19941125 Ver 1_Complete File_19941207

lip T-'
_? - 7 014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 2520L RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
410
December 5, 1994 ,i SvVD
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Davidson County, Bridge No. 342 over Rich Creek, SR
1800, State Project No. 8.2602601, Federal Aid No.
BRZ-1800(2), T.I.P. No. B-2545.
ttached for your information is a copy of the project
anning ort for the subject project. The project is
being process by the Federal Highway Administration as a
,categorical Exclu n" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not a ticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose o proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
ac,ca,rdance wi les 3 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 Certification No. 2734
(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.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-3141.
Since ely, i
B. J. 0 Quinn
Ass i ant--Tanager
Planning.and Environmental Branch

1 . A.
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
r
! _.t
Davidson County
SR 1800
Bridge No. 342 over Rich Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1800(2)
State Project No. 8.2602601
T.I.P. No. B-2545
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Lp '? d. ?
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
B-A;ffi
1,10q 0 Z& &992'1
pal, Nich L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
,7/
DATE
Davidson County
SR 1800
Bridge No. 342 over Rich Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1800(2)
State Project No. 8.2602601
T.I.P. No. B-2545
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1994
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
d, ' J L /_?_ C?
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
.? -z:
e •
e d a6tii a ? •
q HII.L?P
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. da-Y Grimes, . E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Phil Harris
Project Planning Engineer
Davidson County
SR 1800
Bridge No. 342 over Rich Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1800(2)
State Project No. 8.2602601
T.I.P. No. B-2545
Bridge No. 342 is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. 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. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project
prior to right-of-way acquisition.
3. Detailed hydraulic studies will be performed during the final design stages to determine
bridge length and height necessary to accomodate peak flow.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 342 will be replaced approximately 15 meters (50 ft) southwest of its existing
location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway
width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length of 35 meters (115 ft). The structure will provide a 7.2
meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side. The minimum grade on
the structure will be 0.2 percent.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) above the
existing bridge grade at this location.
The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders, 0.6 meters (2 ft) paved, for approximately 200 meters (655 ft) west of the bridge and
140 meters (460 ft) east of the bridge.
The total estimated cost, based on current prices, is $510,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way
and $475,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program, is $725,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way, $600,000
for construction, and $90,000 prior costs.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1800 is classified as an minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
This minor collector serves a rural area approximately five kilometers (3.1 mi) northwest of
Thomasville in Davidson County. The land use is primarily residential and silvicultural in the
immediate vicinity of the bridge. Residential homes are scattered throughout the study area.
Forest and clear-cut woodlands are concentrated within broad stream floodplains and adjacent,
low-lying riparian areas.
Near the bridge, SR 1800 has a 5.5 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.5 meter (5 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge on both sides. The horizontal alignment
is tangent at the bridge with a 350 meter radius (5 degree) curve approximately 15 meters (50
ft) from the bridge on the west approach. The east approach is tangent at the bridge with a 435
meter radius (4 degree) curve approximately 60 meters (200 ft) from the bridge. The roadway
is situated approximately 4 meters (13 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 2300 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1995 and 4100 VPD for the
design year 2015. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour).
The existing bridge was built in 1940 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of ten steel I-beam
spans. Bridge deck construction is a creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments, one steel pile bent, four reinforced
concrete piers, and four creosote timber pile bents.
The overall length of the bridge is 49 meters (160 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19
ft). There is no posted weight limit.
Bridge No. 342 has a sufficiency rating of 3.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported at the bridge during the period from January 1, 1990 to March 31,
1993. One accident occurred at the west approach when the driver hit water on the roadway and
lost control of the vehicle. The other accident involved two vehicles traveling in opposite
directions on the bridge and their side mirrors struck.
Aerial telephone and power lines are located on the south side of SR 1800. These lines cross
the west approach to the bridge.
School buses cross the bridge four times daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 342. Each alternate consists of a bridge
35 meters (115 ft) long with a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft). This structure width
will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side.
The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft)
shoulders, 0.6 meters (2 ft) paved.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge along the existing roadway alignment with a
temporary, on-site detour. A benefit-cost ratio of 3.7 indicates that an off-site detour is not
feasible. The roadway grade would be raised approximately one meter (3 ft) above the existing
bridge grade. A design speed of 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) would be provided.
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft)
southwest of its existing location. The roadway grade of the new structure would be raised
approximately one meter (3 ft) above the existing bridge grade. A design speed of 100
kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour) would be provided. Traffic would be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1800.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal $ 16,170 $ 16,170
