19950618 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

o'STA?'o
Nw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 13, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele
DWQ 401 /Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1650
Subject: Randleman Bridge Projects
Guilford and Randolph Counties
Updated Traffic Forecasts
Dear Ms. Van Der Wiele:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY

Attached are updated Traffic Forecasts for the Randleman bridge projects.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please give Doug Moore
or me a call at [phone].
Sincerely,
.'A e 1, / .
Mohammed Mahjoub, EI
Special Studies Squad Leader
Design Services Unit
MEM:RDM
Attachments
cc: project file
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER.COMPLEX
DESIGN SERVICES UNIT ENTRANCE B-2
1591 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT. STATE.NC.US 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699-1591 RALEIGH NC
MEMO TO: Attendees
FROM: Doug Moore
Assistant Squad Leader
Special Studies Section
Design Services
SUBJECT: Piedmont Triad (Randleman Lake Bridges)
DATE: November 30, 2001
On May 29, 2001, a meeting was held to discuss the Hazardous Spill Basins, the Randleman
Buffer Rules, and Design Criteria for the above mentioned projects. The meeting was held in the
Design Services Large Conference Room. The following people were in attendance:
Chris Haire NCDOT - Design Services 919-250-4128
Jerry Lindsey
Randy Boyd
Brad Wall
Mike Mills
Marshall Clawson
Felix Davila
David Henderson
Lane Hall
Tim Johnson
Art King
John Kime
Doug Moore
Mohammed Mahjoub
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Steve Zoufaly
Roger Sheats
Robin Young
NCDOT - Hydraulics
NCDOT - Hydraulics..
NCDOT - Division 7
NCDOT - Division 7
NCDOT - Division 7
FHWA
NCDOT - Hydraulics
NCDOT - Division 7
NCDOT - Division 8
NCDOT - Division 8
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 336-547-8437
NCDOT - Design Services 919-250-4128
NCDOT - Design Services 919-250-4128
DENR - DWQ 919-733-5715
DENR - DWQ 919-733-5086 ext 566
NCDOT 919-733-2520
NCDOT - PDEA 919-733-7844 ext 239
919-250-4100
919-250-4100
336-334-3192
336-334-3192
919-250-4100
919-856-4350
919-250-4100
336-334-3161
910-944-2344
910-944-2344
Introductions were made at the beginning of the meeting. I stated that I had set up the meeting,
that our section was in charge of reviewing and coordinating reviews of these projects, that we
needed to know which bridges required hazardous spill basins, and that we need verification in
our files.
Mr. John Kime stated that he was anxious to find out also. He stated that the Dam for the
reservoir is currently being constructed and concrete should begin to be poured in February 2002.
Mr. Steve Zoufaly stated that there is an agreement with NCDOT and DWQ concerning
Hazardous Spill Basins. Mr. Dave Henderson had a copy of this agreement and told everyone
what it said. He stated there were definitely three bridges that qualify for use of the hazardous
spill basins. These are B-3842, B-3843, and B-3935. Everyone was in agreement with this
statement.
Mr. Chris Haire stated that Traffic Counts were not 20-year projections, as we would usually
require in design, therefore there may be the possibility of more bridges falling under these
guidelines. Mr. Kime noted that there was no Industrial Development allowed within 'h mile of
the Lake and that he did not think traffic would increase significantly.
Our office also stated that maintenance of these basins is a concern.. The Division offices
concurred. Mr. Kime said that he would have a lot less problem maintaining basins for just three
bridge sites verses all the bridges. Mr. Dave Henderson stated some bridges might require a
closed drainage system to eliminate surface water runoff directly into the reservoir. The closed
system most likely will require a treatment basin at its discharge point. Some bridges might
require these closed drainage systems even though they might not require a hazardous spill basin.
Mr. John Kime stated B-3890 would not be constructed. PTRWA is working with the Division 8
office to realign the secondary roads so that B-3890 will not be needed. PTRWA will be
responsible for all costs for this project.
Mr. Chris Haire asked Division personnel if they would like to hold a combined field inspection
on these projects. After some discussion it was decided that a combined field inspection was
desired for all Randleman Lake Bridge Replacement Projects. The Divisions stated that Resident
Engineers will be assigned to these projects, but would not oversee the daily inspections.
Mr. Chris Haire asked Mr. Felix Davila with FHWA if PTRWA is eligible for federal funds for
right of way on the Randleman Lake Bridge Replacement projects that are federally funded. Mr.
Davila said as far as he knew PTRWA would be eligible for these funds. For PTRWA to receive
these funds they have to adhere to proper procedures. PTRWA owns most of the right of way
needed for these projects.
Permits were discussed and Mr. Kime is going to resolve this with DENR. Mr. Kime stated he
understood the permit for the reservoir to cover the permit requirements for each individual
bridge replacement project.
Mr. Steve Zoufaly asked for traffic information for each bridge and a map or maps showing
buffer zones and boundaries for the Lake.
In conclusion to the meeting it was decided that the Special Studies Section of Design Services
would provide Mr. Zoufaly and Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele with updated traffic showing 20-year
traffic projections and a breakdown in truck traffic. Special Studies will provide this updated
traffic to DWQ as soon as it is received from the Program Development Branch. Mr. Dave
Henderson of Hydraulics will provide them with the map they requested.

