0.73) 0.01 (0.02)
0.09 (0.22) 0.09 (0.22) 0.01 (0.02)
Aquatic I Combined
Community Total
0.016 (0.04) 0.2 (0.70)
0.016 (0.04) 0.31 (0.79)
0.016 (0.04) 0.21 (0.50)
Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to the terrestrial communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow
strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. In-place
bridge replacement (Alternate B) without an on-site detour results in slightly less infringement
upon terrestrial communities than bridge replacement with an on-site detour (Attemate A).
Proposed construction of Alternate A or Alternate B is not expected to result in significant
adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily
within disturbed areas immediately adjacent to right-of-way limits.
Aquatic Communities
The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.032 hectare (0.08 acre) of
stream bottom. The new bridge construction and approach work will likely 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 speed in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Cape Fear River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Richland Creek flows southeast through the proposed project area and empties into the Deep
River south of Coleridge approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) downstream from the project
site. The Deep River continues to flow southeast and joins with the Haw River near Moncure,
7
NC to form the Cape Fear River. The stream's headwaters are on the east side of Asheboro.
Richland Creek has an average width of 19.5 meters (64.0 feet) and varies in depth between
0.5 to 1.5 meters (2.0 to 5.0 feet) throughout the project limits. The creek substrate is mostly
rock and cobblestones with little sand or gravel. Richland Creek has a Class C rating from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division
of Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation,
boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
The Division of Environmental Management maintains a Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) station on Richland Creek at SR 2873 in Randolph County, which is
approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 miles) downstream of the project crossing. According to data
collected in July 1993 the stream has a good bioclassification. The diversity of the
ephemeropteran (12 species), plecopteran (two abundant species) and trichopteran (12
species) community (EPT index) reflects good water quality and relatively low sedimentation
rates from non-point sources in the surrounding watershed. The Division of Environmental
Management does not maintain any fish monitoring stations near this location.
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 will take place as a result of the project
construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project
construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No.
404 with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short
term impacts to the aquatic community will result due to the placement of support piles in the
creek channel. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Long term impacts to
water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
A. small area 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of wetlands on the north stream bank may be impacted
by the bridge project. Wetlands that may be impacted will be approximately 0.02 hectare (0.02
acres) of permanent impact and 0.02 hectare (0.02 acres) of temporary impact due to the
detour. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using
methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be
accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water
8
•
impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Approximately
0.032 hectare (0.08 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 404.
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
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation for impacts is
generally not required by the COE. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements
rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in decline either due to natural forces or due to
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Randolph County, and
any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction, are
discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two (2) federally protected species
for Randolph County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear Shiner E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
notes:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
9
The Cape Fear shiner is a small fish, rarely exceeding two inches in length. The body is
flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The fins are yellowish
and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar along its
margin. This shiner feeds extensively on plant material and its digestive tract is modified for this
diet by having an elongated, convoluted intestine.
The species is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates and has been
observed to inhabit slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. In these habitats, the Cape Fear shiner is
typically associated with schools of other related species, but it is never the numerically
dominant species. Juveniles are often found in slackwater, among large rock outcrops in
midstream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Constituent elements include clean
streams with gravel, cobble, boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs, and slackwater
areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with good quality water with
relatively low sift loads. Critical Federal habitat in Randolph County includes 1.5 miles of Fork
Creek from just upstream of SR 2873 to the Deep River and then downstream into Moore
County.
Cape Fear shiner is documented from the Deep River approximate (6.25 kilometers) 10
miles downstream of the project This species likely utilizes the lower stretches of
Richland Creek. The project site lies within a NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Proposed Critical Area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an informal Section 7 Consultation
May 16, 1995, with NCWRC regarding possible impacts to the Cape Fear shiner. The NCDOT
will implement the following measures in construction of the subject project per the discussions:
High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout
construction of the temporary detour and main line.
2. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas. .
3. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow debris to enter the
stream. Removal efforts are to avoid asphalt in stream.
4. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission prior to
construction.
Based upon the proposed measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this
project will not likely to adversly affect the Cape Fear shiner. USFWS concurred with this
biological conclusion (see reply in Appendix)
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1 to 2 meters (3.28 to
6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or
above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the
lower stem and changing to aftemate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick
texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of
10
yellow flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3 to 3.5 millimeters (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long
and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and
edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high
gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
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. 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 of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Randolph
County. 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
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dactylothere peedeensis W No
(Pee Dee ostracod)
Fusconaia masoni T Yes
(Atlantic pigtoemussel)
Alasmidonta varicosa T Yes
(Brook floater)
notes:
"W° denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concern,
but not warranting active monitoring at this time.
"T" denotes a State Threatened species which are afforded protection by state laws.
11
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential habitat exists for two federally listed endangered species, the Cape Fear shiner and
Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were found during a habitat
search. Although potential habitat exists for the Cape Fear Shiner, the only documented
populations occur within the extreme southern portion of Randolph County. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no other records exist for rare species
or habitats in the project area.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
Considering the findings to date, it appears that the bridge replacement will not have an adverse
effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT
standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that one property over fifty years of age in the projects area of potential effect is considered not
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the SHPO letter is
included in the Appendix.
Mr. David Brook, the Deputy SHPO, in a letter dated July 13, 1995, commented the presence
of the National Register eligible archaeological site in the proposed project area is unlikely.
Therefore no archaeological survey will be conducted for the project. A copy of the SHPO letter
is included in the Appendix. No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
12
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
166,575 hectares (411,399 acres) of prime or important soils found in Randolph 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 25 out of a possible 260.
A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Randolph County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project and the bridge will be
replaced at its existing location with a bridge. 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.
Randolph County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
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.
13
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.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1993. Results of Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Sampling for Richland Creek at SR 2873,
Randolph County, July 26, 1993
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.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, N. Y.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of
Randolph 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.
14
t t
M
42
T2667
$05
0
S
OUTH
ORO,, .?
7
(UNINC.) S
P. \2,A45
I
159
2973 7,
'2 1
I
2971 2953
2954
2839
29