Structure 164,945 164,945
Roadway Approaches 118,885 163,885
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 50,000 70,000
Engineering and Contingencies 50,000 60,000
Right of Way/Const. Easements/Ut 1. 32,500 35,000
TOTAL $432,500 $510,000
Detour Structures and Approaches 275,000 ---
TOTAL WITH TEMPORARY $707,500 ---
ON-SITE DETOUR
3
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 342 will be replaced approximately 15 meters (50 ft) southwest of its existing
location by a new structure approximately 35 meters (115 ft) in length. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Alternate B is recommended because it
provides a higher design speed at a lower cost than Alternate A.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders, 0.6 meter (2 ft) paved, will be
provided on the approaches. A 9.2 meter (30 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 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the structure. The design
speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 35 meters (115 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will
be raised approximately one meter (3 ft) above the existing bridge grade. The length and height
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodoloav
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Grist Mountain,
N.C.), National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service soils information (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1981), and 1992 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished by the
NCDOT.
The site was visited on October 21, 1993. Plant and animal communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately 75 meters (250 ft) in width, symmetrical
to the existing alignment. However, impact calculations were based on potential encroachment
18 meters (60 ft).each side of the centerline along the existing route and 36 meters (120 ft) along
new alignment alternatives. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for
protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Rich Creek.
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
4
found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter
approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980;
Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) 1989, 1993).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Listings of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Davidson County were
requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of
field studies. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing field investigations.
Physiography and Soils
7be project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt. This portion of the slate belt is characterized
by megacrystic, well foliated, metamorphosed granitic rock which may locally contain
hornblende (Brown 1985). Topography in the region is characterized by rolling and hilly relief
resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. However, the project bridge is located on a broad, low-
lying area associated with the Rich Creek drainage. Site topography is typified by a broad, flat
stream corridor and gentle to rolling side slopes. Elevations within the project study area remain
relatively constant at approximately 213 meters (700 ft) above mean sea level.
Soils in the project area consist primarily of the Chewacla series (U.S. Department of Agriculture
1981). Chewacla soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained alluvial
deposits on stream terraces. These soils may be considered hydric when frequent flooding occurs
along stream/floodplain terraces. Flooding frequency is typically related to the depth of
channelization or cutting that has occurred in the stream bed and to the magnitude of seasonal
variations in stream flow. Due to the lack of defined stream embankments and the presence of
substantial flooding, Chewacla soils in the project area are considered hydric in nature.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
Bridge No. 342 crosses the middle reaches of Rich Creek. From the bridge location, Rich Creek
flows approximately 11.6 kilometers (7.2 mi) before entering Abbots Creek, a tributary to the
Yadkin River (High Rock Lake impoundment). These systems are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin.
5
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
Rich Creek is classified as Class C, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989). The species richness and overall biomass are utilized to classify streams by bioclass as
an indicator of water quality. Two BMAN sampling stations are located along this segment of
Rich Creek. Rich Creek BMAN Station No. 22 is located approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mi)
north of the project bridge on NC 109. Station No. 23 is situated approximately 3.2 kilometers
(2 mi) south of the site on SR 1792. BMAN sampling and classification indicate poor to fair
water quality throughout the subject stream segment.
Stream Characteristics
The primary waterway consists of several broad drainage channels separated by small vegetated
islands. The network of drainage channels and isolated islands measures approximately 49
meters (160 ft) in width. The main channel traversed by the existing bridge spans approximately
9 meters (30 ft) in width. Depth of stream water generally ranges between 0.3 meters and 1
meter (1 ft - 3 ft). Stream flow is slow to moderate, apparently influenced by beaver activity
along downstream segments of the creek. Substrate is primarily composed of silt and clay
sediments, with evidence of considerable stream bank erosion and sedimentation around isolated
islands and along upper floodplain terraces.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. 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 proposed
improvements.
6
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project:
mesic hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest, agricultural, and early successional.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.).
Mesic Hardwood Forest
Riparian slopes along the western approach to Rich Creek support mesic hardwood forest cover.
The canopy is dominated by American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweet gum (Liquidambar
s raciflua , yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Ater rubrum), hickory (Carva
sp.) and northern red oak (Quercus rubra).
The understory/shrub layer is sparse, consisting primarily of sapling growth of canopy species
along with infrequent dogwood (Cornus florida) and red mulberry (Morus rubra). Several vine
species extend into the understory stratum including trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata) and yellow jessamine
(Gelsemium sempervirens).
Ground cover contains several character species including beech drops (Epifa us vir iniana),
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia) and rattlesnake plantain
(Goodyera pubescens).
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland hardwood forests occur along the outer edge of the floodplain and on isolated
interdrainage islands. These systems are dominated by sweet gum, red maple, river birch (Betula
ni ra , American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix niara) and American elm
(Ulmus americana). Understory development includes regeneration of canopy saplings along with
slippery elm (Ulmus rubral, red mulberry and buttonbush (Cgphalanthus occidentalis). Ground
cover is highly variable, characterized by intermittent pockets of switch cane (Arundinaria
i antea , smartweed (Poly o num sp.), impatiens (Impatiens capensis), rushes (luncus spp.),
climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), blackberry
(Rubus spp.) and catbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia).
Agricultural
Limited agricultural land used for residential or small commercial vegetable production is situated
on the eastern approach segment. This area is characterized by tilled soils and occasional
presence of early successional elements along field edges.
7
Early Successional
This community classification includes disturbed roadside margins and clear-cut woodland areas
along the eastern approach segment. Variations in the distribution of early successional plant
species is reflective of the hydrological characteristics of the site. On upland sites, successional
elements include wild carrot (Daucus carota), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild grape (Vitis spp.) and goldenrod (Soliaao sp.). In cut-
over areas exposed to periodic soil saturation, switch cane, blackberry, black willow, smart
weed, climbing hempweed, various graminoids (Juncus sp., Carex spp.) and button bush are
common groundcover species.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
The following table summarizes potential impacts to plant communities which could result from
proposed alternative alignments.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Hectares (Acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Mesic Hardwoods 0.25 (0.62) 0.27 (0.67)
Bottomland Hardwoods 0.49(l.21) 0.68(l.68)
Early Successional 0.23 (0.57) 0.33 (0.82)
Agricultural 0.08 (0.200 0.05 (0.12)
TOTAL IMPACT 1.05 (2.60) 1.33 (3.29)
Impacts to plant 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 A) results in slightly less infringement upon plant communities than bridge
replacement immediately south of the existing bridge (Alternate B). 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. These areas do not currently support significant
natural community features.
8
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the project area consists of rural countryside. The interspersion of forested tracts,
stream channels and cut-over open areas provide all the necessary components (food, water,
protective covering) for mammals and birds adapted to forest fragmentation. Stream channels,
including Rich Creek, also serve as travel corridors between habitat areas for transient species.
Sightings or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc) were noted for several species of mammals
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virgiinianus), beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and bobcat (L- nx rufus).
Avifaunal abundance is typical of rural communities in the upper piedmont region of the state
where a patchwork of habitat types is available. Common species include Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludoricianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza
eor iana , brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) and rufus-
sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). Raptors of note include barred owl (Strix varia), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and American kestrel
(Pandion haliaetus).
Aquatic
This segment of Rich Creek provides adequate habitat for the propagation of a variety of aquatic
wildlife. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (L egWmis macrochirus) and catfish
(Ictalurus sp.) are common gamefish typically found in large piedmont streams. Fishing
significance in Rich Creek is relegated to bank fishing of catfish, carp, and various sunfish in
spite of some pollution (Fish 1968). Small fish populations including mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis , creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) and shiner (Notropis spp.) are also expected to
occur.
Rich Creek floodplains and riparian areas provide. suitable habitat for a variety of amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the Eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), Northern dusky
salamander (Desmognanthus fuscus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle
(Chrysemys pieta) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Green frog (Rana clamitans),
crayfish (Cambarus sp.) and southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala) are also expected to
occur.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural systems, the proposed bridge replacement
will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal
populations. Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging of the
system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
9
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,
as applicable.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands subject to review under Section
defined by the presence of three primar}
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
1987).
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
Based on this three parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands occur within the broad low-lying
floodplain associated with Rich Creek. These wetland systems primarily support facultative or
obligate wetland species within bottomland hardwood forest (PF01C) and palustrine emergent
swamp (PEM1C). Area soils (Chewacla series) were gleyed and mottled, which indicates
anaerobic conditions generally attributed to inundation. Buttressed based trees, oxidized root
rhizospheres, alluvial deposits on leaf litter, slowed decomposition, and stressed understory
vegetation also suggest periodic inundation. The following table summarizes potential impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands which could result from proposed alternative alignments.
Estimated Impacts to Wetlands
Hectares (Acres)
WETLAND TYPE
PFO1 C
PEM 1 C
ESTIMATED IMPACT
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
0.35 (0.86) 0.50 (1.24)
0.07 LO. 17) 0.02 (0.05)
TOTALIMPACT
0.42 (1.03) 0.52 (1.29)
Surface waters within the embankments of Rich Creek are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Bridge
replacement is expected to eliminate the need for direct encroachment into open waters of Rich
Creek.
10
Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) has been issued by the COE for
federal agency projects which are assumed to have minimal impacts. Several other NWPs are