? STt?TF°?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _ TAXI kopROPRATE AC-nON
FOR YOUR VORMATfON
MICHAEL F. EASLEY -?
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Moore, Design Services
FROM: Scott W. Walston, P.E. < APM-
Statewide Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Traffic Forecast Request B-2857 (#90)
Randleman Dam Bridge Projects
Randolph County
DATE:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
February 6, 2002
DESIGN SERVICES UNIT i
_CO W
&F M
F: t; S 2002
I have completed the traffic forecast for the above project. Base year (2000) and future year
(2025) projections were given. Truck percentages were based on a field visit on January 31,
2002. This forecast assumes the Randleman Dam project in place. A no-build scenario was not
provided in this forecast.
These forecasts were based on the Piedmont Triad Travel demand model and past trends. The
future year counts included in the travel demand model considered projects in each of the
Greensboro, High Point, and Winston-Salem Long Range Transportation Plans.
f f you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone] or e-mail at
swalsatn cvdol.state.tic.us.
Attachments (2)
cc: Laura Cove, P.E.
Jerry Dudeck, P.E.
L.C. Smith
J.M. Lynch, P.E., Traffic Engineering
John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Joseph Springer
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STATEWIDE PLANNING
1554 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
Rni circa Nr 97rQQ_11,Sd
TELEPHONE' 919-7334705
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
e•
t
S

rl.
-LL A 0.
0
-385-9
Y?
RD 1-18] _s 3 s 1?
R y -
?. s 1929 t . ???? -;" f ,•, -
62]x,-• . .
?- - - 8 94
3II
BANNER _ ns:,a^t+ :?? ?"• '?:
b
WHITEHEAD RD s
3? t ' K!r
1. >
r i" c
le Evaluation -??--?, :• SR??z ? J,,?? ? ??
unties, NC
m sR t9q>3 L ? ? i
ert
sx? _ _ f
t New Structure
r.
e chances)
e
1 Miles
SR t 936 J.' - .. / ?:
> >\.
Field Si:r•iay ?LS\ I
V
w
B- 287 (#90) Forecast
Randleman Lake Bridge Evaluation
Guilford & Randolph Counties, NC
I inch= 0.50 mile
February 4, 2002
2000 "r
2o25 fr
I`0
SR f92?
a
2oaa

°)co
4
v
t3 a?? d
loo
(300
D Boo
2100
I?
2? Zoo
4oD
300
boo
? ? ? 932

4901
5a `928
foo
y QM
1900
Hor n2e U00 TD
SCINLI,
Legend
• owV r=? p
(?. rl
DNv
o 0„190 n.0rty v.1u.0. 1...,01.9.
of-0...1 ¦?u1 1.1.•01.9.
.L. ? r,.1 a.0r a o1r,. u.0 •r r,.1r n.,
- Ou.l TrucY 1,r s,nl, p.
r - rrar r„•,01,0,
N.1,; It ONV ..( 0 .r. ,.1 11..,, 11..//.0.1 I, J.
y . --',i
X' E ,,
p,?srvFa
I` ? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 7, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
RECEIVED
Dear Sir:
95 (,18
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SEP
4Q 1 1 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
^al,,.N
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 90 over Muddy Creek on
SR 1928, TIP No. B-2857, State Project No. 8.2570701, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1928(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review.
12--oll

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon
Cashin at [phone].
Sincerel ,
.Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: Ms. Jean Manuele, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Domey, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, PE, Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Philip S. Harris, PE, Project Planning Engineer

•4
A'. . L
Randolph County
SR 1928
Bridge No. 90
Over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1928(2)
State Project No. 8.2570701
T.I.P. No. B-2857
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
b ATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
1124 /95- J!?3 _ F(UAh L
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
--? Division Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
SR 1928
Bridge No. 90
Over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ1928(2)
State Project No. 8.2570701
T.I.P. No. B-2857
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
Jrh Wang, Ph.D., P.E.
aI
"" ..,1111111,,
CAR
'• ?? ••• ESS •'•N'4 ?'a
? SEAL l? s
s 1521
qt •......••WP ?•.•
41,
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
611.01qt't"o
L. 64 Grime , .E., Unit Head
Consultant En meering Unit
Phil Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer

Randolph County
SR 1928
Bridge No. 90 Over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1928(2)
State Project No. 8.2570701
T.I.P. No. B-2857
Bridge No. 90 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 90 will be replaced on existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with
a triple barrel 3.4 meter x 3.0 meter (11 ft x 10 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The roadway grade will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
grassed shoulders for approximately 80 meters (262 ft) each side of the culvert.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $352,300 including $52,300 for right-of-way and
$300,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $452,000 including $52,000 for right-of-way and
$400,000 for construction.
SR 1928 is classed as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily agricultural and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. The land
on the southwest quadrant of the bridge has been cleared. Muddy Creek on the north side has
a bend to the west. A small tributary joins Muddy Creek approximately 24 meters (80 ft) north
of the bridge.
Near the bridge, SR 1928 has a 5.4 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
shoulders. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge with a 350 meter radius (5 degree)
curve approximately 50 meters (164 ft) west of the bridge. The bridge is located in a sag
vertical curve with the roadway situated approximately 6.4 meters (21 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 700 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 1300 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph).
The existing bridge was built in 1949 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced
concrete cap and columns with reinforced concrete end bents and one bent with timber cap,
post and sill pier on concrete footing.
The overall length of the bridge is 37 meters (121 ft). The clear roadway width is 4.9 meters (16
ft). The posted weight limit is 4,540 kilograms (5 tons) for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 90 has a sufficiency rating of 20.7, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994. The accident occurred at the east approach when the driver hit water on the roadway
and collided with the bridge.
Aerial utility lines cross over SR 1928 at the existing bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be
low.
Randolph County School buses currently do not cross this bridge under normal routes.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No new alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment, the lowest cost and the least impacts to the
environment. A relocated alignment would result in excessive cost and undesirable
environmental impacts.
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 90. Each alternative consists of
replacing the bridge with a triple barrel 3.4 meter x 3 meter (11 ft x 10 ft) reinforced concrete box
culvert. The approach roadway would consist of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6
ft) grassed shoulders.
A culvert is recommended at this location due to the drainage basin being approximately 34.96
sq. km. (13.5 sq.mi.) and a culvert is approximately $90,000 less than a spanning structure at
this project site.
2
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge with a culvert on the existing
roadway while maintaining traffic by utilizing an off-site detour. A design exception would be
required to tie into the existing vertical alignment.
Alternate B: involves replacing the bridge with a culvert along the existing roadway alignment
while maintaining traffic with a temporary on-site detour. The roadway grade will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. A design exception would be required to tie
into the vertical alignment. This alternative is not desirable due to the substantial additional
cost of a temporary detour, existing low traffic volume that would be served and the additional
impacts to natural environment caused by the detour.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1928.
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
Structure Removal (existing) $ 9,700
Structure (proposed) 125,000
Temp. Detour Pipes and Approaches ---
Roadway Approaches 73,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 42,200
Engineering and Contingencies 50,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 52,300
TOTAL $352,300
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Alternate B
$ 9,700
125,000
184,900
73,100
82,300
75,000
60,500
$610,500
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. A five 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 and availability of a
suitable detour route. A road user analysis was performed based on 700 vpd and an average
of 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles) of indirectional travel (See Figure 1). The cost of additional travel
would be approximately $94,500 during the five month construction period. The estimated cost
of providing an on-site detour is $258,200, resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.37. This ratio
indicates it is not justifiable to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
3
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 90 will be replaced at its existing location with a triple barrel 3.4 meter x 3 meter (11 ft
x 10 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert (See Figure 2). A design exception will be required to tie
into the existing vertical alignment.
The Division Engineer agrees with the recommendation the structure be replaced at the existing
location utilizing an off-site detour.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
roadway. The design speed is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the reinforced
concrete box culvert is recommended to have a minimum opening of 31 square meters (330 sq
ft) and a length of approximately 24 meters (80 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation of the
roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and opening may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by final
hydraulic studies.
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for the design speed will be required due to the existing
vertical alignment at the project site. The recommended alternate (Alternate A) provides a
design speed of 80 kmh (50 mph) and requires minimum approach work with traffic maintained
by an off-site detour. Due to the existing vertical alignment, both within and outside the project
area, a major grade revision to SR 1928 would be required to improve the design speed to 90
kmh (55 mph). Since the alignment of the recommended alternate is compatible with the
alignment of the remainder of SR 1928 and the projected 2017 traffic volumes are low (1300
vph), the additional costs are not justified.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area is in a rural area of Randolph County (Figure 1) southeast of
Archdale, North Carolina. The project site lies within the central portion of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Randolph County is a predominantly rural county with some textile
based industry.
Methodolopv
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (High Point East); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (High Point East); USFWS list of protected and candidate
species; N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and
unique habitats; and Division of Environmental Management Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) and Fisheries data. Research using these resources was conducted
prior to the field investigation.
4
A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast
biologists on October 13, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
using a variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meters (80.0
feet) wide right-of-way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream
for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts
should be less, but without specific replacement design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.)
the worse case was assumed for the impact calculations.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently sloping. Project area
elevation is approximately 204.0 meters (670.0 feet).
This portion of Randolph County contains soils from the Mecklenburg-Enon-Wilkes soil
association, which are soils with moderately slow to slowly permeable plastic clay subsoils; on
short, broad, gently sloping to sloping ridges and short, strongly sloping to moderately steep
side slopes. The project study area can be characterized as a moderately sloping, mostly
wooded area with a disturbed old field site on the hillside southwest of the bridge.
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
and mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned in each
community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches, as well as the old field southwest of the bridge and powedine easement along the
roadway. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.),
white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago rugelit) and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas including the old field are
vegetatated by the above plus, goldenrod (Solidago sp.), joe-pye weed (Eupatorium
5
maculatum), Japanese honeysuckle, (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), American
holly (Ilex opaca), red maple (Acer rubrum), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), dogwood
(Comus flodda), privet (Ligustrum sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
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 (Sciunis carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), starling (Stumus vulgaris), and the
American robin (Turdus migratodus) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along the north side of Muddy Creek
and the southwest side of the bridge. The dominant canopy trees in this area include tulip
poplar, American sycamore (Piatanus occidentalis), white oak (Quercus alba), and American
beech (Fagus grandifolia). The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle, smilax, and
poison ivy. Along the south side of the stream is a narrow, sandy, floodplain with river birch
(Betula nigra) and sycamore. Animals previously listed may also be found in this community
along with a variety of woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Muddy Creek. Within the project area
Muddy Creek is approximately 6.0 meters (20.0 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-3.0 feet)
deep. On the day of investigation, the stream was clear with a slow flow to the southeast.