tA
1 rt`
2828
MIDGE # 404 2830
2832
• •`Rr?'f7(gnd
• ,
33d 2832
Z00LIDGICAL
;PARK
2690
2606
2608
1
1607
268A
261 A
ntville
41126-IlGr8Aa5 14
2908
8
• lssz
i .?w¦ ••? AAa aTC
i ? 62
•?408
•
• r
• I
i
R
• 1
i
• r
r I
•. I Fa
i
? ton
?
• inas
•
?
• I
• 1
i
r r
•
• i
5 1 Uu1CU uC ? vvr? rwv ¦ ? T
7 lima -+?
eve' Cross 1 1 `?
23 °
IIDB 2 Lihe O ?I
'P andlema Grays Chapel4
Worthvil t
. "z Staley
?•L e P YFi-.
r U d. Franw'invd 12
?Fall
SF 8
49 Ramseur
1 Asheber 8 '
1 ? I
s o Mount
rla 42 a Colerid
•
N. C. 1
1••wo?d
v a 21 1.
c«a.?. r I
5 Ai
3
Seagrove
Whvnot 1
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 404
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-2858
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
I I

p 04
q < Y

a <n O
d }- U
}}. o
ui a E

z 0
d

C)

ni- F Z
C) 00
?

'- `

° QLL.pC)C?

Z Z
U W 0a04
II

? Q.
2
m cnOZ?
Z?5 Z Z (D W J
D Wom
-i
?
;. o?>? mpzz U
4 Zf-oam
°?
?o

P q
F 00
pis? ? x N

733dO C'
Qw
wo
f- z
Qw
z
w g
w0
I- U
J
Q LLI
00
a. ~
?w
w?
z
ry
w
J
Q

RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 404
B-2858
LOOKING NORTH
ON SR 2830
LOOKING SOUTH
ON SR 2830
FIGURE 3A
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 404
B-2858
UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 404
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 404
FIGURE 3B
r
RANDOLPH
COUNTY
B-2858
HM3
x
BRIDGE # 404
i_IM1T of
DETAILED
STUDY
RM5
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
0 250 500

