U-3300

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
06/20/00
Page 2
G. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Na6onwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
H. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 21-1.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
I. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
J. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
K. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
.A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
June 20, 2000
MEMORANDUM
{ iQ_
XI
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, Pr ject Development '& Environmental Analysis
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wie
Through: John Dorsey, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on SR 1542 (Ridge Street Ext.) from Northeast Connector to NC 740,
Stanley County, F.A. Project No. STP-1542(2), State Project No. 8.2681301, TIP Project
No. U-3300.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated June 15, 2000, in which you requested scoping
comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed project
will cross both Little Mountain Creek and Mountain Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The DWQ
index number for the streams are 13-5-1-(1) for Little Mountain Creek and 13-5-(0.3) for Mountain Creek;
both streams are classified as C waters. Riparian wetlands surround these streams. The Division of Water
Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
D. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
E. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
F. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50111o recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
b
N. C. DEPART.1,IE.NT OF TRANSPORTATION
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
DENR
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COI.IMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
June 15, 2000
.
;L J
I ?CGO
,CS GIiO!lr
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele '1E Ct!A' FY
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for SR 1542 (Ridge Street Extension)
from Northeast Connector (U-2400) to NC 740, Stanly County,
F. A. Project No. STP-1542(2), State Project No. 8.2681301,
TIP Project No. U-3300
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the subject project
(see attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review
procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be
performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for Monday, July 17, 2000 at 10:00 AM in Conference Room 117 of the
Transportation Building. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them
to us prior to that date (please reference page 5 of the Scoping Sheets).
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Alethia Raynor, Project
Development Engineer, at 733-7844, Ext. 247.
WDG/plr
STATE.
yt 3`z s
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
'I
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: 06101100
Revision Date:
TIP No.: U-3300
F.A, Project No.: STP-1542(2)
Division: 10
Route: SR 1542 (RIDGE STREET)
Functional Classification: Rural Minor Collector
Thoroughfare Plan Designation: Major Thoroughfare
Description Of Project (including specific limits) And Major Elements Of Work: SR 1542 (Ridge Street Extension)
from Northeast Connector (U-2400) to NC 740. Construction of a two-lane facility is proposed, which will include
some upgrading of existing Ridge Road (SR 1542), SR 1549 (Airport Road) and SR 1584, as well as some
construction on new location,
Purpose Of Project: Provide a direct route from the northeast into central Albemarle by connecting SR 1549 (Airport
Rd.) to SR 1542 (Ridge St.). This connection would also provide a direct access from central Albemarle to the local
Airport.
Project Schedule: Right of Way - Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2005 & Post Year
Construction - IFFY 2006 & Post Year
Type Of Environmental Document To Be Prepared: Environmental Assessment (EA), Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI)
Environmental Study Schedule: EA scheduled for completion in January 2002
FONSI scheduled for completion in October 2002
Will there be special funding participation by municipality, developers, or other?
Yes: No: X
If YES, by whom: _
If YES, by what amount? ($)
State Project No
, or
Project Development Stage
Programming:
Planning: X
Design:
8.2681301
County: Stanly
Length: 4.3 miles

How and when will this be paid?
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
Typical Section of Existing Roadway: SR 1542 (Ridge St.): Two 12-foot travel lanes, 5-6 foot grass shoulders
SR 1549 (Airport Rd.): Two 11-foot travel lanes 5 foot grass shoulders
SR 1584: Two travel lanes, Width varies between 9 and 11 feet
Typical Section of Proposed Roadway: Two 12-foot travel lanes, 8 foot shoulders
Traffic (ADT): 1997 Averages - SR 1542: 1300-8700 SR 1549: 600 *Revised Traffic Available in June 2000
%TTST: %DUAL: %DHV:
Type Of Access Control- Full: Partial: None: X
Number of- Interchanges: 0 Grade Separations: 0 Stream Crossings: 2
Design Speed: 60 mph
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO: X 3R:
Current Cost Estimate
Construction Cost $ 4,850,000.00
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost $ 750,000.00
(including relocations, utilities, and acquisition)
Force Account Items $
Preliminary Enginnering $
Total Cost $ 5,600,000.00-
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction $ 2,500,000.00
Right of Way $ 750,000.00
Total Cost $ 3,250,000.00"
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could affect cost or schedule of project:
*Estimates include improvements to entire length of project. Staged construction of the project may be examined.
2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
CONSTRUCTION
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
and Grubbin
X Clearin $ 132.000.00
g
g
X Pavement
X 2.5" HDS Resurfacing ............................................................................ $ 109,100.00
X Pavement Removal ................................................................................ $ 10.100.00
X 8" Aggregate Base Course (New Location) ............................................ $ 133,900.00
- X 6" HB Base Course (Widening Section) ................................................. $ 45.500.00
-2.5" HDB Binder Course ......................................................................... $ 123.000.00
-2.5" HDS Surface Course ....................................................................... $ 174.000.00
XAsphalt Cement ...................................................................................... $ 105.400.00
X Shoulder Construction ........................................................................................ $ 12,640.00
X Earthwork ........................................................................................................... $ 956.750.00
X Subgrade and Stabilization ................................................................................ $ 88,650.00
X Drainage (list any special items) ........................................................................ $
-X -New Location .......................................................................................... $ 180.000.00
X Existing Location .................................................................................... $ 310.000.00
X Fine Grading ...................................................................................................... $ 73.350.00
X Structures
X New Structure (Little Mt. Ck - 32'x90') ................................................... $ 201,600.00
_ X Remove Structure (Little Mt. Ck - 24'x46') ............................................. $ 11.040.00
-102"x72" CM Pipe Arch Ext. (3@15') ..................................................... $ 11.250.00
Retaining Walls ...................................................................................... $
Noise ...................................................................................................... $
Other Misc. (Detour Bridge) ................................................................... $
Concrete Curb & Gutter .................................................................................... $
Concrete Sidewalk ............................................................................................. $
Guardrail ............................................................................................................ $
i
F $
ng ...................................................................................................
enc
X Erosion Control .................................................................................................. $ 101,400.00
Landscaping ....................................................................................................... $
Lighting . ........................................ $
X_ Traffic Control ..................................................................................................... $ 56.500.00
Signing
New ........................................................................................................ $
.............................................................................
Upgraded $
..................
Traffic Signals
New ........................................................................................................ $
Revised .................................................................................................. $
RR Signals
New ........................................................................................................ $
If 3R
Drainage Safety Enhancement .............................................................. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement .............................................................. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade ............................................................ $
Pavement Markings
Paint ....................................................................................................... $
X Thermoplastic and Markers .................................................................... $ 64,500.00
Delineators ......................................................................................................... $
X Misc & Mob. (45% Functional) ........................................................................... $ 1.304.320.00
Contract Cost .................................................................... $ 4.205.000.00
Engineering & Contingencies ........................................................................................... $ 645,000.00
PE Costs .......................................................................................................................... $
Force Account .................................................................................................................. $
Construction Cost (Subtotal) ............................................ $ a,a5n.nnn nn
3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
RIGHT OF WAY
Existing Right of Way Width: 60 feet
Will Contain Within Existing Right of Way - Yes: No:
New Right of Way Needed -
Width Est. Cost .......... ............................................. $
Easements - Type: Est. Cost .......... ............................................. $
Utilities: ............................................................................................................. $
Right of Way (Subtotal) .................................................... $ 750.000.00'
'TIP Estimated Right of Way Cost
Total Estimated Project Cost ........................................................................................... $ 5.600.000.00
The above scoping has been review and approved by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Mgr. Program & Policy
Structure Chief Engineer-Precon
Design Services Chief Engineer-Oper
Geotechnical Secondary Roads Off.
Hydraulics Construction Branch
Loc. & Surveys Roadside Environmental
Photogrammetry Maintenance Branch
Prel. Est. Engr. Bridge Maintenance
Planning & Environ. Statewide Planning
Right of Way Division Engineer
R/W Utilities Bicycle Coordinator
Traffic Engineering Program Development
Project Management FHWA
County Manager Dept. of Cult. Res.
City/Municipality DENR
Others Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks
Section and initial and date after comments.
4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
COMMENTS OR REMARKS SECTION:
Prepared By: Date:
1?
1
„wl
., aw.
oso
/NEW
LONDON
' Halliferry
i POP. 427 Jundidn G`.

\1 1
1

Mills
Palestln 1
\ 52 1
1
\
`ra ?Q?
n'\ / /: iolDSrr
R
\ ;' 1541 °
1542
._..
52
52 B
0
ONG
LAKE 73
; ? \ Q s !4? as 40
4\? s?
E. Hwy.
ALBEMARLE h
POP. 15,962
i
52 `
V'
i
i o i
MILES
1545
F54 1524
1-49

Dunty '\\
Airport BADIN
POP. 1,
154 \'?.?
?o
A'`.
IN PROJECT
MoUntaia
n n n n n n u u n n n Project on New Location
unnneleulelnelel¦ Project on Existing Roadway
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
G r DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1542 (Ridge Street Extension ,
from the Northeast Connector (U-2400)
to NC 740
Stanley County
TIP Project No. U-3300
V1
rn
c?
y

M
21,
N4
OR nSSS22z? ??? ?'D O.?COny z C7 3?N 'DQ 261zCj rSUV) V) S S S S S Z
801.M.: *z ?c)N-m:TRUIg ?c)rnmc °-''? o
maaaa?m?m?'?NC? ro°o'N? ??ur° c? a a O p y°'m m
o 0
CL 3 T OK NMC N7>O 2??O• m l°N0O. G N ? "+ C?f "» 61
.- N
f a?-o o'm m aid zm N? x o -V JD y L 1n fi' m
7 N x• 7 N =. M g'
O8`t?O ?v NO ' ..0Q ° N d m ?? O
V) V, n
a3v0 ZCL c? ra`m•m 2 Q=1 m c
N a » m m
N a o,n @ ? Ma) m ?o ur &
a -,3
M 0- 0) 9L cn
oO c N 3 °o N obi ° m F °? -p• -p' ° ,'
v 0 N '••? K 7 C C F. O O
m '" < v o ry ?p
x o ?D A A N
Z: cr
to :i O. ?f?pp1
N A a

N
a
N
Ph
fD
N
V)

1J
040
22mxzzM> x(CA Tv°o;a 000CO) ? ??y ?OnfRZC? W=?
aan 0 a ?' a 0 i m*? Mc>tn? c' °' po s co ?C)M m
9 -M -4 0 -j 1 1 Q 1
0,
0 0 0 d_ Ma va, o ?? -4y Mono,
o
0
y a Co) ?$
n?i C?1 w iv Q y. O O O p0, G Q ?p !n y
?.?.? Z'n4 Py fl: Vf zmO'w C. O -a-L
O y "' v* 3 N' O 91) § 7C
?.a N 3 y C m'm 7Cw...
M -? M C1 r?
y y O r _
O N -` y p 0 0 ,C.F T d
a -+
0 3 rL p* V C y
M 0=
to N - 0 0 01
0 "
O m
-? y
a p .?
7C O
C
w
w
0
0
Z
90
u=
CL
?I
C7