There are heavy sand deposits in the stream and along the banks. The stream bottom is
predominately coarse sand with some gravel and occasional rock outcrops upstream of the
bridge.
The stream banks are moderately sloped, 1.5 to 4.5 meters (5.0-15.0 feet) high, and vegetated
with sycamore and river birch. Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megacerylr alcyon),
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) and Southern leopard frog (Rana utdculada) reside
along the waters edge. Within the stream one would expect to find various small fishes such as
the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), shiners (Notropis sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp.).
According to comments received by the NCDOT from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC), Muddy Creek contains fair amounts of sunfish (Leponis spp.) and
catfish (Ictaluddae). However, neither sunfish nor catfish species were observed by the
biologists during the October 13, 1994 site visit. Macroinvertebrates such as mayfly, stonefly
larvae, chironomid larvae, oligochaetes and molluscs such as the clam (Corbicula sp.) would be
expected to inhabit the stream.
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.
6
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge No. 90 Man- Mixed
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Aquatic Combined
Impacts Community Community Community Total
Alternative A 0.04(0.11) 0.04(0.11) 0.005(0.01) 0.085(0.23)
Alternative B
Permanent 0.04 (0.11) 0.04 (0.11) 0.005(0.01) 0.085(0.23)
Temporary 0.00 0.15 (0.37) 0.005(0.01) 0.155(0.38)
notes:
* Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above.
Terrestrial Communities
Of the two community types in the project area, the man-dominated community will receive the
greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement
and mortality of fauna species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the
disturbance of 0.04 hectare (0.11 acre) of man-dominated community and 0.4 hectare (0.11
acre) of mixed hardwood community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Muddy Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.005 hectare (0.01 acre) of stream bottom. The
new culvert construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the stream in
the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects
will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters" and the utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as 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 Cape Fear River drainage basin.
7
Water Resource Characteristics
Muddy Creek is one of the headwater streams of the Deep River which flows southeast from
the High Point / Greensboro area and joins with the Haw River near Moncure, NC to form the
Cape Fear River. Muddy Creek flows northwest to southeast through the proposed project area
and is between 4.5 to 6.0 meters (15.0 to 20.0 feet) wide. The depth of the stream throughout
the project limits varies between 0.15 to 1.0 meter (0.5-3.0 feet). The creek substrate is
composed mostly of coarse sand and gravel with scattered rocky outcrops. Muddy 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.
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management maintains a Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
station on Muddy Creek at SR 1929 in Randolph County, approximately 0.8 km (0.5 mile)
downstream of the project crossing. According to data collected in February 1993 the stream
has a good to fair bioclassification. The diversity of the ephemeropteran (8 species),
plecopteran (8 species) and trichopteran (6 species, but all rare) community (EPT index) reflects
a fairly good water quality that shows some impact from sediment loads within the surrounding
watershed.
The Division of Environmental Management sampled fish populations in Muddy Creek on
August 1992 just upstream and downstream of the project area. The most abundant fish
species included the rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), killifish (Fundulus rathbuni),
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), shiner (Notropis sp.), and creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus).
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
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. These 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.
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).
8
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Muddy Creek has well defined banks
within the bridge replacement limits. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact
area was conducted using methods from 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 0.005 hectare (0.01 acre) of jurisdictional surface water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 90.
Permits
Construction will be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Nationwide Permit NO. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical 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
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not required 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.
A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in decline either due to natural forces or due to
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Randolph County, and
any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction, are
discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,. as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for
Randolph County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
9
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Notrupis mekistocholas Cape Fear Shiner E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
notes:
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
The Cape Fear shiner is a small fish rarely exceeding two inches in length. The body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The fins are yellowish and
somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar along its
margin. This shiner feeds extensively on plant material and its digestive tract is modified for this
diet by having an elongated, convoluted intestine.
The species are generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates and has been
observed to inhabit slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. In these habitats, the Cape Fear shiner is
typically associated with schools of other related species, but it is never the numerically
dominant species. Juveniles are often found in slackwater, among large rock outcrops in
midstream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Constituent elements include clean
streams with gravel, cobble, boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs, and slackwater
areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with good quality water with
relatively low silt loads.
The only populations documented in Randolph County as well as the critical habitat in
the county is located in the extreme southern portion of the county and into Moore
County. Since the project area is located in the northern part of the county and because
of the heavy sand deposits and lack of cobble bolder substrates in Muddy Creek,
suitable habitat is not present. Additionally, this area is not in the (Federal) designated
critical habitat or WRC proposed critical habitat for this species. Therefore, it is
concluded that the subject project will have no effect on the Cape Fear shiner.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1-2 meters (3.28-6.56
feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above
the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem
and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick texture.
From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of yellow
flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and are
glabrous with rounded tips.
10
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and
edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high
gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched on October 13, 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
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Randolph
County 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
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dactylothere peedeensis W NO
(Pee Dee ostracod)
Fusconaia masoni T YES
(Atlantic pigtoe mussel)
Alasmidonta varicosa T NO
(Brook floater)
notes:
* W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation concern
but not warranting active monitoring at this time.
11
Summarv of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for the endangered Cape Fear shiner. Habitat exists for
Schweinitz's sunflower but no individuals of this species were found during a habitat search.
Therefore, no impacts to protected species will result from any of the proposed project
alternatives. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no
records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, coded at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that no properties either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
located within the area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural resources. A copy of the
SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
Mr. David Brook, the Deputy SHPO, in a letter dated July 13, 1995, commented the presence
of the National Register eligible archaeological site in the proposed project area is unlikely.
Therefore no archaeological survey will be conducted for the project. A copy of the SHPO letter
is included in the Appendix. No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
12
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.04 hectare (0.1 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
166,575 hectares (411,399 acres) of prime or important soils found in Randolph County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 55.5 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Randolph County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project and the bridge will be
replaced at its existing location with a culvert. Therefore, its impact on noise and air quality will
not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Randolph County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
13
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management 1993. Results of Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), sampling for Muddy Creek at SR 1929,
Randolph County, February 15, 1993.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, N.Y.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of
Randolph County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
14

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
0 (kilometers) 1
I

Y'

glow,

?

RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 90
B-2857
LOOKING NORTHEAST
ON SR 1928
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
ON SR 1928
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 90
FIGURE 3
RANDOLPH
COUNTY
B-2857
JOINS

I ? o0
II
II
n
„
ii
BRIDGE # 90
n
„
v ?
R
R R
II R
I' R
ZONE:'
1927
Muddy ?p
1929 Week
?I Pri
ZONE A
1932
1932 . /?

Road
l i
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
1936
?I
1941 `I•
II?
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
0 1000 2000
u
II
II
FIGURE 4

e.,aSil1T^? `q?

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1995, transmitting the concurrence forms
for nineteen bridge replacement projects. I have signed and dated them, and they
are enclosed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.

Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
cc: VA. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??P
TIP # f6 Zf-*l Federal Aid # r7r-7--111U1(9 County r=??'t-rq
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
?LE'i-tic:-G ctJ SR 192?c ovEr- Muooy CRCEk
On JtWakr-Y 1;111'11; _,representatives of the
V
V
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of thenrr9 necessary.
NZ there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHw or the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
ve,
/-S- 5S -
to 'gistoric Preservation
//
Date
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
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
E/
JUL 17 1995
DfV1sICNI
tiIGHWA SF:
0 met
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-28¢7, Randolph County
Bridge 404 on SR 2830 over Richland Creek, B-2858, Randolph County
Bridge 1 on SR 1526 over Grants Creek, B-2865, Rowan County
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project areas, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with these projects.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
July 13, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
i erely, 46 _6k
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/cc: " H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
K 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: 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, SCH
Project No. 95-0298.
Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have the following preliminary comments
on the subject bridge replacements. Our comments are
provided in accordance with provisions of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 11SA-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 25).
After reviewing the information provided and data we
have on the subject streams we have the following comments
and recommendations:
1. B-2126, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
Two small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridge. There is a broad,
forested floodplain along this section of stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
wide with sandy substrate and has fair fish habitat.
There are no known endangered or threatened fauna
concerns at this site. We recommend that the bridge be
replaced with a spanning structure, on-site with road
closure. NCDOT should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
2. B-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River.
The North Toe River is habitat for many pollution
?l LpKI s I it r C FiLLJ Llil\C I GL • 717-DL0 VC1_ vv ?-r iJ • Tr' I IV . VVV F . L/
Memo Page 2 December 6, 1994
intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at
this site. we also stock this section of the river
yearly with catchable-sized trout. Downstream we have
found the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana)
federally listed endangered (E) and the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni), state listed endangered.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
3. B-2808, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky Raver.
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. H-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 nor- 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.
V_WKI. , HI.F' , F HLL'? LHKE TEL Ue C UG ' ?44 1 D .- DU NO . W JI F , U8
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. S-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Deep River. The stream at this location is too small
to be of fishing significance; however, it is a
tributary to the water supply for High Point. We
recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this
location. This stream likely serves as an important
wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer than, this
bridge be replaced with a spanning structure.
9. B-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1528 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. B-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. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over
Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment.
13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek.
Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately
25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel,
cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard
soil and erosion control measures be used at this site.
14. B-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Railroad, This section of the North Toe
River contains many pollution intolerant species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elktoe
'Vk-WI\?., f rlVr !r HL. LJ LP9 f\ L I "" • Sl -.J 4Q aV•:7 Le I- Vv 7"f 1. - .J'J I I W . V V V P" .IJ'?V
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
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with
spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossinas.
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 Gaudreau, 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 / *'Oe
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
C) F
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary G
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, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501. recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
I. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
J. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence.. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10777er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
I State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. =Due :
q5-Oa°?g -t

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 mgarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of ttse form.
Alf applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the game
Regional Office. Norma! Process
Time
•
PERMfTS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (Statutory time
limit)

D Permit to Construct t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction of award of 30 days
facilities, Hewer system extensions. L sewer Construction contracts On-site inspecuon. Post-application
systems not 6ischatging into state surface waters. technical Conference usual (90 days)
NPDES . permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 1110 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
D permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
f
i
i Par-application conference usual Additionally. obtain permit to
ng
ace waters.
discharg
nto state sur Construct wastewater treatment facility-grantee after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
Pwmit-whichever is later.
Water U" Permit pit-sppficatipn techrntst Wnterentt usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
Well Construc:,on Permit Wrnptete application must be (eceireC and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a wall. (15 days)
- - Application copy must be served on each adjacent npa•ian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner On-site irlspectrer,. Pre-application conference usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C Department of f90 days)
Administration anC Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

' Permit to construct t operate Air Pollution Aeatement
f
il
A
C
f
i 60 Bays
ac
ities and
miss
o'
on Sources as per 15
NCAC 21 M. NIA 190 days)
Any open burning assoc:a:ed with sutleci proposal
must be in r-,m;%ance with 15A NCAC 2D.0t..2D.
Dernoatron or renovations of structures containing
astesics ma'eria' must t?e in cGmplrar.Ce with 15A days
'J NCAC 200525 whit..^• requires nciiGcatrcn and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Ast'csios Control Group
919 733.0820 (9C days)
Complex Source Permit required under I !A NCAC 2D.0B00
.e Sedimentation Pollution Contro! Act of 1973 must be preperfy addressed for any (and d,sturb;ng activity An e'osion 8 sec:mentaue
contio! plan wilt be required if one or more acres to be drsturteC Plan t;ted with p,cpe! Re,,ona' Office (Land Ouairty Sect ) at least 30 20 days
Cass before be^ nnrn act,v,t A fee or 130 for the first acre a^d 120 00 for ea: ?% add.f,ona' acre or art mus! accompany the Dian 30 Cayst
Tne Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must the addresser with respect to the re!errenced Local Ordrnanea: (3 days)
On site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EMNR Bond amount
}Yining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appre;nate bond lh% days)
must be receive! before the permit can tie issued.
J Nonh C folina Burring permit On site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds • days (NIA)
-.l SpeC,ai Ground C'earance Burning Permit . 22 On ;ate inspection by N D. Division Forest Resources required ')f more 1 day
counties in eca=.ta! N.C. with organic "r.,% than five acres of ground clearing actiylties are involved Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at feast ten days before actual burn is planned.''
• go 120 days
Li Oil Refining Fac!)Ities NIA (N:A)
If pe!mft iequiri?d. application &I days tafoie be,:n construction.
-) Applicant mus; h;rr, N C. QuahLed enc;r.ee! to prerare plans. 30 Cays
-i G.m Ca!ety Fermit inspBCl {nr,i irvr: '.:? ce'. , onl(ruct;cn it. a coid-.g to Elms approy-
ed ;raps. May a!s.: ,vgaiie pt:lmit under mosqu;lo control program. And (L? Cays)
' a A.ri< pt!rnit from Corp.-, o! En,;aCCfs An inspection of site is neces-
sa'y to verlti 14,:ard C;t::-Gca!;on. A minimum fCt- c! & cc.OO mud ad•
. corn"ar.y tDt e;;fiCa' on. An ad_:I;Un:+ p'o:CC.;ny^ ruC en a
^°'• '^ra^r or 11-t iC'a p0:-1 CC_! welt t.c rr^., ?rr? .. -.^. rcrn^;rl;on

6F // - 67
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office: Ae el
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Numoer: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Proces•.
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS tstatutory ;,m
limit) )
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
t-; facilities. sewer system extensions. & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post•aopl ication
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days) i
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
a permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
iiscriarging into state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA) j
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 nays '
C Waler Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. ( (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Credce anc =•:l Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Fining
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (9o cavs;
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit. !

C germ ! c _ _truct 3 operate Air Pollution Abatement
15A NCAC 21H
06
S
NIA 60 cavs
t90 cavs
.
ources as per
ac:) ues _-nc .,r Emission )
Anv ooen ourn,ng associated with subject proposal i
must be •n :brnohance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition 'enovat)ons of structures containing
asoesto<_ ma:e,ia) must be in compliance wftn 15A 60 cavs
r-
L NCAC 2C C= vnicn requires notification and removal NIA
_
prdr ;c -_m„• t:On Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733082'"_ (90 ravs)
Comp:e,. So..rce P,?rm)t required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
I
. ^c S a.:rn Pollution Control Act of 1971, must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion ?._ec:mentano?
r
?{ y
on;ro! ;ciar :.-n be required it one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sec:.) at !east 30 I 20 days
I
zvs ce!orr ^ --riming activity. A tee of $30 for !ne first acre and 520.00 for each aaeitional acre or part must accomoanv tre o)an i30 cavs:

C 'he Sccir-• -; i:ton Pollution Control Act of 1973must be addressed with resoec: to the referrenced Local Ordinance- 130 cots)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with Ei-iNR. Bond amount
C Mining Perm : varies with type mine and number of acres of affected !and. Any area 30 lays
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 daysi
must be received before the permit can be issued.
err; ?. •:, 3um:nr, perm.; On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if perm:)
`- I exceeds 4 days I (N/Ai
SUec:31 ':..., Clearance Burning Permit 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required ..)f more day
L zountiwz n :,asial N.C with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections tNiA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is Manned."
90120 days
C I p! R-<fuvng =actl)tles N/A I (NIAI
I

If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction )
!
Applicant must hire N.C qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days

` :.. .. „1) insoect construction. certify construction is accorrine to EHNR apprr)v
I ed plans Mav also require permit under mosou)tc control program Anr, fo -....,
a »0, permit tram Enr,,neei:; •-r• :1s0ect1cn of sue ,s neces.
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum iee at $20000 must ac
company the application. An additional orocessmg tee based on a
percentage or the total project cost evil be required upon comoleuon
CGnitnued on ,.,.

n er-A(rency Projcrt .l\mv\, response
"t? i I Cyy1,,L V ?? _
n ?O PX
1 ypc of project XQ? /-
The applic:irt should be advised ch:u plans and specifications for all water system
iinproveinents must be appl'oved by Lhe Division of L• l vffonmencal Health prloi co:the.awar d
of a Contract or L!le initiation of Cunscruccioli (as requ'*-ed by 15A NCAC 18i1 .0300 cc:. seq.).
For information, contact the Pub!io \Y/ace,- Supply Se_Liocl, [phone].
?--? This project will be classified as a r-?.on-coinmunicy put is water supply and must comply witC:
L_---? scare and feaeral 61"1111Ung Vy"Ice1" i110n1101"111 l-ec:tlirenle:•:Cs. For Vlore information the applicainc
should contact the Pudic Wacer Supply Seccien, (91`! 733-232-1.
r A r o lee[-of adjacent
?-? .1'r this project is constructed as oroposed, we il_ r ca-rinlend closure of _
vraters to the harvest of shellfish. For information -egardirg the -shellfisFsanication progra
r•
n1, the applicant should C0nC1Cc the Shellfish SaniCR[!Dn Branch at [phone].
1, oduc a mosquito breeding-problen:i
r-- he spoil disposal area(s) prooosed for tills project Ina pr
r
?J For inrorrnation concerning appropriate mosquito =on.Lrol measures, the applicanc-shoui.c
contact the Public Health Pesz.Managernenc- Section t [phone].
--1 TEe applicant should be advlsen L'har prior to tlic removal of denaoiitlori or dilapidate
` J
SCi i1CCU1."eS, an /'Y.teLlSiVe rOd'?:ilC COnL1"Oi 2l'O-.aril nl; •" 'be IiP.CeSSa-, !.il Cr6f.'r co-prevent- t.1
'
nllgracion of'Liie Coderics cc adIaCCllt -areas. The : r ?IOCnl?.CL'Jr1.CU!.iCernlild rGdCni: COi7%r0
contact the local heals h depa:'Lirenc or chc-Public Health Pesc Managcment.Sec:tiorl.at (910
733-6407.
1•
--i ?_ lie ai,_)iI,canc shc)uld be advlscd to c-ncac- the local healch' dN7( e-ar'Li-ner'.C retarding t:ne
i I __- {v n+•t. n?? ,n191Iat`..`nc 1wf re Cell, r:--1 P r. 'a?A. ?•A(? 1•JA .:.`j.0.0 et. pert
71
`i nt nr 1•a -?Ste CiiSOO511, nI.t .f7r7 1QS, Cola.-
-OC L.nform?.tion C^nCernii?!r ?_n-?t;r-. ff1; it, ?(; ?'.. .._Ct i.:
rv. \ `? :' aS'"tC 11'1LeC°CCiOb 3 9 i -/\ ?? ?n _
?i- Ji \
?---} 1 he appi:can.v. should be advised l:o cow mci. L 11e. loca?i hcalcl'1 de;?1i Ln1en;: regarding the sin'
1. _.. ..? Mc 1111c- rc'gmrod 101' C! IS PI"
;• ? •; lL E.XISt:'? w':1CC!' llC1C:: \vlll I)^_ C?'14?:::':., CI.:,!ii? Li1:. 0011$01"UCl:li)Il. '?i::;lS i?li l'I1C ?'`/'1C<iC l:
1- -) rclocau.cri IilusL b:: submlLLCd cc) slit; : i`:!;i1C1; oi' in-•Ironlnenml 17+.c-.ALI), Public V+'aL'e1' Sul11
r "? 1 rf ' ?! 1' C r ) r
l 73.x-._'
JCCU Oil, lal? 1\e\'lC"`? l.)ta1.1C11 1.?.)?) SC.:\.al'y :i ?tlCC. i\.alelhl Nc.r,n .-.r 71.1;12., ?`i?"?)

sect/16 *./Bm?nc11,

•

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT PJMX i COMMNTs Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _ q S - 6 Z rf ,? County: 14-1 r,e- T- /
Project Name: p Z q ,P'
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) 4
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewert u Date J
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.
V11 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.
j/ If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 20402.1M
December 19, 1994
Planning Division
Mr. H. Franklin 'Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Sox 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27511-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?E1
DEC 19 1994
DIVISIe;4 OF „r
HIGHWAYS This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1994,
subject: "Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement
Projects." The bridge replacement projects are located in various
Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
A?%J!. 7--?
Wilbert V. Paynes
Acting Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Ms. Peggy Goss (CEORN-EP-P)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
December 19, 1994
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY _CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 1iILiIN6TON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC
All of the bridges, except for those in Avery and Yancey Counties, are
within the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE),
Wilmington District. These bridges are located within counties or communities
which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. From the various
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (F!RMsl, it appears that both approximate study, and
detail study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-
year flood elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood
plain information pertaining to these bridges is contained in the following
table. The FIRMS are from the county flood insurance study unless otherwise
noted.
BRIDGE ROUTE STUDY. DATE OF
NO. NO. COUNT STREAM TYPE FIRM
56 NC 150 DAVIDSON REEDY CK. APPROX 5/80
148 SR 1132 CABARRUS ROCKY R. DETAIL 5/81
50 SR 2245 CLEVELAND KINGS CK. APPROX 7/91
84 NC 150 DAVIDSON FRYES CK. DETAIL 5/80
139 SR 1743 DAVIDSON ABBOTTS CK DETAIL 5/80
3 SR 1547 UNION DUCK/GOOSE CK. APPROX 7/83
78 SR 1556 GUILFORD E FORK DEEP R DETAIL 11/88
90 SR 1928 RANDOLPH MUDDY CK. APPROX 7/81
404 SR 2830 RANDOLPH RICHLAND CK DETAIL 7/81
I SR 1526 ROWAN GRANTS CK DETAIL 11/79
101 SR 1917 STANLY NONE-NO FL HAZ --- 12/81
54 SR 1122 WILKES WARRIOR CK APPROX 5/91
74 SR 1695 GUILFORD NONE-NO FL NAZ --- 9/88
* within city of Greensboro jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
For the detail study streams, hydraulic computations may be required
to show that the new structures will cause no rise in the 100-year natural
water surface elevations. If changes in the floodway are required to meet
the 1-foot maximum surcharge above the natural, these changes should be
coordinated with the respective counties for modification to their flood
insurance maps and reports. We also suggest coordination with the counties
for compliance with their flood plain ordinances.

December 19, 1994
Page 2 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMENI ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
T1
1. FLOW PLAINS (CONS
Avery and Yancey Counties are within the planning jurisdiction of the
USACE, Nashville District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with
respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. The
Nashville District does not currently have any projects in the area.
Therefore, there would not be any impacts to or from any Corps projects due to
the proposed project. Ms Deggy Goss shal!id be tontarted at (615) 73?-5055
for further information and comments from the Nashville District. Florid plain
concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process.
A 25a permit is required for all construction or development involving.streams
or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at
[phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting
process. The projects should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance with all local
ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain
regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS, POC - Ral
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the River and Harbor Act of 1911, as amended, within the State of North
Carolina is handled by the Regulatory Branch of the USACE, Wilmington
District.
Section 404 permits will be required for the discharge of excavated or
fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated
wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements, including
disposal of construction debris. The replacement of these bridges may be
eligible for nationwide permit authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)J as a
Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the amount of jurisdictional wetlands
to be impacted by a project and the construction techniques utilized. Please
be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits within any of the
25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer. In addition, any
jurisdictional impacts associated with temporary access roads or detours,
cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should be addressed in the
Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by Nationwide
Permit No. 23. If such information is not contained within the Categorical
Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
-n , --M+- . ';hi . 1 :.,7 T '/IC : 17 7 M I `'!_ •7?-^'_'7-

December 19, 1994
Page 3 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Western North Carolina counties
WATERS AND WETLANDS CQhl1MI (W #T1
When final plans are complete, Including the extent and location of any
work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review those plans for a project-specific
determination of DA permit requirements.
..The bridge in question is over Goose Creek instead of Duck Creek as stated
in the letter. It appears that the project is at or very close to a known
population of the federally endangered. Carolina heelsplitter clam. As such,
nationwide Permit No. 23 would not apply and an individual DA permit would be
required- It is recommended that North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCOOT) immediately contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servica, Asheville
Field Office, to discuss this issue and get more specific information on
heelsplitter locations in this area.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
POC - John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Davidson,
Guilford, and Wilkes Counties
FOG - Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph County
Asheville Field {office --
POC - Steve Lund at [phone] for Cabarrus, Cleveland, Union, and
Stanly Counties
VOC - Steve Chapin at (7t4) 2i'1-4014 for Avery and Rowan Counties
POC - David Baker at [phone] for Yancey County
3.
. The Natural Resources Management Branch concurs in the Bridge No. 54
replacement over Warrior Creek in Wilkes County. However, this replacement
may involve Carps lands from the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir project. We
request review of preliminary plans and environmental reports so that we can
grant the NCDOT an easement, right-of-entry, or other real estate requirement
if the work is outside of the Department's existing right-of-way.
v?
w
J.S. Deaartment of Agricuiture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 t 7o ,7e corrorere.: oy.4gencyl Oate Ct Land Evaluation Reouest
y? )a 3?
Name 0t aro'ec- B 2R?, 1 '5P I??E tf- q o I Feaenl Agencv Imolvea
P1,0002ea L.7nd Use I ( Counrv And State R R N DDLP !A , N
PART 11 (To ce comp/erect by SCS) oat, Ito it- 1 I q Bcaw
Ones the site contain pnme, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No A?cswlmgated Are+age Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not acoly - do not complete additional parts of this form}. C (I's p 14 E I \ 01
Major Crows) Farmsore Land In Govt. Junsaieuon Amount at FermiaM As Oetined in FPPA
C 0`Ch I Aces: 425, 7 lb 5 % $44,'3 I Acres: 4¢t1 y 3 9 q % Si.4•
Name at Lana evatuauon System used Moan at 1.aM Site Assessment System Date Land Evatuavon Returned By SCS
R?? ? & k n?% `. E I t-16 1j F l l lsl 1s W eW
Atternativs Site
Rating
'ART III (To be ccmolered by Federal Agency) I
I Site A I Site 3 I Site C I Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oirectly I D, lD I Ot 1 Or I y i
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly I I I I
C. Total Acres In Site 1 0110 1 01/0 1 O. l 1
'ART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information I I -
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland I O 1 O I I
3. Total Aces Statewide And Local Important Farmland I - 0.0 I p.05 1 ?. ? I
C. Percentage Of Farmiand In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted I D .00 I O . 00 ( I O.OO I
0. Percarrtage Of Farmtane in Gavt. Jurisdic ion yrtri Same Or Nigher Retatne Value I 4. I ?. 3
3ART V (To be corrrbieted by SCS) Land Evaluation Cciterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (-'kaieof Oro 100 Pain=)
'ART VI (To ov comoleret7 by Federal Agent/)
;im Assessment CAtena 117tese criteria ire esrtNained in 7 CFR MS1b1 Maximum
` Points
1 Area In Nonurcan Use I /'s I O I I O I
2. Perimeter In Nonuroan Use I /? 1 Q I O I O I
_
3 Percent Of Site Being Farmed ( ZD 1 D I I O I
4. Protect ton Provided By State And Local Government I 2_O I Q I O I Q I
S. Oistance From Urban Builtuo Area
S. (Distance To Urban Sucoort Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Ava I I I I
8. Creation Of Nonfarmabie Farmland 1
9. Availability Of Farm Sucoorr Services -40
10. On-farm Investments I I /'0 I zo
17 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucoorr Services 1 25 1 CJ D O
12. Comoatibility Wit" Existin Agricultural Use ( I I I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I ZS 2S
, ZS I
4RT V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency) I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
3p.S
30.5
O•S
Total Site Assessment (From Raft V1 above ora logy I
sits asseumenrl 160 Z ( S
TOTAL POINTS (-oral of above 2lines) I 2B0 Sjs S$is I afjl s I

to Selected:
I Data Of Selection I Was A Local Site Aafnment Usedi'
Yes Cl No G
own For Se+ecion:
bra..
a?
4
LP