HM4 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
injol
/ •(%
H[o
i \\ M
6
II
• Private Huad
FIGURE 4
s?
United States Department of the Interior
HSU AND WMDLM SERVIC-
Ecological Services
post Office Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 275363726
TO; 1+a FmGn qie-K) P, 91dAni VT vmd En Ji ra4rn?t'ttrew-41ti". J1 1 1995
.-
INSTANT REPLY 1
please excuse this form. We thought you would prefer a speedy reply to a
formal letter. This form serves to provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
recommendation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Re: ? 0
Project ame
q 15• Z,` $
:.
Date of In-min coLetter
Based on our records, there are no Federally-listed endangered or
threatened species which may,oacu within the project impact area.
The attached page(s) list(s) the Federally-listed species which
may occur wi.thin,the project impact area.
if the proposed project will be removing pines greater. than or equal
to 30 years of age in pine or pine./hardwood habitat, surveys should
be conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in
appropriate habitat within.a 1/2 mile radius of project boundaries.
if red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within the project area or
active cavity trees found, the project has the potential to
adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you should contact
is office for further information.
The Service concurs that the proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect Federally-listed endangered or-threatened species,
their formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
" proposed for Federal listing under the'Endangered Species Act, as
amended.
•
AA JA IL
Biologist Date
-l
CONCUR: ?Kkk
Supervisor ate
.0
a0 Sl Z#t :ON -Si ? 80: L0 3fU S6 W-Wf

STATE -,-%.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1995, transmitting the concurrence forms
for nineteen bridge replacement projects. I have signed and dated them, and they
are enclosed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
y.
ED
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
cc: VH. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
0D,
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?
{' , L
i??6 'Y'om
Federal Aid # IW7- - 2I 5-0 County
RkWOCU 4
CONCURRENCE FOPIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
tt'uwG E'i R1 DEG *1.. A04 oN 4:. 2b SO evt=.R- Qaat tAN p c,"aiZ
On J ktJuyj z;, 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
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 'FrrperH -4 are
considered not eligible ble for the National Register and no further evaluation of then -rs necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA, fo e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
RepreFritative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survev report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A 3

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 13, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects,
ER 95-9216
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
P ?4?N
JUL 17 1995
2
DIVISICNI0}.
ti1GHWAyS
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 14, 1995, concerning the following bridge
replacements.
Bridge 56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
As noted in our letter of December 8, 1994, site 31 DV401 is likely to be affected
and should be tested to determine its National Register eligibility. The remaining
area involved in the on-site detour should be surveyed to determine if additional
archaeological sites will be affected. .
Bridge 139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Had we been informed that Bridge 139 is located in the middle of Willow Creek golf
course, we probably would not have recommended an archaeological survey. We
agree that prior land disturbance associated with golf course development has
reduced the likelihood of significant archaeological remains within the area of
potential effect. Therefore, we no longer recommend an archaeological survey for
this project.
Bridge 90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-287, 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
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project areas, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with these projects.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
?Nicholas L. Graf
July 13, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
i erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sllww
cc: " H. F. Vick
T. Padgett

Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 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. 11SA-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
}
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at
this site. We also stock this section of the raver
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 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau,
[phone], on this project.
5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do not oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a }}drys} 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.
aw ??v a??v? a? a??a-v L111\L 1LL +r vrv rvvr L?rr v? r? +- Vv -.V.iV 1 •VQ
, I 1 %
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 2830
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
4 , t Y
Memo Page 4 December 6, 1994
(Alasmidcnta 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 Gaudreau, [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 NCDQT to routinely minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
replacements. The NCDQT 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.
F , , l State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A7*91
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
E H N F 1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihar?;'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be considered in
the Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions)
prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the stream classifications of the streams
potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 509A recycled/ 10% past-consumer paper
% t % t
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 Borth Carolina
Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office: w6.p-O
Project Number. Due Date:
q5-C) a.c? g -I 9
After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(sl 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 Regionil Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Process
Time
.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (Statutory time
limit)
Permit to consirvel t operate wastewater tramment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 Gays
facilities, sewer system extensions, t sewer construction cantracis On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not 6ischarging into state Surface waters. "technical conference usual too days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water atncVor Application te7 days before be-.in activity. On-site Inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construe! wastewater facilities fare-application conference usual Additionally. obtain permn to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment fazility•granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
tine. 30 days after receipt of plans or issiic of NPDES
permit-whichever is Later.
Water Cfse Pwmit Pre-application Iechnrcat conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA!
Well Construction Permit Complete apoticatron must be received and permit issued 7 days
pnor to the installation of a well. (1s days)
- -- Application copy must W served on each adjacent npa•ian property 55 Gays
Dredge WiG Fill termll owner On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fitt from N.C Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

J Permit to construct t operate Au Pollution Atatement
f
il
i
r 60 Gays
itres and
az
o' Emiss
on Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA (9C Wys)
Any open burning assoc:a'ed will, subject proposal
must be in compt,ance wan 1SA NCAC 20.04-20.
Demolition or renc.at,ons of structures containing
as.;esics ma'eria' must be in cDmphsrce with 15A 6C Cays
J NCAC 20 0S2: which requires nwifical-on and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
919733.0820 (9C Cays)
Complex Source Permit requireC under 11A NCAC 2D.080o

a e Sedimentation Poliulron Control Act of 1973 must W prcperiy addiesseC for any land distu bins activity An e•csion 8 seC;menlauo
condo! plan will be required if one or more acres to be d sturted Plan filed with pre;>er Re;iona' Office (Land Oualoy Sect ) a: least 30 20 days
dais terore be^.nnrn ac'rvrt A fee or S3C for the first acre ano S2-0 00 for er_`• acdnrona' acre or an must accor^canv the Dian 3c. Cavsl
J The Sedrmentatron Pollution Control Act of 1973 must t>e aCCreaeC.with respect to the refvtenceC Lo-cat Ordinance: (3C Cays)
On site Inspection usual Surely bond filed wilt'. EHNR Bond amount
)fining Permit varies with Type mine and num`,er of acres of affected land Any area 3C days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The a,^pro;hale bond 0-0 days)
must be received terore the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 day
exceeds t days (NIA)
J Special Ground C'earance Burning Permit • 22
I Cr, site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -if more 1 day
counties
n cea fat N.C. with organic "I.,% than five acres of ground clearing activities are inve!ved In3pectrons (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days tcfore actust burn is planned.-
90120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (N:A)
if permit required. a,-pticat:on 61 days tefore iN:g-Zn construction.
-1 Applicant must hire N C. quatifrad engineer to pre;a:e plans. 30 days
C.m .°,a!C!y Permit inpp.?,:t ;r.nslnrr:• :; Ce:.. orSlruetion Ii. 8!COrd,rL to cwus approv-
e. ;vans. May a!;•.: icquire prrmil under mosq;;ito con:ro! prpgram. Ana (60 days)
a ASS pt:rnil from Corps of Eng.':.cc•'s Ar. in,;)eclion of site is notes-
sa•y to vtrity li,:ard C!ass-Geation. A minimum fee c! i Y 00 must aC-
com;ar.y Me a;;!ication. An ad:':Gonar piece sing ft:e t- red on a
^?•r. .nra^r or INC lc'. pre ?tl eCt wig ti! re^.. rrL .,. -? rein„!etion

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
I Reviewing Office: l} ?? C1
?'j f?-
Project Numoer: 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
Regional Office. Normal Proces-.
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory ;ir^?
limn)
Permit to construct 8 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-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
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
i
nischarg:ng into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NiAl
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit -whichever is later. I
30 cavs t
C 'Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
days
rI Well Construction Permit I
Complete application must be received and permit issued 4
L? prior to the installation of a well. (1„ :aysl
I
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 nays
Dredge and =•,i Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual- Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 ca'+s;
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
r-^
°err.u c _crs:ruct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement
60 ca,:s
I_ fac es a. r Ernission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 NIA t90 ,
Any open ourrima associated with subject proposal
C must be :n ocmouance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demouricn _ erovaiions of structures containing
asbestos m.a?enai must be in commiance with 15A 60 Cavs
NCAC 2C C=Zc :+nicn requires notification and removal NIA
prior ;d der.:., •t,on Contact Asbestos Control Group
9i9.733O8 90 ,-,si
.I Compie, Sa:r_e Dermit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
i
i
he Scci,^.._^..:a:;or. Pollution Contra Act of 197, must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 2 secimentanod
?r controi czar ::.. oe equired if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Lana Cuality Sec-i at least 30 20 cats
l z'+s t:er^re ::c_:nnino activity. A fee of S30 for :he first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or Dart must accomoanv ire oli i1-,; rst

C The Sec::- -:!rn Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with resoect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: I (30 .a: s)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR. Bond amount
C Mining Perri : varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 60 Cays;
must be received before the permit can be issued.
E_,.r nr, perrr.,t On-site insoechon by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit
-;.
exceeds 4 days I NrA'
Soecaai C:earance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more . Ca:
JOUniieC :n _casial N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (WA}
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

C 90120 says
oa R',iinmc =actliltes NIA (NIAi
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
- Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. I 30 ::a+s
` ?•i ... .•.... inspect construction. certify construcaion is dccordino to EHNR approv

I
ed plans M ;v also require permit unner mosquito control program And i
a =C- permit trotn Corp;; of Engmeei:; :n inspection of site is neces
sary to verify Hazard Classification A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
oercentaoe or the total protect cost :viii be required upon completion
Continued on ..i. ,i.
t e a .•
AN i j i.;
l.Jl .1I.1,_1:`: \ ). I'.i'`I??I.I.\(..'!?\!'?'iI'.{?•? { :'?.!.. I. {!'.??! !??'1
inter-AgencyP-mjcct heY;e?Y r,espollse

%
'roj'cc;: Nan ! ypc of Projca 0
?. The applic:illt shoulcl be advised th:u plans and specifications for ail water syscern
?--? in1proveinents n?ust be approved by the Division of Ervlronnlelltal Heal.tll prior mthe?awarcl
of a contract or tine iniclacior. of ccnscrllccioli (as required by 1SA. NCAC 1SC..0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact Che Public Wam.- Supply Se_cioin, [phone].
r-? This•projecc will be classified as a. non-colnmunicy pu'rlic water supply and must conlpxy with
__
l_._J r 1.' ?a ,
reaCl'al d1'lll,?ll.? V?aCC: 10n1t01'l11a ? l'e..qll.ret7le:•:CS. FC1.1110rC in:01"rl_aC:oil the ap•plicaltr
Slate 1nQ i.
should contact the Public Wacer Supply Section, (91c' 733-2321.
r • .• •?••.•-f adjacent
?-? .1r this project is conscnicced as proposed, we Till recdAmend closure of feeL• o
U Wacel's to the har-.,esc of shellfish. For informaclon regarding the •shellfi-s i sanitation progra
In, the acplicant should concacc the Shellfish Sanicaci Dn Branch at [phone].
Tne spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this p rroect -*.a.. produce a nZOSCUito breeding'prcblen?
t I I:-or lmorn?acion concerning appropriate n_osqulto _on.crol measures, the applicanc'shoulc
contact the Public Health Pest.Management Section c [phone].
!---•1 app rlC should be 2dVISCCi l'h2C prior 1i.0 t[ic iCi210 \'al 01"- der!ZO litlO r? OI d1i1p 1d 2Le'
The llca^ ,
SCruC, 210 2rOb _ be necessal; l.n order t0'p!"eVenL• ti?
! J z.ul.•eS nYL.°-nSiYe rOLC_ 1'I.-1C CO1_L1.Ot t Craril . i:la'•' J
r
mi-raclon of -1111C rodents L'C ?dlacent :eaJ. The :-TormaciOn. colleeri?u1g rOdez t 'cointrC
contact the local healcl_ deparLirent or chc Pu5i1c Health Pest I?hallagen?en..Secclorl.at (91
7 3 3-6407.
lilpl;canL shoulc be advisee. co co ltac'. the 1x11 health depart)?ZCP_C :P,ar?lin? file
CrC:C C.,yl?:. :nPt?{11t,?rc f2c ,p[„l,r!'j tii?rjPr..IaP• NC•A?• 1's-A .1.91011 eL. Se'
r? vuit? act.. a. • a ._ .L .. _
x'01' lnr0::?12.ti0.^. C^n._'n11?7 crn lr Va11V'n;! nCh° O SI" ??7Sre iSnnS11 nlrl_hodS, conLAcz L:
\. '•:'u}.•'?:: ?f `i`n.r 1oi•P, rJ !, ?f ,ill ;l,
---? The appllcaIII: skoulcl I)e advised 1:0 cor.lract. 11 e.. local rlealtil depac n;'en;: regarding the sanit<
I.- -? {1Cl m ..S !•'.gmreCl for mis {7f[;jec:'
! .C fXl.`,l'1l'? Y.'atC! it:?r.` f)^ iUr l'IlC ?V1l:F,C l:
I- -1 1•P.1ocat:.Cn nnuSt be sill?l. 'u,d cc) thc: .11 :'!:i1011 of "11••'11•01linentll tc- ch 1'1111711r ?'atCl' ?illll.
SCcclon, :7111? 1\c"Vie V Bral'tCl1, 13,)0 13,)0 Sc. Mary :i SL'1'LCL' i\.1lC1hh NC?Il.,l ?_:,CC>ILll2., (71.f J3:?-:-=r
:r?.;:`;??lcviel.. - Section/T3rancli, ,Late'
:; .ry?yysrr...1•..?.??.r•.•r.r
:i?t:u ='i?iLYr'9sa't=1T..'?':E? = ? . =:er•_. c-...... ._ ..... .. .
t / Z %

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW Comm= Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: q 5 - 6 Z ?' County: Al vL T /
Project Name: ... D Z 9 "?'
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) ?- O Co.?/?r•`?
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer4-16 Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land !disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion.and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
i to N
J.S. Jeoar;men: of ;,crscuirurt
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I I7 o ^e cornwerec cy =ecero/ .age7cv) I Cate of Lana Evaluation aeauest Il f 3O y., I
Name Ct Qlec•. -Feoeral Agency Involved `?
- 8- 2g?8 8?1oyc ? 404 I ?V
Prooosec Lana Use County Ana State
I RANI ntO LPP , 1\ 1 ( _
PART 11 (To ce comwered cy SCS; I Oat* eaue?t?estved 3v SCS r
%I ??
Does Cie site contain prime, unique, statewide or loot important farmland? Yes -No Acre Irrigated Average Form Size
(if no, the FP)OA does nor a9701y - do nor conviere addirional Parts of this form). Q X. I w I ` o-1
Major -,Oats) Fartnacie Land in Govt. JunsarQron Amount Of Fermlam As Oefined In 71P -DA
C o,c r J Aces: 4 2% 1 q)S % 4:a4. 3 I Acres: 4l g q % 8 k•4k-
Name tuna evaluation System used resrne Of Loo! to Asumment System
o.v%t?o\ p ? V-1 AJOJJE I Oate Lana cvsl non Returned Sv SCS
1131 AS
'ART 111 (To be comclereo by Federzi .agency) I
I Site A AIt!rnative Site Ratrno
I Site 3 I Site C I Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Conver-ed 0irecty I 0 I1 I O ID I i

3. Total Acres To Be Conveyed Indirecdv
I __
I I I
C. Total Acres In Site I? 1 ? I ?,) Q I I
'ART IV (To be compered by SCS) Land Evaluation Information I ( I
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland I O ) I I
3. Total Acres Smtewilze And Local Imoaraint Farmland I 0 I I
C. Percentage Of rarmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted I 17 I ! I
0. Psrtentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction 'Mtn Sarne Or Higner Ae+stive Value I 10 Q 1 too
I j
ART V (-job* compered by SCS; Land Evaluation Criterion
. Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/eofOro l00PoinnJ (
Q
I
ART VI (To be comolereo by Federal .agency)
to Aaseament C.iteria fi?rate crireria are a raiainrd in 7 CFA SW-51b) Maximum
Pair=
`
1. Area In NonurOan Use I /5 I 47
2. Perimeter In Nonuroan Use I /? I I j
.?.vrcarrt v. Jrle tieing rarmeo I 1 I 0 1 1
4. Protection Provided By State And Locai Government I 2Q ! Q I I I
5. Oismnee From Urtean Buiituo Area
6. Oistance To Urran Sucoort Services I I I -?
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average I /0 I /Q I /Q I I
B. Creation Of Nonfarmaoie Farmland I I I I I
9. Availability Of Farm Suooort Services I S S I S I
10. On-farm Investments I 20 I (
11. Effe= Of Conversion on Farm Suooorr Services I Z5 I p 0 I
12 Comoatioility With Existing Acricuitural Use I /d I D I O I
I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I ZS ++
2S I
RT V11 (To be compered by Federal Agi rxy) I I ( ! '
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) I 100 i O O
Total Site Assessment (rrom Parr V1 above or a )oor ( 160
sire a=essmenr/ 2S ( zS
OTAL POINTS 11 oral of above 2lines) 260 I 2S Zs
Was A Loot Site Aepesme IT UeeC?
I Selej:.ed: I Oats Of Selection I Yes C1 No ?
son Por>tteC.:On: -