available for use, including NWP No. 26 for above headwater impacts. In addition, minor
impacts due to bridging and associated approach improvement are allowed under General Bridge
Permit (GP) No. 031 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a nationwide
or general permit. NWP No. 23 and GP No. 031 require prior notification by DEM before
certification can be issued. NWP No. 26 requires DEM notification only if wetland impacts are
greater than 0.13 hectares (0.33 ac).
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, it is likely that this project will be subject to the Nationwide
Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). This permit authorizes any activities, work and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency that is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the COE.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to
minimize adverse impacts.
Federally Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Proposed Threatened and Proposed
Endangered (PT and PE) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). Candidate species (C,C2) do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected and candidate species
are listed for Davidson County:
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri) - C2
11
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems originating from a
crown and supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical "sunflowers", is
discernible in the field from other members of its genus by the presence of a tuberous root
system, tomentose to pilose leaf undersides, and harsh upper stems which arch upward in a
candelabra-like fashion (Kral 1983). Flowering occurs from September to frost. The species
thrives in full sun characteristic of relic piedmont prairies, successional fields, forest ecotonal
margins, and forest openings.
An on-site survey to determine presence or absence of the species was undertaken on October
24, 1993. All roadside margins and ecotonal fringes were visually evaluated. No sightings of
the plant were noted. This project is not expected to have any adverse impact on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Heller's trefoil is an erect herb with villous branches and stems and small, linear leaves. The
flowers are single, small and colored pink and yellow. Flowering occurs from June to
September. The trefoil occurs in dry woods and sunny clearings. This species has habitat
requirements similar to those of Schweinitz's sunflower. Availability of suitable habitat for this
species appears to be lacking at this site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G. S. 113-331
et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202.12 et seq.). NCNHP
records indicate no known populations of State listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1
mi) of the project site.
Based on field surveys and a review of available information, impacts to Federal or State listed
species are not expected as a result of this project.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
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.
12
The project is not in conflict with any land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing 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 alternative.
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 Historic 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 an opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 31, 1994, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined
that the bridge was neither listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor
located in or adjacent to any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO had no comment on the project with regard to historic structures. A copy
of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
Four prehistoric archaeological sites (31DV384, 385, 386, and 455) are located on the north side
of Rich Creek near the bridge. These sites have not been evaluated for National Register
eligibility. Given the proximity of these sites to Bridge No. 342, the SHPO has recommended
an archaeological survey be conducted. NCDOT will conduct an archaeological survey of the
area of potential effect prior to right-of-way acquisition. A copy of the SHPO letter is included
in the Appendix.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the proposed project will impact 1.34 hectares (3.3 ac) of soils defined
as prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
101,366 hectares (250,471 ac) of prime or important soils found in Davidson County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative value score is 136 out of a possible 260.
13
A score higher than 260 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Winston-Salem Regional Office
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Davidson
County has been designated as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone (03) and the attainment
date is November 15, 1996. The current State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
Transportation Control Measures (TCM) for Davidson County. This project will not adversely
affect the air quality of the region nor impede the attainment date of this county.
There are no receptors located in the immediate project area. The traffic volumes will not
increase or decrease because of this project. The projects impact on noise and air quality will
be insignificant.
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 for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Davidson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
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.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will
be taken to minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
14
t
REFERENCES
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Broad River Basin, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Hamel, P. B., H.E. LeGrand Jr., M. R., Lannartz, M. R. and Gauthreaux Jr., S. A. 1982.
Bird Habitat Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
5E-22.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.
Martof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R. and Harrison III, J.R. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N. C.
Page, R.W. and L. S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation
under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.
Potter, E. F., Parnell, J. F. and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas, The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh N. C.
15
t i
r
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1981 (unpublished). Soil Survey information
provided by the Davidson County SCS office, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation
Service.
Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F. and Biggs, W. C. Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland, UNC Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
16

JZL
I BRIDGE NO. 342 1
Ch.
!w
Li1n. While
Bapl. Ch.
! Tan ula" Ch.
• f
• f
¦
f 1700
•
¦ f 1»J
¦ f
¦
¦
¦
¦ I
¦
¦ j
¦Y
.od q 52 allbur¢
oia Nlg 01
9 8 idway
elcome
Thomasville
: s ?k Bus
I50 * 1 6 1
® 5
land rro 51 29
D A V 70 50 '
s 1
r1w
0 to 7 8 e o ,
O
7 I< v idI
? Mnont r I
Dentoi
ealin¢ Spring
$7,
1 ock 6
Jac Hill
d9
p0 fa.7f C
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
g DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
y PLANNING AND ENV3RONMENTAL
BRANCH
?t`+ eI T.1.Mfe
BRIDGE NO. 342
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B-2545
12/93 SCALE =1:30 000 FIG. I
0 (kilometers) I

r3

>3¢ 5

BRIDGE NO. 342
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B-2545
LOOKING WEST
LOOKING EAST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

•\? DAVI DSON COUNTY \\\
550+00 \ \ Y /
8/4.• J
490
•
.
1800 RICH
1 /
. w
\ x
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN R 80,0
0 ?. 28 •
. \28
o \ 4
o
o ? 450+00 w
802 ?- _
B-2545
BRIDGE NO. 342
k RM- •
.. V DH-27I
V
\\% \ RICH FORK 779 x // •
u •
D26 /
u
\ • lnf
- \ 400+00
. 3
- 1. •
FIGURE 4

U.S. Department of Agncuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
%AT 1 (To he cormotered by =ede:,31 Agency) r -ate Qf Lind Evalwaon rlevuat
Tlame at Project Feoeral Agency Involved _L
a -2545, S,1z1Lxr E Nc 34Z I !` )T u,.L
Proooseo Lind Use I County And State DAV I LX50N C.OOLM
!? IG N>.?.1Ay
4RT It (To be cornplered by SCS) I Oats 1/ 2D / 4 4 gLJaC.0
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Y No
(If no, the FFPA does not apply - do nor complete additional parts of this forrrtl. ?
Major Croo(sl Farrtop/e Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Goat-Yn Ate: 27617-34- % 7e,,4.-1
Name^Of Land evaluation System Used Marne Of Local Site Assessment Strstem
c,, a& S a Vt Acres Irrigated Aversgs Farts S49
/?(D /IE q4 ttc-
Amount at Fernrand As Oef nee in PA
A=vs: XH 0 4-71 i.7/•?f-
Oats Land EvIllusuan Returned BY SCS
I ZG a 4
Alternative b"ll atln
.
AT II I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Sue O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 3 -3.3
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 3. 3 313
AT IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O O
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 10
3 3
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Counrv Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted 0.0c.1
' d0
0. Psrcentage Of FerttWnd in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Rotative Value 71,
RT V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (5=4 of Oro 100P in
AT VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
t Assessment Criteria Mwe ersterfe art exr1ained in 7 CFR SW.S(bl Maximum
Poirtq
t. Area In Nonurban Use /5 1 (.
I Perimeter In Nonurban Use J 0 ?
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 21 S 1 S
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 2
S. Distance From Urban Builtuo Area
S. Distance To Urban Sucport Services
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average 1? 5
& Creation Of Nonfarmabie Farmland 2 S
9. Availability Of Farm Sucoort Servitxs S
10. On-Farm Investments 2- 2t? 2D
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Suooort Services 2 ? 1 y
12 Comoatibiii With Existing Agricultural Use 1 10

TOTAL. SITS ASSESSMENT POINTS
160 Q
UGI p
IT VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
ielative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V/ 100 47 47
"otal Site Assessment (From Parr VI above ora loco/
rte assessment! 160 3? /36
'OTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260

Selected:
Date Of Selection J Wes A Locat Site Asonnmvt I ISW'
Yes ? No ?
on For Setectton:

,tate of North Carolina
epartment of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
D E H N f-?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihartl?,?Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0484; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed.
Replacement of Bridge #342 Over Rich Creek, Davidson
County, B-2545, SR 1800
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Rich Fork Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would 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.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10489er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 342 on SR 1800 over Rich
Creek, Davidson County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2545,
SCH Project No. 94-0484.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have conducted a site visit on January 21, 1994 and
have the following preliminary comments on the replacement of
Bridge No. 342 on Rich Creek in Davidson County. Our comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC
25).
Rich Creek is a medium sized stream that has good fish
habitat with a good fishery. Species found in Rich Creek include
largemouth bass, sunfish, suckers, catfish, and crappie. Rich
Creek supports a white bass migration up to the I-85 bridge. It
is possible that white bass could occur.as far up the creek as
Bridge No. 342.
We recommend replacement of the existing structure onsite
with an offsite detour. We also request no instream work in the
months of March, April, and May to avoid interfering with fish
reproduction.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
requests routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT
should install and maintain sedimentation control measures
throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement
Memo
Page 2
January 27, 1994
of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to
pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning
structures can be designed to allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, which reduces the effects of 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 this project.
CC: Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
? r
• state of Worth Carolina -
Department of Entrkonnwrit, Health, aatd Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Ntantber Out Date.
Q y-c? y8? ? -a8 9
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated way noted to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions teparding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Offim indicated on the reverse of flee form.
wry Apps .61LwFrs. ePiDrmallpn amp Qu,G ellrwa Imlauve so smese plans and permits are atrailable from the stmt
RtgiOrtaf Office.
Namur Orris

Tone
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS ptatutory pole
limit)

D Ptmat to construct a operate wastewater trasinlent
m
iltti
t
f
Se
er
t
i
a Application t10 days before begin construction of award of 20 days
w
arc
".
sys
e
ens
sewer
ex
on. construction contracts Con•sise inspection. Post-applisation
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference rinse OD an)
NODES . perrhtt to discharge Into surfs.t wager atrld/or Application IW days before begin activity. Or*stit inspection. 20.120 days

D permit to operate and construct wastewater fac miss Pae-apptication Conference usual Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NODES Reply p,uA)
dime. 31D days after receipt of plans or issue of NODES
perrhit whichever is eater.
D Water Use Permit Pre-application tachni al conference usually necessary 310 days
• perA)
Well Construction Permlit Crompttte application Phut be received and pawn" issued T
Prior to the installation of a well. (15000)
Application copy must be served on sacs adjacent riosrian property 55 680
edge and Fill Pamn owner on-Me inspection. Pre-applicalion conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of t90 ays)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fat Permit.
Permit to construct a operate Air Pollution Abatement
f
il
/ 60 days
ities and
ac
o• Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H NIA (90 cars)
An pen burning associated with subject proposal
cast be in compliance with 1sA NCAC 2DA520.
Demol,tron or renovations of structures containing
asbestos frWerW must be in compliance with NSA W days
D NCAC 2D 052: which requires notification and removal NIA
pr;or to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733.OM (9C days)
Complex Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC 2D.ODOD. '
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land d,sturbin; activity. An erosion I seermentatro
control plan will be required If one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouatity Sect.l at (cast 30 20 days
Ca s before be, nn,n actrvit A fee of S3C for the first acre &^a S20 00 for ea:* eddrtrona' acre or art mus' accompany the tan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Controt Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect 10 the Werienced Local Ordinance: 00 days)
On site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EKNR Bond amount
El Mining Parrnll varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond t6o cars)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On•slte inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit 1 day
exceeds J days (NIA)
D Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N D. Division Forest Resources required -it more 1 day
counties in touts: N.C. with organk sodas than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved inspections MIN
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn Is planned:'
• 90120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA - 1N IA)
if permit required. appl;cal;on 60 days before begin construction

D Applicant must hire N C. qualified eng;neer to-prepare plans.
'
' 30 days
:m Safely Permit. Inspect Consiruc•
::, ce•
. ; onstrucl;on is according to CHNR approv"
ed plans. Way also Inquire permit under mosquito control program. And (60 drys)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is Paces-
sa•y to verify l4ward Cta!srficat;on. A rnin;mum fee of S20: 00 must sC-
Company the apptics5on. An add;l;onar process;ng lot bused on a
r,.rr.nta^f, or fire 1C'at prO;tct cost w;tl U redvired upon completion
4?
[ ? C
Nortiral ??xes:

VERM1T5
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or f3E0UlREMENTS -M
tstatul" tune
a+it)

3 Perm to tthlft witplowory ON or
n Well put surety bow of $5,000 with EKNR arming to &W* of Nz.
onditi
n
l th
t
tt 10 days
o c
o
a
stir wa
a
loomed by drift operator *Wt. apon 441A)•
0andonnWitt. be plugged according to EKNII rules and regulatims.
Geoprry cw Exploration MrnH Application tiled with EWNR at Mast V" prior b have of permit W days
Application by Witter. No stanDard a>pplicown bier. puA)
taste Lakes ConsinMion Pannit Application tee based on Structure stn is charged Must induct
descriptions a drawings of etnrctum t proof of ownership
pUA)
4 WA)
of riparian prowy.

AM Wor Ouallty CeAifrcatron
8111A e0 ays
pat) Gays)
CAM Peentt for MAMA dewlog n rlt (l;Z'b W tae mint accompany application ss Gays
(150 ays)
27 Gays
CAUA PermK br MINOR development NO-00 fee rhust accompany apptication Q5 cars)
Several g 00111 c monuments We located in Or tier the project area tf any ionuments need to be droved or Destroyed. please notify.
N.C Geodetic Survey. dox 276117. Raleigh. M.C. !7611
I Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2CA100.
I Notification of the proper regional office is reQuested N -vrphan` underground storape tanks WSJ are Discovered owing any excavation operation.
Comphance with 15A NCAC 2M 1000 (Coastal Stwinwater Rules) Is required.
I 45 Gays
1NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages u necessary, being earta'n to else comment authority):

?17 /- -
¦
i
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be'addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
f
P
W ? Fayetteville Regional Office
in
ood
lace
59 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301 -
[phone] (9191486-1541
Q Mooresville Regional Office
919 North !fain Street. P.O. Box 950 ? Ra'etph Regional office
3&')0 Earreu Drive
Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 .
Ra'ei h. NC 27609
3
(7041663-1699 (9191
33-2314
D Washington Regional Office Q1'Urnington Regional Orfiee
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington. NC 27889 Wilmington. NC 28405
• (919) 9,64481 (9191395-3900
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
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary . Director
Project Number: Iq L?-QY?Y County:
Project Name:
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)
For more information contact the Geodetic. Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
/ -tl y
Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
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 Affirmative Action Employer
c. !! ? „aSWFo?
Jy .raw.
?Owd
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hnnt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 31, 1994
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
4911 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 342 on SR 1800 over
Rich Creek, Davidson County, B-2545, ER 94-
8105, CH 94-E-0000-0484
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse, as well as your letter of December 29, 1993.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this
structure is not located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is
neither listed in nor eligible for listing in the National Register as an individual
property. We, therefore, have no comment on the project with regard to historic
structures.
Four prehistoric archaeological sites (31 DV384, 385, 386, and 455) are located on
the north side of Rich Creek near Bridge 342. These sites have not been
evaluated for National Register eligibility. Given the proximity of these sites to'
Bridge 342, we recommend an archaeological survey be conducted to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains that might be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Enclosed is a list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed
an interest in conducting contract work in North Carolina. Individual files providing
additional information on the consultants may be examined at the State Historic
Preservation Office's Office of State Archaeology, 421 North Blount Street,
Raleigh. If additional names are desired, you may consult the current listing of the
members of the treasurer, J. Barto Arnold, III, P.O. Box 13265, Austin, Texas
78711-3265. Any of the above persons, or any other experienced archaeologist,
may be contacted to -conduct the recommended investigations.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
f
4 R R
Lisa S. Hilliard
January 31, 1994, Page 2
OW
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,
i
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
cc: "'State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
H. F. Vlck
B. Church
P. Harris
i
PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS R .E
IntergoviWmental Review Process JAN 0 719
2216 W. Meadowview Road .
Greensboro,. NC 27407-3480 ?
Ct3L.'`ti ryN
Y
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone] M GR.
REVIEW 8r COMMENT FORM
The State Clearinghouse sent us the enclosed information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction. Please circulate it to the people you believe need to be
informed.
If you need more information about the proposal, please contact the applicant directly.
The name and phone number of a contact person are listed on the attached
"Notification of Intent".
If you wish to comment on the proposed action, complete this form and return it to the
PTCOG office by January 28th, 1994.
We will send your comments to the State Clearinghouse to be included in a
recommendation to the proposed funding agency.
State Application Identifier #94-E-0000-0484 Bridge Replacement - Rich Creek
Commenter's Name & Title Norman Shronce, County Manager
Representing Davidson County Phone # [phone]
Mailing Address County Courthouse, Lexington, NC 27292
Date Signed /- S/- pfz
COMMENTS:
attach additional sheets.)
=.??1diKD .?.4?Q•ddl?e' E3?B?P.9TdJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 28, 1994
?EHNR
TFEB - I I
MEMORA UM L
1
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swiharty?,/Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0484; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #342 Over Rich Creek, Davidson
County, B-2545, SR 1800
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Rich Fork Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would 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.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10489er.mem `
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper