19950940 Ver 1_Complete File_19950907

? s ?,: STATr
o?
rr°'A AA
1
5?4v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATfON
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 31, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SFP-7
K. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Rowan County, Replacement of Bridge No. 1 over Grant's Creek on
SR 1526, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1526(1), State Project 8.2632901,
T.I.P. No. B-2865.
jurisdictional wetland communities.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 1 will be replaced at the same location
and elevation as the existing structure. The new bridge will be 33 meters
(108 ft.) in length and have a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft.).
During construction, traffic will be detoured onto existing area roads.
Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any
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 anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
Rol,
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.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Robert Johnson, COE Asheville 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
-r- .

Rowan County
SR 1526
Bridge No. 1
Over Grant's Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1526(1)
State Project No. 8.2632901
T.I.P. No. B-2865
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-71Z S S 2LO
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
7 Z6 .? 44fa-ZA-l DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
--P"
Rowan County
SR 1526
Bridge No. 1
Over Grant's Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1526(1)
State Project No. 8.2632901
T.I.P. No. B-2865
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Q
=
.
Pamela Williams

.,
CAM/

Project Manager N
,
,.?? p •..•••••'q '•,,
.
.
4ESSfq
?
•
,
?
?
•.
p
' SEAL
•
i 7521
?c?
.?'
'•:.?ClE1E??•
?'•
mes Wang, Ph.D., E.
o?
?
,? ?9
Principal l ?1,,,
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. a Grimes .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
PL,D,P, .4 "=
Phil Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Rowan County
SR 1526
Bridge No.1 Over Grants Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1526(1)
State Project No. 8.2632901
T.I.P. No. B-2865
Bridge No. 1 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 the Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on
school bus traffic.
3. In-water work will not be scheduled in April or May as requested by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 1 will be replaced on existing location as shown in Figure 2. The new bridge will
have a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft) and an approximate length of 33 meters (108
ft). The structure will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders on
each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure may be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) above the
existing bridge grade at this location to accommodate for the hydrological design requirements.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders including 0.6 meters (2 ft) paved, for approximately 100 meters (328 ft) southeast
and 155 meters (508 ft) northwest of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $595,000 including $45,000 for right-of-way and
$550,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $445,000 including $45,000 for right-of-way and
$400,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1526 is classified as a urban local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily commercial and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Rowan
Mills Golf Course is located on southeastern side of SR 1526 (Rowan Mills Road). Rowan
County Airport and a county landfill are located southwest (upstream) of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1526 has a 5.4 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 2.1 meter (7 ft)
shoulders. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the north and south approach.
Bridge No. 1 is located in a sag vertical curve. The roadway is situated approximately 4.6
meters (15 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 2800 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 4700 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include four percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted
speed limit is 90 kmh (55 mph) at the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1955 and is shown in Figures 3A and 3B. The superstructure
consists of timber deck on steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete abutments and one bent with timber cap, post and sill pier on
concrete footing.
The overall length of the bridge is 18 meters (59 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19
ft). The posted weight limit is 8,172 kilograms (9 tons) for single vehicles and 11,804 kilograms
(13 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 1 has a sufficiency rating of 18.2, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from May 1, 1991 to April 30, 1994.
Aerial utility lines are located on the southwest side of SR 1526 in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. Sewer lines cross under SR 1526 approximately 10 meters (32 ft) south of the bridge
and over Grants Creek on the eastern side of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
Rowan County School currently have five regular school busses and three mini-buses that use
SR 1526 daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No re-alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the existing
roadway provides the best design and the lowest cost. A relocated alignment would result in
excessive cost and undesirable environmental consequences.
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 1. Each alternative included replacing
the bridge with a new bridge approximately 33 meters (108 ft) in length and raising the grade
2
approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft). The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved.
The alternatives studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment while
maintaining traffic with a temporary on-site detour. This alternative is not feasible due to the
excessive cost of a temporary detour, impacts to the natural environment created by the detour
and a relatively short off-site detour available.
Alternate B(Recommended): involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway
alignment while maintaining traffic by utilizing an off-site detour. Traffic would be detoured on
NC 150 and US 70, a distance of 4.26 kilometers (2.65 miles), during construction (See Figure
1).
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1526.
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) $ 7,800 $ 7,800
Structure (proposed) 234,400 234,400
Detour Structure 146,000 0
Roadway Approaches 127,700 127,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 154,100 110,100
Engineering and Contingencies 80,000 70,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 48,000 45,000
TOTAL $ 798,000 $ 595,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. An eight month road closure period is anticipated. The detour roadway
and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to it excessive cost, availability of a suitable
detour route of only 4.26 kilometers (2.65 miles) of indirectional travel and additional impacts to
the environment due to the on-site detour. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is
$200,000.
3
Construction of the bridge will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts
on school bus traffic.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 1 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge approximately 33 meters (108
ft) long. A 12 meter (40 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure
in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 90
kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour). Traffic will be detoured on existing roads during the
approximately eight month construction period as shown in Figure 1.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 0.6 meters (2 ft) paved
shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure may be raised approximately one meter
(3 ft) above the existing bridge grade. The replacement structure should maintain a minimum
0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydraulic
studies.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure to be replaced at the
existing location utilizing an off-site detour.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Rowan County (Figure 1) in a developed area on the
southwest side of Salisbury, North Carolina. The project site lies within the central portion of
the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Rowan County is predominantly a rural county with
agriculture and textiles as its economic base.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Rowan Mills); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory Map (Rowan Mills); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats and NC Division Environmental Management Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) and fisheries 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 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).
4
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meters (80 feet)
wide right-of-way limits, 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 204.0 meters (670.0 feet) above mean sea level.
This portion of Rowan County contains soils from the Chewacla, Vance, and Poindexter-
Mocksville series. The project area is mapped as a Chewacla loam soil which occurs on nearly
level flood plains with slopes of less than 2 percent and is somewhat poorly drained. The Vance
series is characterized as a well drained sandy loam on 2 to 25 percent slopes and the
Poindexter-Mocksville Complex is a fine-loamy, mixed, well drained soil on 2 to 60 percent
slopes. The project study area has experienced urban development with a golf course
northeast of the bridge and a county landfill operation upstream of the crossing.
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
roadway shoulders, powerline easements, and old fields with tree/shrub margins and buffers.
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in the
community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along
the project alignment, but may not be mentioned in each community description.
Man Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches, as well as the old fields and tree/shrub buffer along the stream. Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Areas along the road
shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium
repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago rugelh) and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by the above species as well as,
goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and joe-pye weed, (Eupatorium macu/atum). Vegetation in the old
fields and along the stream banks include, American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Virginia
pine (Pinus virginiana), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrm), river
birch (Betula nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), black willow (Salix nigra), Japanese honeysuckle,
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these habitats.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Grant's Creek. This stream flows north
through the project area and is approximately 10.6 meters (35.0 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1.0 meter
(1.0-3.0 feet) deep. Grant's Creek was clear with a moderate flow during the time of the site
visit. A rock check dam is across the stream just upstream from the bridge. The stream bed is
generally sandy within the bridge area.
The stream banks are well defined, 1.5 to 3.0 meters (5.0-10.0 feet) above the stream bed, and
vegetated with sycamore, black willow, red cedar, river birch, and red maple. Animals such as
the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) and Southern leopard frog (Rana
utricularia) reside along the waters edge. Within the stream one would expect to find various
small fishes, such as sunfish (Lepomis sp.), shiners (Notropis sp.) and chubs (Nocomis sp.).
Macroinvertebrates such as a variety of mayfly, caddisfly, dragonfly, beetle and chironomid
larvae, oligochaetes, crayfish, a freshwater clam (Corbicula sp.) and a freshwater snail
(Physella sp.) are all common in the stream.
A complete sampling of the macroinvertebrate community revealed 10 species of mayfly larvae,
only two rare stonefly larvae species, eight species of caddisfly larvae, six species of dragonfly
larvae, eight species of beetle larvae, fifteen species of chironomid larvae, a variety of other
dipteran larvae, three oligochaete species, a freshwater shrimp, crayfish, a freshwater clam and
two species of freshwater snail. Although the assemblage of m acroi nverteb rates is diverse, the
abundance of dipteran larvae suggests a greater than average sedimentation load that is also
reflected in the sandy stream bed.
The DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management sampled fish population in Grant's Creek
at the project crossing in August 1980. The fish species found were bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), shiner (Notropis procne) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
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. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters are proposed.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
6
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COP,111,1UNITIES
HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge #1 Man- Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Community Total
Community
Alternative A 0.24(0.60) 0.02(0.04) 0.26(0.64)
Alternative B 0.09(0.23) 0.01(0.02) 0.1(0.25)
notes:
"Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above.
Terrestrial Communities
Few natural communities occur in the project area, and those communities are highly
fragmented and reduced due to past development. The proposed bridge replacement will result
in the disturbance of 0.09 hectare (0.23 acre) of man-dominated community. 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.
Aquatic Communities
The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of
stream bottom. Some siltation and water quality degradation from urban runoff has already
impacted the stream. 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 implementation of erosion and
sediment control measures as specked 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 Yadkin River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Grant's Creek originates near China Grove, NC and flows north through the proposed project
area entering the Yadkin River near Spencer, NC to the northeast. The stream has an average
width of 10.6 meters (35.0 feet) and the depth of the stream throughout the project corridor
varies between 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0 to 3.0 feet). The creek substrate is composed mostly of
coarse sand. Grant's Creek has a Class C rating from the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation,
boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
7
The NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of
Environmental Management maintains a Benthic Macroinve rte b rate Ambient Network (SMAN)
station on Grant's Creek at SR 1526, at the project crossing. According to data collected in July
1989, the stream has a good to fair bioclassification.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources 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. Permanent impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge #84
with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Permanent
impacts to the aquatic community will result due to the placement of support piles in the creek
channel. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and
sedimentation and erosion control measures will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of this project.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Grant's Creek has well defined banks
within the project corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was
conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project construction
cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated Surface
Water Impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of jurisdictional surface impacts will occur due
construction of Bridge No. 1 footings.
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Nationwide Permit NO. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusion's due to the
expected minimal impacts. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny
water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
8
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, mitigation will not be required. Mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination
regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline either due to natural
forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Rowan
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 only Schweinitz's sunflower as a federally protected species
for Rowan County as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ROWAN COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Helianthus schweinitzii 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 to 3.5 millimeters (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long
and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and
edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high
gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
9
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched on October 12, 1994, for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower.
No individuals of this species were observed in or adjacent to the study area. It can be
concluded that the proposed project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
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 Rowan
County and their state classifications. 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 AND THEIR STATE STATUS
ROWAN COUNTY
Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
(Common Name) Present
Aster georgianus C Yes
(Georgia aster)
/soetes virginica " C Yes
(Virginia quillwort)
Lotus purshianus var helleri C No
(Heller's trefoil)
notes:
"*" notates no specimen from Rowan County has been found in at least 20 years.
"C" denotes Candidate species which are considered by the State to be rare and need
population monitoring.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat exists in the project area for the federally protected Scheinitz's sunflower, but no
individuals of this species were found during a habitat search. No impacts to protected species
will result from any of the proposed project alternatives. Also, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare species or habitats in
the project area.
10
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, of wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix.
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.
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 0.405 hectare (1.0 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
111,686 hectares (275,835 acres) of prime or important soils found in Rowan 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 66.4 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
11
The project is located in Rowan 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.
In response to a request from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), in
a memo dated December 6, 1994, there will be no in-water work permitted in April or May. A
copy of the memo from NCWRC is in the Appendix.
Rowan 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.
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, Miss.
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 1989. Results of BMAN sampling for
Grants Creek at SR 1526, Rowan County, July 13, 1989.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston, MA.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
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
Rowan 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.
13
_ .1730 ,a .9 - _ ?., r i 0 \ """X-•?`.?.?
1710 \ 601 ?n 29
70
1731
? \ c
1729 1 7 \ 1526 SAL1SBI JR--Y- ?G 'A
11821 1812 1811/\ I ?OP, 22 677 ° G q
C I-? ? MY. : r"sU L1
1313 1810 ?" 0
150 F?a
crys f t.3 1,2 N 11801526
7 r # ?: /0 FP ua.
1732 c ' 2 •? ?: ; ?y b
1561
ROWAN."?MILLS't \b
L a-
2 +
597
Rowcrr Co. :• 1 `??.?? ???L?' •1 \ ?c
1573 Airacr I V :' ,: n -•;.>' ,
11 FAU
Chcoeir W••,I? c .. 1 I 75 iv? 3 i `- t 7 I
1512 ? 0
3- ?I 1506 ' ___ _ :: ;• u,1, I;99
1006
2528 ??
I 1 JI : / I _`` 539
1 r :• 261_ '261 }' ? i
??? ci%f ?? "•538 '? 4J _ .Q } x'002 r
I I + / : / 2610 ?occwe;l
_26.6.1 N
Pcuis
i 500 c,' 3 Ch. ?:/, 2313
X2532 l./
? ::,;=6d3 2s3a i
3 1 576 „ 53 - I ?-- s
.` 15_oa 5 + I I 2529 >
+ yaal,n ::
c°oieemp r e"
' r.
Woooleal/. j ft.
R%
`rerapd / s 'ma`y `• ..? _. -
aloe, i0 a s° :o
/ /%yy 6
a•ar?°°'° '°` Si ?aS1 oenc-
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
a. stiury Easte„??? $o°ttnmont
$den°t ?c7 ?
unt ulla
Gramte0uarrP??• ./
MamndQe a \ G
,.rare-
R o'Gror A 1Nrescen? - inroca
rn,
Is2 Fartnl lacason Hill
+ / 5 Z?A 152 ' , °xa"e^I
s-1 TuaRa+rouv ?ti' S
! c
La.r t
?lanois 1 c" Gold Hill
&
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
z r =` PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
y? BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 1
ROWAN COUNTY
B-2865
3/95 SCALE = 1:30 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
I

U.
O
F-
w
¢ NO
W Q?
Q z 'y Z
zO0w
oar ZZ
Q?o¢
()0
Z z =
=cnOZU
?ZinzZ
O
Z?[oam
i 1
tW µ?.
OCT"
N
0
IL
W
w
Uo,
N
F- Z C)
Z o
z p Lo
w?Uoo
° N
cr Q m
> ': Q E
moo
ca it U)
N
NLO
v/
to

r qF e i T. :? ? Am-
vYaV°' ?,

ROWAN COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1
B-2865
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1526
LOOKING WEST
. ON SR 1526
FIGURE 3A
I
4
j
? Y
F:
` f€.t
i M

I EAST ENDBENT
ROWAN COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 1
B-2865
UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 1
UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 1
WEST ENDBENT
ROWAN COUNTY
B-2865
?, - -
ION[ AI
IF
100 YEAR e \ V
,
FLOODPLAIN 'r,
I
Y. 1'F•
t' BRIDGE # 1 - i
J s `y A?' I (,
R 0 V A h r
yt'}? t ,? ar J L: I l ???
'nn: - ; ?? ,nN? I \ ROWAN
COUNTY
WW zo
?ZONEA5 I I
I ` L? . ,.. ?\ to ??C • f .if ( I
\ ?nNr
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
0 1000 2000
FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
?,• I
7 4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1995, transmitting the concurrence forms
for nineteen bridge replacement projects. I have signed and dated them, and they
are enclosed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw

Preservation Officer
Enclosures
cc: H. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Qn

TIP r4t
6••?,Cv_--?
Federal Aid # D=-L- 1:51-C; (>) County
1ZcWA ,l
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description ???? ?t)GE ?c 1 cQ 4v- lr;2fo ?vu- 6AAkr; y ccxck_
On .1AJkAV-Y S 111f; , 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 sessiorYconsultation
Other
All parties present agreed
V there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therm necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
? /%l9s
FHw , cr the ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
1-5
Representative, SHPO Date
Stale Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

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
r JUL 17 1995
DIVISICN! of;
NIGHWAYS
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-2847, 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.
Ks?t erely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw?
cc: " H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
Ilk,
__ U- North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission t
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program l•.;
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Group VII Bridge
Replacement Projects in North Carolina, SCI?
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. 1131k-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. 2-2126, 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 LRKE TEL:919-b28-9809 uec Ub"y4 1?);4y NO.000 r.U(
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 elktce (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. B-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek.
We have no recent fishery data at this site and no
threatened or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our District 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau,
[phone], on this project.
5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do not oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a "dry" box to allow wildlife passage.
6. B-2822, Davidson County, on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek.
Abbotts Creek is a small stream with a fair fishery.
There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at
this site. We have no specific recommendations at this
time.
ICWRC,HCP,FHLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'91 115:5,0 N0.006 P.08
Memo Page 3 December 6, 1994
7. B-2647, Union County, on SR 1547 over Duck Creek. This
may actually be on Goose Creek. Goose Creek is a small
stream with good pools and riffles, rocky substrate and
excellent in-stream cover. There appears to be quality
bottomland hardwood wetlands on both sides of the
stream. Goose Creek is excellent fish and wildlife
habitat and serves as habitat for the Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) which is federally
listed endangered (E). We recommend that NCDOT hold an
on-site visit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and NCWRC personnel to discuss this project.
8. B-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Deer) 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. 3-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1_928 over Muddy Creek.
This stream provides a fair fishery for sunfish and
catfish. We prefer that the bridge be replaced with a
spanning structure.
10. 3-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2830 over Richland
Creek. This stream is too small at this location to be
of fishing significance.
11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek.
Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools.
The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands, possibly
wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey for wetlands.
We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with
road closure. We also request that there be no in-
water work in April or May.
12. 8-2867, Stanley County, on SR 19'_7 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
'Nk.WK(_ v -k_r qt-HLLZ, LHN= 1 r-L -71.-Z;LiS-y?,Xj UV_ VCS V4 1? •=V HU.IJVr r.U`a
Memo
Page 4
December 6, 1994
(Alasmidonta raveneliana), federally listed endangered
(E) effective 12/23/94, has been found. Approximately
2 miles downstream of the project the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni), state listed endangered,
has been found near the mouth of the South Toe River.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
15. B-3175, Guilford County, on SR 1695 over US 421 and
Southern Railroad. No comment.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
expects the NCDOT to routinely minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
se'irnentatiorl 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°-1
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ?-A 9'111%J [Fl
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart,'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, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50'. recycled/ 10% pcst-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
IJepartment of Environment, Health, and Natural Rezourcas
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. Due Date:
gs-o-)_C? 12 1a-t 9
After review Of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) andlor approvals Indicated may need to be Obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions rlegarding 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 arailable from the t.:mc
Regional Office. Normal Process
Trme
_
PERMfTS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (Statutory time
' limit)
Permit to construct t operate wastewater trsatment Application coo days before begin construction or award of 70 days
(arcilitiaa, sewer system extensions. L rawer c-rssiruction contracts On-site inspection. Post -a;.pliution
systems not OkWarging into state surtau waters. .Itchnicat tarifefanca usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to diw.arpe Into surlact water andlor Application 1D0 days bef" pc;rn =iirily. On,-site lnspectron. CO-120 Gays
permit to operate and construct wastewater faeilitres fare-application conference usual ACCitionany. oblain permrt to
disr.h.argiN into state surf&:t avatars. construct waste rater treatment facitity•grantreC site, NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. DO days after rrceipt of pans or u4i.;e of NPDES
p?*mit .rnreltYSr is Later.
Water Ilse Permit
Pit-appti!:atiOn lechnicat eCnleren.:t usually tvecessary 30 eay
MIA;
well Wnslruc:ion Permit Wrnplete a.pplioalion must be rOCeive! and permit issue;,' 7 days
pnor to the instaltanon of a welt. (15 Cays)

71 - -
'/Dredi7e arvd Fill Permit Application copy must be serve! on each adjacent npa•ran property
owner On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling ?S Cays
may repuire Easement to Fill from N C Depanment of (9C Cays)
Administration and Fecera! Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to eonstrud/ L o;,e:ate Air Pollution Apatement So Cays
fa=illtirS AnClo' 2miSSion Sources as per 1SA NCAC ZIH.DGZ N/A (90 days)
Any open burning assoaate: with suCject proposal
t
m
st De in cam
ance
ith 11A NCAC 2D
O4
^0
.
_
u
w
;
.
.
D-emofrlron or renc,al-ons of structures eoniarnin;
aS :eslcs ma!e!ia' must C•e in Compliance with 1JA lit, days
J NCAC 2005:5 which reQuites nwifi{at.cn and removal NIA
prior to demolition Conlac, Ast?estos Control Groui7
919 733.0(!20 (SC cars)
Complex Source Pe!mit rewired under 1_A NCAC 2D 0800
t Sedimentalron Po!rulrcn Centro! Ac: of 1973 must Ge properly adlresse: for any Pend cislurriny a_ttvity An e,csion 8 se:•menialie
control pran will to re,u.red if one or more acres to Ge disfurteC Pran file: with prc;,e! Re;?cna' C!hce (Land Cual ly Sec: I at least 30 2C days
Caws terore be^ nn-n, activity A fee o' S30 for the first acre a^c Si0 DO for ea:,% add Irons' acre Or act mus! accor^.Oanv the elan 11C days!
J The Sedimentation Pcdlutron Control Act of 1973 must be aCdre:se! with respect to the re'e!renced Lxa! Crd nanee: (3G CaYs)
Cn site inspection usual Surely bond filed wilt'. EK14R Bon: amount
1.lrning Permit relies with type mine and num`,er of acres of affected land Any area 3V days
mined greater than one acre must tie permrttd. The a; prc;naie bond t!-,- days)
must tie received t}efore the permit can te issued.
J North Carolina Burning permll On site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds a days (NIA)
S;-c ai Ground C;eara.••ce Burning Permit • 22 Cn si:e inspection by N D. Division Forest resources required -11 more 1 day
eounGe: In Ceas.tar N.C. with organk soots than rive acres of ground crearing aClivl;ies are involved Inspect,ons (WA)
should be reclucsled at least ten days bcfore actual burn is pranned.-
90 1"C days
OA Refining Facilities NIA lr+'AI
It pelmfl required, ao;Gc:l:on fat days before bc^,:n con-.!ruction.
y Ap;bc3nl mus: hire N C. Qu2lJ.i J c-,::nee, to pre;ale plans. 30 days
C.m Permit inS; tSl r:nnSlr t•:. .r CC' con;truc!.cn IL dCCOrd'n; to EH14ii a:prov'
e•: ;'an_. M3y pCrmil under mosgcito Conttcj pro;-am. And (? C ys)
• a iSt ;L!rtmil (turn COICS Ci! End;r.CC.'s An in:;;ecCron of 0c is neees•
levy to verity Ifs:arC Cta::,ric3;ion. A minimum it c. c! 1 ^? CG mull ae•
corn:any Me a;;ticar c.?. An a0dili?,r ;'OCeC.:r•^ !VC sec en a
•>•. •^t•^.r or lt.e tC:: -c'-:! CC_! r..: L.• it^..•. - ., -- . r.--n!!rhon _
?U/ // _V
State of North Carolina
04artment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office: '7 -)
G
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: Date:
57' -ca/o T7/-;i -/ -,? ?-
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 ane guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Pieces:
Regional Office. Time
(statutory ;Ime
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS I limn) ;
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
17 facilities, sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Posh aoolication
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 davsl
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site Inspection 90.120 days
? permit :o operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
i
discharging :r.to state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted atter NPDES Reoly (N1.41
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit•whichever is later.
30 Days
`j '.Vaier use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary j
(NIA)
7 days
Weil Conslrucnon Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days/
)
Application copy must be served on eacn adjacent riparian property 55 aays
117 Drecge arc; F•i: Permit owner. On-site Inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Decariment of 90 cav .
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
i
- 'err-,,I •_ :cr3;ruc: 3 operate Air PDIIuIIcn Abatement 60 days
L_ ate. i.._ anD.or Emission Sources as ter 15A NCAC 21H.06 (
N/A :90
r- Any ocen turning associated with suclect prooosal i
I
i must be :n ccmoliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demol,titn a encva;:cns of structures containing
ascesics material must be in comciiance with .5A 60 davs
l? NCAC ter' -C .,nir,. requires nctrlicaLOn and removal NIA

tnor :C :cm...LOn COnl3Ci AsC2siv's Control Grcuo i
010.7:30^ n (90 .a,51
- I CCmo'e, Perm l required uncer 15A NCAC 20.0800.
Pcnuticn Contra Ac::r 1973 must be property addressed !or any land disturbing activity An ;resion 3 secimentario1 I
1
ntrc: p a:• ce required if one or mere acres 1o be disturbed. Plan !ilea wun proper Regional Office (Land Cuality Sec; . at least 30 I
V 20 ca,s I
_ - •,ro ^-;:nninrl achvifv A !ee of 530 !or •ne first acre and $20.00 for eacn aeduional acre or tart muss aC:Cmoanv :re rlan 2; V ;
77
Toe ;-eon.;^ ;non PoI)ution Control Ac; of 197 must be addressed with resoec: !o the referrenced Local Orcirance ( I
130 .c•s)
L_
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with E.HNR. Bond amount
7 Mining Perm varies with type mine and number of acres of affec:ed land. Any area a vs
mined greater than one acre must be permlted. The appropriate bond 160 Coy<_)
must be received before the permit can be issued

- „rr nr ; erm,l
r J On-site Insoection by N C. Division Forest Resourc°_s if pe•mi1
I exceeds a days I NrA;
Su-tiro Clearance Burning P•_rmi! 22 On-site insoec:Icn by N.D. Division Forest Resources reclutre0 'if more I ca",
:OUtU iyt 'n ]:Zslal N C. with organic scos than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections NGI
Should be requested at least ten days Cefore actual turn is .tanned."
90-120 days
C) Oil "in.Ilir; -acuities I
NIA iNIAi
I

It permit requlre0. application 60 days betore begin construction I
- Applicant must Mire N C qualified engineer to: precare plans. JO :-try,
nit insceCt Construction certtly Cons;ruc::cn is acCor;Inq !o EHNR aDUrrv
ed otans M.av 3150 require permit unner moscuitp :Cn!rnl program And I Q 7• ,
I =C, purmll ur;ni .:,m;s JI Eogine:;i;; •:r. In:;OeCtirn tt site 'S neces.
Sary to verify HaZard C:asslfication A inintinurn tee of :20000 must ac:
company the applicalon. An additional troccssing fee tmsed on a
Dercenlade or :he total protect cost will be rr?cuir,ge upon rombletlon
CLm.nued rr.
'
?
'?
1`
?
l?
•
,
1
! .
._
»"_.._-
_
: t ___.._..
?
....._.___-.__._
' .'' !.. I.'t.'.i\! :
1 •.,`?\/I,I.•.l ?:`?:\',I•.I`•I
11,t ,`. '. )!

/flit/Y
rater-\?cney •P:ojeca hevlew i.cspol:se - --

' Nan- Ir (1??T ! ypc of Project-??,

. The ?pj)l1*c:itl0 should be ndvisecl chat plans and specifications for all water system
! iinprovernencs alusc be approved by L'11e ]]tvlSl0[7 Of Ll:vu'onmenca1 Health prior to:che award
'
eq.).
o f a Contract or the inict: Llor. of CTnstructioti (as requ:-ed by 15A NTCAC 13 .0300 et. s
For information, eoncaec the Public Water Supply Se_ci.on, [phone].
roject wi11 be classified as a. non-community oui: is water supply ar:d !Ziust comply uricE
This
r-? p
state and fedora! cirmking `iiacer inonicoring reau:reme::ts. For more infornnac:oll the applicar,!_
should contact Lhe Public Wacer Supple SeC11,10n, (91c•, 733-2321.

-- r fef adjacent
lz this project is conscnlcted as proposed, we will 1 _ recommend closure of et o _
?ii
r
?
l_J waters to the har,•,esc of shellfish. For inforr..atlon :e?arding che.shellish sanitation progra
r ,
licant should contact the Shellfish S nicati :,n Branch ac [phone].
the a
•
pp
1,
n
The soil disposal area(s) proposed for chic pr' e rna.' prod0!cc a nioscu,'zo breeding proble
For iniorrizacion conee:ning appropriate mosquito :ontrol measures, ?H a pplicant'sho ulc
Maragemenc.Section =c (919) 726'-897C.
contact clie Public Health Pest
.
---, The applicaric should be advise^ Lhac prior to the renia-vat or een•lclition of di.lapi_a-ce
J cry.n ,
SC; uCCUl-eS an extensive rode,nC Control plow r??r• ' be- necessa!, lr, c'der cG prevent tip
r111araClon of-t!ie rode^cs LC arll'SCeil: The : *orniazion. Co "IC-11--n- ilia rodent 'COi7trC
aL' (
'
9 1
S
-
,
,
ecliorl
.
Pubilc HealCl_ Pesc Manage: :erg.:
concacc the local heals; depa:-L;r:ent cr cric•
733-6107.
- T c - tale -,cal health de^ar _,en' rPTardinQ tl•le
hr ?nc,,,,r,nt shi)U1C be ?.C`,':S?Ct tG ?J 1CaC; l -n o

?'Oc 1nfC,r hat:0.^. C^r'r_?rn!l,o ;nnC;r is^„? ( i ntr ?. r?r. $I! ? "vasce G!SDCS^,: fir! rlfi(1S, llJlli.'tCt

---- The appl:cailc shotild be ;,dvlsc:d U) Z3I1Lr;1C1.loCa nealci? dap .rtn;en:: ri:garding Che SaniL.?
i
?
- . .1 I'1Llltl'IC ! C.(?lllred fol• MIS
/ !
? i? Y.i;l':; µ';11C! llnr: ?V111 I)^ IO\';:?.• Cll...ii? Lid:. C.o11$C1'LIC .lilil, !fit'....:; irlr tllC wtlLc_i l:
h-,1b11C t?' aLC: SUI)t
of ill' ii.0mnenc:?l 17lC:l`L'I-
nKLcd cc) ell;
l
b
-
I
- -- ,
,
)i
t sti
C
0CI::.Cil IiIUSL
I
icclioil, Relvtc'v i;iancli, 1:30 Sc _.\.ar, ; Strecc 1.aleNc.i.h ,lint., \. t.) 73.}-f
2,
Scctlon/BranC'E - /Dace .
:itiir??i'Y_"irrr-:,Sat_•T:.7.^:in!).ti.•r"y..rn:_ _.e._•_.:-...... ._ ... .. _ ? ...

L

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
W1111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: S - D Z y' County: vt- 7- l
Project Name: 0 Z 9'p,
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior*to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
_,,,.-'Other (comments attached) 4 e
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer -f VAS
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
/?- rV /,
Date
This projeclit 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.
i/ 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.
V11 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 Opportunlty Af1•irmadve Action Employer
$. ?eaar It of : gricuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
1" I Cate (:It land cvslwtlon rtcauest I? 3
A``= =eceral.l e.^.cy?
ART 1 f 170 %e cornorer_o by • 9
Q Qnr I Feaaral AganCy Involved T
Noma Jr F•o1K: U ? ? ?? ]?rL ? E
County At+d Stata 9, U) Pr rQ C I
pro t7osad land Use
t'? vV Y1 I Cate ?ieCest r nve0 AV s?.S
PART II (To be comaleted by SCSJ III to w C
Yes No (aua Imgatcd Average Farm Size
Does the site contain pri me, unique. stet-wide or loaf important farmland? `3
(1f no the FPPA does not aaaly - do nor carrrplere additional parrs of r,7is form) . Q Nt or Ferrrrana C.rined In r-P
major C. acts) rartraole land Ia Govt unsalCtton %
Acts: 2a Q S 5 % `'d't 2 Aacs: 2't S to , S
G Cate and i:valwuan Rettuned 8y SC:
Marne a t no Svtstem Used Nan" Ur I„ocal Sits Assmmant Svttant I \ I 1 ti
i:.alwuon _ ,, `` I
alternatlva Sita natlna
encyJ Site A SSta 3 I sitl C I Sit¦
PART 111 (1 o be c;,mp/ered by r_cera g
A Totalc es Ta Be Carver'Ad Oirec'y I I I
I
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indlrecdv I / J D
1
C Total Acres In Site I f
PART IV (To be complered by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
I
A. Tetal Ac.-s Prime And Unicue Farmland I ' I
is d , 2
Q

3 Total Aces Statewide And Local Imcormnt Farmland I

I
00k
I 6 '
p0 \ I
4
C. P_resnrage of Farmland In County Or Lxal Gaut Unit To Be Converted
111
/rna Or Nigher Hearne Value I s I
n S•
VA
?'
t
.
0. Pemanvge Cf Farmland In Govt. Junsdicnan
PART V (To be completed by SCSi Land Evaluation Crit=rion 1?,
d
I 4
4
,
?•
`
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Convermd(S=ieofGro100PornrsJ
imum 1
PART V I (To be camalered by Federal AgenC/) I Max I I

rtt3
oi
P
Sts Aasassment Criana fT7iert criteria art azplsinad in 7 Sri 6?3.S1b1
z.-
1. Area In Nonurnan Use i O I - I I I
117
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I I I I I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Loai Government
5. Oistana From Urban Builtuo Area I I
-_ I L.,,w c...,., ,.. eeruir"
o. UISZaAci . Co v.
7 size Of Present Fans Unit Camoared To Averac/a
B. Creation Of Nonrarmable rarmland
9 Availabdity Of Farm Succort Services
10 On Farm Investments
I
2$r I
11 Effe= Of Conversion On Farm SuCOOrt Servtcss
12 Camcatibility MCI Exisnn4 Ac+?ltural Usa I ?Q- ?
_
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To tre ccmp/ered by Fsdera/ AgaricyJ
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ I 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr V/ aaove Ora Jour I 160
site assessmenrJ
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 1linesJ
Ic,. c.l?rad• I Date Of Selection

25 1 26- ? ! -
2S- 2,r
Was A I.raai S,ce Asssamattt llacol
YaC3 No
Reason For Selection: