19951208 Ver 1_Complete File_19951117

206 '
40 1 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETP JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 9, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
Subject: Union County - Replacement of Bridge No. 3 over Goose Creek on
SR 1547; State Project No. 8.2692001; T.I.P. No. B-2647
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 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.
RECEIVED
PdO?? 1 i 1995
ErrJ!ROr:.;?r?TnL sc?=r;cts

AL

November 9, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sin7ee ,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
B. G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Philip Harris, P. E., Planning & Environmental

Union County
SR 1547
Bridge No. 3
Over Goose Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9's 410(L
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
O 2 ? ? . (mot/
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Union County
SR 1547
Bridge No. 3
Over Goose Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams ??•?`??? CAROC/N''•,,
Project Manager w S1p,•.q
SE AL
=
"s t /C27521
mes Wang, Ph
.D., P.E. C1tii!? %q?hE3 S '? ?•WP;.
?)Principal
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Ga'b rimes, .E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Phil Harrisi, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
- A?
Union County
SR 1547
Bridge No. 3 Over Goose Creels
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
Bridge No. 3 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1996-
2002 Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior
to right-of-way acquisition.
3. NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of this project to minimize
impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata):
a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas.
c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the
stream from construction.
d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be
installed using the drilled shaft method.
e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge
outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope.
f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT
Environmental Branch prior to construction.
h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge
construction.
4. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
AL
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2.
It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft) and a
length of 48 meters (157 ft).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at
this location.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft)
grassed shoulders for approximately 100 meters (328 ft) west of the bridge and 40 meters (130
ft) east of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $535,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and
$500,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1996-
2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $609,000 including $34,000 for right-of-way and
$575,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1547 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily forest land and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Bridge
No. 3 is located approximately 944 meters (3100 ft) from the confluence of Rocky River and
Goose Creek.
The Carolina heelsplitter, an endangered species, is known to occur in the project area. This is
the last stream in North Carolina supporting a viable population. The existing bridge is located
at the end of an 80 meter radius (22 degree) curve with a tangent alignment on either end of the
curve. The curve has a design speed of less than 50 kmh (30 mph). Chevron signs warning
drivers of the curve are posted on the west approach. No signs are posted on the east
approach. The existing approach from the west is in a cut section and from the east is in a fill
section. The vertical alignment is relatively flat.
Near the bridge, SR 1547 has a 6.0 meter (19.7 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
shoulders. The roadway is approximately 5.2 meters (17 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 900 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) at
the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1962 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and
piles with concrete footings and timber bulkheads.
2

The overall length of the bridge is 36.9 meters (121 ft). The clear roadway width is 7.4 meters
(24.4 ft). The posted weight limit is 12,712 kilograms (14 tons) for single vehicles and 15,436
kilograms (17 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 3 has a sufficiency rating of 36.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994. Both accidents were single vehicle, traveling at approximately 90 kmh (55 mph). Both
accidents involved loss of control of the vehicle
Aerial utility lines are located on the south side of SR 1547 in the project area. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low.
Union County School buses cross the bridge four times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 3 include a new bridge that will accommodate
a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side and an approach
roadway consisting of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders.
The recommended alternate will replace Bridge No. 3 on a 160 meter (11°15') curve south of
and adjacent to the existing bridge. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). A design
exception will be required and traffic will be maintained by an off site detour.
An alternate to replace Bridge No. 3 approximately 15 meters (50 ft) south of its existing location
on a 335 radius (5 degree 16) curve with a maximum superelevation of 0.06 was considered.
The roadway grade of the new structure would be approximately the same as the existing
bridge. A design speed of 90 kilometers per hour (55 mph) would be provided. Traffic would
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The approach work would be
approximately 160 meters (525 ft) west and 110 meters (360 ft) east of the proposed bridge.
During the Section 7 informal consultation field review on May 16, 1995, this alternative was not
recommended due to possible impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1547.
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.
3
14&
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternate studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
(Recommended)
$ 15,200
243,670
65,530
100,600
75,000
35.000
$ 535,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An eight month road closure period is anticipated. Traffic would be detoured on SR 1601, NC
218, and US 601, an approximate distance of 7.9 kilometers (4.9 miles). 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 impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter that
would result from clearing the growth over the creek and constructing the detour structure.
The clearing and construction limits required for the construction of an on-site detour would
have the same impact on the Carolina heelsplitter as flattening the radius of the horizontal
curvature to 335 meters ( 5 degree 15' curve). Therefore, provision of an on-site detour is not
justifiable.
Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge on a curve with a
maximum radius of 160 meters (11 degree 45 minute curve) and with a maximum
superelevation of 0.06. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). Advisory posting will be
required on both approaches. A design exception will be required.
A 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22 ft)
travelway with 1 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the structure.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
proposed approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced south of
and adjacent to the existing bridge.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 48 meter (157 ft). The elevation of the new
4

structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A design exception for the design speed will be required due to the proposed horizontal
alignment. The recommended alternate provides a design speed of 65 kmh (40 mph) and
includes minimum approach work with traffic maintained by an off-site detour. The speed limit is
not posted but is assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at the project site. An alternative to improve
the design speed to 90 kmh (55 mph) was considered. However, this alternative was not
recommended due to the known occurrence of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter at
this location.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Union County (Figure 1) north of Monroe, North
Carolina. The project site lies within the southwest portion of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. Union County is a primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming an industrial and
urban county with close ties to the Charlotte metropolitan area.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Midland); 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 (Midland); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast
biologists on October 11, 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 meter (80 feet)
wide right-of-way limits and the width the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 137.0 meters (450.0 feet).
This portion of Union County contains soils from the Chewacla and Badin-Channery soil
complex. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained silt loams on 0 - 2 percent slopes usually
found in flood plains. The Badin-Channery complex is a well drained silty clay loam on 8 - 15
5

percent slopes often found on eroding uplands. The project study area can be characterized as
a gently sloping, mostly wooded area with a fairly significant flood plain west of the bridge. The
confluence of Goose Creek and Duck Creek can be found several hundred meters up stream.
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 separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass
(Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago
rugelii) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by
some of the above as well as goldenrod (Solidago sp), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along Goose Creek and the flood plain
upstream from the bridge. The dominant canopy trees in this area include river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box
elder (Acer negundo), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and scarlet oak (Quencus coccinea). An understory of ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Comus florida), and other saplings could also be found in this
community. The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle, greenbrier, muscadine
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), switch cane (Arundinaria
giantea), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Animals previously listed may also
6
4-0
be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon lotor), red-bellied woodpeckers
(Centurus carolinus), and a variety of woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Palustrine Broad-leaved Community
Some jurisdictional wetland areas were found within the historic floodplain upstream of Bridge
No. 3. The Midland, NC National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies the floodplain area as
palustrine broad-leaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PF01 C). Vegetation in this area
includes American sycamore, tulip poplar, river birch, and ironwood. A low, natural levee along
portions of Goose Creek separates much of this floodplain from the stream. Soils within this
area ranged from dark gray (10YR 4/1) without mottles to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) with
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) mottles. This levee allows floodwaters to pond in old stream
channels. This area exhibited evidence of scouring (coarse sand and cobbles in the old stream
channels) and wrack lines. Animals occurring in this floodplain wetland include those species
previously listed in the mixed hardwood forest community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Goose Creek and its associated
bottomland hardwood forest wetland. Within the project area Goose Creek is approximately
12.0 meters (40.0 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-3.0 feet) deep. On the day of
investigation the stream was slightly turbid with a moderate flow to the northeast. The stream
bottom is rocky with coarse sand deposits.
The stream banks are moderately to gently sloped, 1.0 to 3.0 meters (3.0-10.0 feet) high, and
vegetated with sycamore, river birch, and box elder. A number of old flood channels were
observed in the flood plain upstream from the bridge. Animals such as the belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and Southern leopard
frog (Rana utricularia) may reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), creek chubs (Nocomis sp.) and darters (Etheostoma sp.) would be expected to
be found in Goose Creek. Macroinvertebrates observed within the stream included dragonfly
larvae (Macromia and Gomphus sp.) and freshwater molluscs (Corhicula sp. and Helisoma sp.).
In addition, mayfly, caddisfly, and dipteran larvae would be expected to occur on and in the
substrate.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Temporary impacts to downstream aquatic habitat from
increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
7

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. 3 Palustrine Man Mixed Aquatic Combine
Replacement Broad-leaved Dominated Hardwood Community Totals
Impacts Community Community Community
Roadclosure 0 0.10 (0.12) 0.10 (0.25) 0.01 0.03 0.21 0.40
Terrestrial Communities
Of the three community types in the project area, the mixed hardwood community will receive
the greatest impact from the replacement, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement
will result in the disturbance of 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) to the mixed hardwood communities
and 0.10 (0.12) to the man-dominated community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Goose Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of stream bottom.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters", High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines, the
utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion
and Sediment Control Program and other commitments as stated in Section I.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Pee Dee River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Goose Creek originates north of Matthews, NC and is a perennial tributary of the Rocky River
which flows into the Pee Dee River just south of Lake Tillery near Cedar Hill, NC. Goose Creek
flows southwest to northeast through the proposed project area with a width at the bridge of
12.0 meters (40.0 feet). The depth of the stream in the project area was 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-
3.0 feet). The creek substrate is rocky with coarse sand. Goose Creek has a Class C rating
from the NC Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation,
boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
The Division of Environmental Management, does not maintain a fish or macroinvertebrate
monitoring station on Goose Creek.
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
8
AMA
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project
construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No. 3
with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short term
impacts will be minimized by the implementations of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Water, as applicable. Long term impacts to water resources are not
expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hyddc soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Non-tidal bottomland hardwood forested wetlands are located on the southeast quadrant of
Bridge No. 3 and will not be impacted by replacing the existing bridge. These wetlands appear
to be associated with the historic floodplain of Goose Creek. Investigation into wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional
surface water impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 3.
Permits
It is anticipated that 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.
9

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.
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 Union 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 2 federally protected species for
Union County as of March 28, 1995. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR UNION COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
The Carolina heelsplitter is the southernmost mussel in the genus Lasmigona on the eastern
coast. It has a shell that is an ovate trapezoid and can reach a length of 118.0 mm (4.65 inches)
with a height of 68.0 mm (2.68 inches) and a width of 39.0 mm (1.54 inches). The dorsal
margin is straight and may end with a slight wing. The umbo is flattened. The beaks are
depressed and project a little above the hinge line with a double looped sculpture. The
unsculptured shell can have a yellowish, greenish or brownish periostracum with greenish or
blackish rays.
Historically the Carolina heelsplitter was recorded from the Abbeville District in South Carolina,
and around Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Sampling in 1988 (Kefed and Shelley)
produced specimens in Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union County, North Carolina. All
specimens were found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs
along steep banks with a moderate current. All individuals were found in less than 1.0 meter
(3.3 feet) of water on substrates of soft mud, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel.
10

The Carolina heelsplitter has been found in the Goose Creek I Duck Creek drainage.
According to John Alderman, Non-game Biologist with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Bridge No. 3 crosses an area of critical habitat for this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an informal Section 7 Consultation
May 16, 1995, with USFWS and NCWRC regarding possible impacts to the Carolina
heelsplitter. The NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of the subject
project per the discussions:
a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas.
c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the
stream from construction.
d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be
installed using the drilled shaft method.
e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge
outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope.
f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT
Environmental Branch prior to construction.
h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge
construction.
Based upon the proposed measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this
project is not likely to adversely affect the Carolina heelsplitter. USFWS concurred with this
biological conclusion (see reply in Appendix).
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 altemate 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.
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
11

gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower by a general field
survey on October 11, 1994. 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 Union
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
UNION COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dactylothere peedeensis W No
(Pee Dee ostracod)
Aster georgianus C Yes
(Georgia aster)
Lotus purshianus var. helleri C No
(Heller's trefoil)
Isoetes virginica C Yes
(Virginia quillwort)
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.
C denotes Candidate species which are considered by the State to be rare
and needing population monitoring.
12
Summarv of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat exists in the project area for the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter and
Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower were found during a habitat
search. The NCWRC has identified the Goose Creek drainage as critical habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed,
and no other records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
X. ENVIROMMNTAL 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, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of the
SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested "that a comprehensive
survey be conducted by experienced archaeologist" prior to construction. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project
will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted
by the FHWA to the SHPO for review and comment.
13
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). 1 pie completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.31 hectare (0.76 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
131,203 hectares (324,037 acres) of prime or important soils found in Union 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 80.2 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Union 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. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects 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.
Union 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.
14
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
andCentral 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.
Kefed, E.P., R.M. Shelley. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and the Carolina Elktoe (Alasmidonta robusta). U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
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.
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, New
York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey of
Union 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.
15
t
i u -l1 FaIIV,e,v
New S.ler
Mews inns FU?,:on,,115 , 11
/Tnd
I O N i
Wed n9101 ers, Mon(oe? rcv
iarrm _ --mss
I. r Musnvdl!
? Wmg ale I
% • 6 a 15
t
MmeN 700
r
WUnow' SGnn,l ro7 17 Wmt! S
.- wl
,on.av 72 I
S, Ft, 1
i
1
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH

BRIDGE NO. 3
UNION COUNTY
B-2647
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0
1 (kilometers) 1
1
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 3
B-2647
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1547
?I
LOOKING WEST
ON SR 1547
AT 22° CURVE

UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 3
FIGURE 3
APPROXIMATE SCALE
METERS
0 500 10

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
"Cish Reld office
Poet Of kc D" 33724
Mcigh, North CaroU= 27634.372$
August 21, 1995
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Trarwportation
PO'Box 25201
.Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

T.?_v?
'DW V" OF
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service),•hau reviewed your July 26,
1995 latter regarding the replacement of bridge IIo. 3 over
Goose Creek, Union County in North Carolina. Our comments aro
provided in accordance-with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of.1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the implementation of the eight environmental.
commitments, the Service concurs that thi3 project 'ia nod
likely to adversely affect the Federally-endangered Carolina
heelsplitter (Lasrnxaona decorata) or any Federally-listed
endangered and threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat, or species currently proposed for Federal
listing under the Endangered Species; Act, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act havo
been satisfied. We remand you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2).this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may b6
affected by the identified action.
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
Candace Martino
Acting Supervisor

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray 1.1cCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
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:
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: / F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
a
TIP Q? Z?."'17 Federal Aid r ?Ra - V?47 (I)
County dNicn!
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
P-Zt {'t.k?- S ?nc:G tio. '3 crJ SE' 1S4-i ctirr.? D++?t_ GACE,?
On ??^?l:?n??' , 1`1119 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of therms necessary.
_%/ - there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT Date
wA!'f'or the Division
L4 - "? r? wit r
Representative, SHPO
State Historic Preservation officer
r, or other Federal Agency

// / 9.?
Date
Date
2-
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 Resourc
Division
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
State Wstoric rvation Officer
Deputy
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
L) ISIC^
?ice, Jr., 1
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2822, Davidson County on SR 1743 over Abbott's Creek on which
we commented by letter of March 22, 1994 to Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway
Administration, we have no recording of having seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants, ntm Wang Engineering Cmapn,dl filestor oahave here ev ewe ae all photograplhs hoirl-
Earley to check our ps a
maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge #3 on SR 1547 over Duck Creek, B-2647, Union County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
may be located in the floodplain and first terrace areas of the proposed project.
We recommend that a comprehensive surv_ ey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may besshould ebe assessed hprior to the initiation of construct on effects on
unknown resources
activities.
Bridge #148 on SR 1132 over Rocky River, B-2808, Cabarrus County
A thorough review by our staff suggests that unrecorded archaeological resources
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
CE?V
DEC 1 3 1994

H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 2
may be located within the proposed project area. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
the"-presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-2857, 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
Bridge #78 on SR 1556 over East Prong Deep River, B-2833, Guilford County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the immediate project
vicinity. We are unable to assess the effects of the proposed project upon as yet
unrecorded resources until we have a lo cation and project details.. Please forward
this information when it is available.
Bridge #56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV401 is located on both sides of NC 150 north of Reedy
Creek and may be affected by the proposed replacement. As soon as the project
location and details are available, please forward them to us for our review. If
affected, 31 DV401 should be tested to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Bridge #84 on NC 150 over Fryes Creek, B-2821, Davidson County
Archaeological site 31 DV414 is located east of NC 150 and north of Fryes Creek.
It is probable that this Archaic and Woodland period site will be affected by the
proposed bridge replacement. We recommend that the project area be surveyed
and, if affected, 31 DV414 be tested to determine its eligibility for the National
Register.
Bridge #139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Although no archaeological survey was recommended in our preliminary comments
concerning this project (our letter of March 22, 1994), a thorough staff review
suggests the proposed project area may contain unrecorded archaeological
remains. Our earlier comments did not incorporate the recommendation of our
staff which indicated a high probability factor for the broad floodplain and first
terraces within the proposed project area. Therefore, we recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify
the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources
should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Bridge #72 on SR 1164 over North Toe River, B-2804, Avery County
Bridge #54 on SR 1122 over Warrier Creek, B-2874, Wilkes County
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
H. F. Vick
December 8, 1994, Page 3
activities.
Bridge #59 on NC 80 over North Toe River and Seaboard RR, B-3089, Yancey
County
We recommend an archaeological. surv_ey_ be conducted if this involves a new
alignment or if there is any other new disturbance.
Bridge #74 on SR 1695 over US 421 and Southern RR, B-3175, Guilford County
Bridge #101, SR 1917 over Norfolk Southern RR, B-2867, Stanly County
Bridge #50 on SR 2245 over Kings Creek, B-2817, Cleveland County
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
N. Graf
r Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission L'
512 N. Salisbury Street, Rsleigh, 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 r•.;
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 (NCTr7RC) 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. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1
NCAC 2 5) .
After reviewing the information provided and data we
have on the subject streams we have the following comments
and recommendations:
1. 2-2126, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
Two small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridge. There is a broad,
forested floodplain along this section of stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
wide with sandy substrate and has fair fish habitat.
There are no known endangered or threatened fauna
concerns at this site. We recommend that the bridge be
replaced with a spanning structure, on-site with road
closure. NCDOT should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
2. B-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River.
The North Toe River is habitat for many pollution
?t- UJRV I I It.r I V fIL L.J L_ F1 1\ L_ I LL J ? J J -V Jvv ??. r v.. _ . . . .._ . .. v i v
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
logpexch (Percina button!), state listed endangered.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, [phone], on this project.
3. B-2808, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky River.
At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested
floodplain some of which may be wetlands. This section
of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a
rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing
excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened
or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that
the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No
in-water work should be performed in April or May.
Also, no in-stream cover should be removed including
the old granite bridge abutment located upstream from
the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for
wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and
erosion controls throughout the project. If possible,
we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for
fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for
bank fishing.
4. S-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek.
We have no recent fishery data at this site and no
threatened or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our District 6 Fisheries Biologist, Chris Goudreau,
[phone], on this project.
5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do not oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a "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.
A 1,W(\l.illt-r'ir'h1LLJ LHI\t ILL•717-J-L0-7vJZ' VtZL VV I_'-4 1 U.VVV f .Vr3
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
Deer River. The stream at this location is too small
to be of fishing significance; however, it is a
tributary to the water supply for High Poi::t. We
recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this
location. This stream likely serves as an important
wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer that this
bridge be replaced with a spanning structure.
9. B-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1925
This stream provides a fair fishery
catfish. We prefer that the bridge
spanning structure.
10. B-2858, Randolph County, or. SR 2830
Creek. This stream is too small at
of fishing significance.
over Muddy Creek.
for sunfish and
be replaced with a
over Richland
this location to be
11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek.
Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools.
The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands, possibly
wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey for wetlands.
We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with
road closure. We also request that there be no in-
water work in April or May.
12. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over
Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment.
13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR.1122 over Warrior Creek.
Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately
25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel,
cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard
soil and erosion control measures be used at this site.
14. B-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Railroad. This section cf the North Toe
River contains many pollution int:olerarit species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian eiktoe
I 1. WI\V . 11Vi II "LL V L. r1I\L I LL. • J 1 - v i.V V- J yI'r -- r -. -- - . .. - . . vV I . V 7
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 ir. the vicinity of bridge
replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentaticri control measures thrcughout the life of the
project and prevent wet ccncrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with
spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David
Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at (?19) 528-9886. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects .
CC: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
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 Cpportu ity Affirmative Acticn Employer 50'. recycled/ I Q% 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 •
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
November 29, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Bridge Replacement Projects
REFERENCE: 95-0298
The Division is strongly concerned about the possible
environmental impacts of the bridge replacement project proposed
in Union County. The bridge on SR 1547 over Duck Creek is
located just upstream from one of only four remaining populations
of the Carolina heelsplitter mussel (Lasmigona decorata). This
species is listed as Endangered by both the state and federal
governments and could be adversely affected by siltation or
hydrological alterations resulting from this project. The US
Fish and Wildlife Service must be consulted about the possible
impacts of this project and any potential that might exist for
mitigating these effects. Due to the additional presence of a
state-listed species, the squawfoot mussel (Strophitus
undulatus), we also recommend that the NC Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program also be consulted.
' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resourcas
IINTERGOVERN MENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Nurntxr. !DU e Oate:
C1 s - C) 1

After review of this project It has t>.--en determined that the EHNR permit(s) andfor approvals lrsdicated may need to De obtained In
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions ntgarding these permits should be addressed to the Regionil Office indicated on the raveme of that form.
All applications, Inforrnation and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are availa_hle from the ssm.
Regional ONiee. Normal Process
Time
•
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REQUIREMENTS tslalutory time
hmlt)
Permit to t:-)rutruct 9 operate wastewater treatment Appficstion 90 days (before taegin eonstryctlon or aware of X Cars
facilities, sewef system extensions. L atwar CJnSlruCtron l:ontra,:ls On•site inspeeeron. Post•a;.pli:.ation
systems not d-.scharging into state surface craters. Atchnlcal confefencs usual rX days)
NPDES • permit to disz!. srge Into surface weer ar=or Appllcaticn 1DC Cars before be-.,n aclrvlty. On•aite in4p4:tton. 110.12; Bays
permit to operate and Construe! wss:ewster faeihises
f
i Ptt•appliatipn conference usual Acdrtionally. o0tarn permn to
discharging
nto slate sur
ace waters. Construct wastewster treatment fa_^ility•granied after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. JO days after rvice,pt of pars or swift of NPDES
permit .rise tern is Later.
Water Else Permit Psrappli anon techn"t c.onferenct usually roe-,-eszary 30 cars
(NIA;
Well Cons:read:ion Permit G7mptete Lpli:al,on must De re.:ei.eC and pemif issue' 7 days
prior to tax inswation of a well. (15 days)
- -
Fill P
D A,.,lrcatlon cc;y must be served on each a-dia:ent npa•isn prepeny E5 ears
redge and
ermit owner On-site irspearon. Pre-a^,;licit ion conference usual Filling
rrsy reCuire Easernent Ie Fill from N.C Department of (9C days)
ACminlstralrpn and Federal Dre4ge and Fill Permit.
Permit to Construct L o;.e:ate Air PCllul or. Abatement 60 days
facilities anClo• omission Sour:es as per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA (9l. days)
Any O;-en burning t,sc:x.ed will, sutlect proposal
must De in ccmm;Lance with 15A NCAC 20.0S20.
C'e'nolil,on or rencvat.ons Of a:ru:!ores containing 'i
asrestcs ma'eria' must t?c in eomplranct with 15A 6C days
j NCAC 20 Cl-! wh c!. rewires nclifizai cn and removal NIA
prior to dem0lrl,cn Contact Asbestos Corllrol Group
gig 733.0°20 (Sr da
s)
y
Co-;sex Source Ferm t rec.;ired under 11-A NCAC 2D 0800
e Sedimentation Pcnutron Control Act of 1573 must be prc;,erfy a0.'.'esseC to, any fanC C,stur^„in; Activity An e•es,on 8 sec:nlen:ai,c
3
control plan will be requued if one or more acres to :.e d,S:urted Ptan filed with prc;,er Re;lona' Cff,ce (Land Cuairty Se:: I at feast 30 20 days
Ca.% Dero,e De^•nn,n^ ac!,.,t A fee c' S30 to, the first acre an0 1;*DQ7 roe ea:*, aoC-t.Oca• acre or ^a 1 mu6r aC:OM;3nv the clan 03! Cavsl
l The Sed.menlatron Poll on Control Act of IS72 must be aCJreCSe1 with res;e•cl to lht re'etrencrC Lo-cal C C,naner.
J (3J days)
On site (nspecliol usual Surely bond filed w,lG EH-14R Bond amount
M-ning Permit varies with type mine and num`,er of acres of affected land Any area 30 Cays
m-ned greater than one acre must tie permitt?. The a;;,C;naie bond (6N cars)
must be recei•eC `.eroie the ptrmil cam be issued.
J North Carolina Burning permit on site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources It permit 1 day
exceeds • days (NIA)
Special GrounC Clearance Burnin; Pormit • 2'2 C.') site inspection by N D OivSs;on Forest Rc:curces rewired 'If more 1 day
eour,!ic$ In CCa1.ta! N.C. wilt. Organk "I.% Ulan five acres of ground e!earinr, rlivl;ie: art invcf.ed Inspeclrons (NIA)
should De rcqucs'ed at feast fen days before actual burn is planned.-
9) 12C days
Oit Refining Facilities NIA (N:A)
If permit required, a;,,[,cation f4 days t~,fore Dc;ln construction.
1 Appccanl mus: h,r N C. Qu21,f, d engineer to pre;s:e ;fans. }3 Cays
Grm:,;!C!1 Permit 0-t,ucliCn IL a COrd,nl IC CHfIS± t",7rOr-
ed ;'arts. May a's.: lc?uire ;C:mif unCcr mosq,u;to Cor.trcy program. And (6L Cays)
• a amt ;Lrrnil from Co-;1 Of EnC; .CCrS An in-pection of site is nKes•
sa•y to verlly H and C:r:_:'Geation. A minimum ter C! must K•
Cow"any Ir.e a;?.riCD' Cn. An Ddd;IiOr.a p•O:C:.:n 'uC wed On a
^^•. •nr.^r Or tf.e lC(. ,'C_r•:! CC _. wi. Lr rr^., n?_ .. .tern Clr(iOn _
State of North Carolina
D partment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Reviewing Office: ? ?? C,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Protect Numcer: Due Date:
Cis -G,-/-?-/-QC/
Alter review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) andlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information ano guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Piece
Regional Office. Time
(statutory ::m,
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit) ;
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities. sewer system extensions. b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days) i
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90.120 days
r- permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. oota n permit to
i
U :scnarg ng :r;o state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (N/.at
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 Gays
C Water use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary

7 days
Well Conscruc:ion Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
)
i
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 nays
Dredge ane =•,l Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•aeplicatlon conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (g0 cans;
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
9rr^•-1 •s -crs:ruc: 3, operate Air Pptlultion AGatenlen( 60 day-
ac:!:I:e<_ s. _• E rission Sources as per i5A NCAC 21H.06
I NIA f90 pawl
Any ocen cu,n:ng associated with suotect proposal
must be n c:mpf ante with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
De,nci;;:,n : _..oaticns of structures containing
ascesics ma:-iaf must be in compliance with 15A 60 Gays
C NCAC _ +nirn requires notif cation and removal NIA
wrier :G :c. ; •CGn Contact Asbestos Control Group
919 (90 -Ja's,
- I Ccmp e, ..mu required under 15A NCAC 20.oc00. I
n ^-
ne Pruuucn Contrcl AG: of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land CisturGmg activity An .ros.en „ ,_c:mentauG.
I
1 cn!rci o.a, -.1 ce •eauirea if one or more acres ;o be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Cuawy Sec: at least 30
y 20 days I
- 7tnnino activity. A tee of Sir for the first acre and 52000 for eacn additional acre or cart must acccmcanv fre clan I (3J ; 1

C Tne S- :r .;^ .urn Pollution Control Ac: of 197 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance I 30 ;,;.s)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Sand amount
C Mining Pert- , varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 1a+s
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 Gaysi
must be received before the permit can be issued.
:,rr, - .r nr permit On-site inspection by N C. DiviSion Forest Resources if p m:t
exceeds 3 days I (NIA;
5ueva: :..-: C;earance Surning P.yma On site msbect on by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
L- Counh»: n ; astal N.C with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are :nvoived. Ins,-ections iNIA1
should be recuested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."

l=
R
.
= 90120 days
.rr..
... r
O.i
ac:IWes NIA (NIA)

It permit required. application 60 Gays before begin construction :
-
I App!:Gant must hire N.C. qualified eng:neer to: preoare clans. :m+S
.. n: inscoci construction certify construC::cn is ac:Grd:ng !d EH.NR abbrrly
ed p:ans P•1av also require permit under mosaurtr :Gn!rdl prrgram Ard I ri0 .::+•.;
a - ourm:t :r rm p: ;t E;ir,:near: ...• :nsoeclurn 31 site ?s neces
,
.,art
!0 verily Hazard C:assif:cation . m ntintim !ee of 5200 00 must ac
company the apphcation. An additional -rocessing !ee Based on a
perrentace or the total protect cost •.vnl be reawrgp upon eomblelion
CGnnnueu nn
A 7 A`
r./I?. \/I.I.?(.. Px i\'II:!`!
I,rlter-A-cncy Pr0)CL:L" 1\CYic%\, 1'?CSI?OIl.iC
1
•Cn .?y.c ?c? ?4 cr-r•-,?
Nan- Type of Project _ef:-0?? - -
1. The applicant slloulcl be advised Cllar plans and spec.ificacions for all water syscem
?-.-? irrlprovenlei s must be approved by Lhc Division of Ervu'onnlerltal Health prior co:che awar
of a contract or Lilc ina melon of cc nscruc6oti (as requ -ed by 15A NCAC 1SC .0300 ec: seq.).
For information, contact Lhe Public- Wale: Supply Se-Lion, [phone].
r--i This-project will be classified as a. non-cotnmunicy ourlic water supply and must comply wic!•_
?- -J state and federal drinking Nwacer rloniccrma reeulrerne-cs. For more informaLlorl Lhe apiolican?
Should concacu the Public Nvater Supple Seccion, (91:•'! 733-232-1.
r • -~•.fecc?of adjaceii"
..lr this project is conscn teed as proposed, we Trill recommend closure of
?J waters to the harvest of shellfish. For informaLlon :e;ardir- che.shellfissaniCzUon progr:
r• {
ni, the aL olicant shoulC concac'. Lhe Shellfish Sanitation Branch ac [phone].
r-, Tne spoil Glspcsal area(s) proposed 101' L !IS pC'?;eCL :",a': prOdllCC a lzlosgllito breeding'prchlen.
! •l 1 r
r
L-J For inTcrnlauon concerning appropl'lace n:OSqulto :onrcol measures, Lhe applicant -sho l?.
contact the Public Health Pest.Managernent Section zt (919) 726-S970.
---? The applicant silould be ?.du1SCQ L'haL Drlol' CO :lie icnnovall ov Cemolltlon of dliapl_aLe
SCil]C.ul'e5 an Y.tenSiYe 1'OLIn.C cO1.L1"Ol program, i,l'a'•' be :1CCeSS;-? in v^r?Ci co •p!"evenG Ll:
' r
nlloraiion of-Ell-Le rodenL•S Cc artl'1iC11: :e??. The :nrorinaziorl.concerning rode, t •contrc
contact Ll:e local health deparLlr:enL or chc••Pubiic Heald: Pest Mana?en.ent.Secclo:l..aL (91`
733-6?07.
Lhe
Thr ar{I{i{r;,nL shoulc be ao,flsed to cc:ltzC:. Lhe local health dc;:artmer.- rehara!ng
I r v t; Cy..lr :r•rr7 I lat Inc lCc .•Pr?{I?r.,-1 tp rl y
"?• 1^('?"' eL seU
r. N C AL:
.,::Gut;..`.: n:S SCr .C ..:. ....._ _ !•_.. \ ?.
1-O!' 1.nf?,:' 1?.t!O.^. C'rr.?rrtll?<s _prir; tnrnk inci ntr'!'r !l? St! P w?.stc GIST osai rn-.'hUdS, colli.'tcL L.
On - C. ,:%C` ??•rCC ='=!L!O:'. :. r. ? ins '?' n-
1--- The appf;canc should be advised l:o contra-In. Lc. local dealt-1 de;?«rLment regarding Lhe sarliL..
L_.. J Mc tlttlc: "ed for Clll'; I7rO;e::'.
r '
1 it tY.ISL::'? Y'aCc:' I1:1C; \?lll {)^ ll.'.?l?? (.1::;!ii??^Li?:`. C.011SL1•UC1•1(-)l1, 01'.1:1S i01 die Wilt/:l' l
- --? I'01ocat:C1.1 nlusc I,c I'll bInLUCCI CO in' iroriincmal HZ-. L11, L'1?II)I1C \VaL'C1' SUO
j(Cl:lOil, ;Mall RcVICw Bratlcl-l, 1.x.)0 ?C Mar 'i ?L'rCel' i\.aIC'.In?1 NLII'!.il IIn2., N 733-•Z"
/1D 2'
Section/Branch. ..? te
_i?tu?!tivµ ?aYS-...c?7T?:?`^???r-ran.- _a?_..? ..... ._ ... .. ? • .. ? ...
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
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: '7 S' O Z lc (7 County: . /f v[- T l
Project Name: ., O Z 9 ,Q
.r
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.
a C T.-?^?* ?'r
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer u Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This projeclt 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
RO. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
J f -W
.;.S. at ;,qricui(ur!
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
_ I Cate Ct Lana CWIWttan ALt:u Rt (? I J0 / 3
R T I l :e :?r?at-°'°e J% -_?°•Jl.:y'e.^.C%1 T
Name Ct : o c=: I Feoarat .:gencv invaivea -LAW
Pracalea `na Ute ,^. I Gunrv And State ?N
,
1 ID PA
PART It (770 :e concreted cY SCSJ I OaceI I Its oi,S W t
{
Yes No
Cces me site contain „rime, unioue, stat:wide or loaf impermnt farmland? r
Q Acres Irnrratm
N? I
I Ararat'. tarry, ?,1'
? ??
(Jf no.:7e F=?.1 does not aooiY - do not ccmoiere additional,^,arts of mi fcrml. .? NO
malor C:actsl Farmaau t.ana in Gavt.:urrsacnon
oc'm IAd==: 3a3) \:;, S % RS.-1
C An-aunt Ot Farrraarra %.a ustinaa in rPPA
IAC:cs: EZA-t 03-1 ; -1Ck
.
Nsrne Ct Iona ;vaiuauon System l:sea ,Larne Ot l.,ocst Sits Assassmant Syrtsm
I Cate Lind „vaiuatton Retumea 3y SG
1
S LaEL-?
( `/
wn;m, LE )U o N ? 1 3
9
I Alrornauva jira . aura
?ART III (To ce ccmole:ea oy ^•cerai.:gent/) I Site a I Site 3 1 Sits C I site 0
A ie'ai Ac.-!s To 3e C-nve"ea Ciret•'y I O 1(? I 0 q0 1 0. 1 '
3. Torsi Acres Ta 3e Can,ver-ea Indirecyv 1 I I I
C Tort Acr-s In Site I n to I p, q p I 0,10
I
PART IV (70 ce ccmo/err-d dY SCSI Land 3•raluation Information
A. Tcral Ac: -s Prime Ane L'nicue F3rTmland 1 O I I I
3. Total Ac:-?:: Statewide Ane L_-cal Imcor=nt Farmland IQ . I I I
C. Percanrce Of Farmland In Caunrr Cr Local Gcvt Unit 7o Be Convened I 0 Db \ I 6.0 O 1 I ac 0C I
G o'r'xruga C' 'armLona 'n Gcvt 'unscie-on 'Nc+ Sart+e Cr 4ignar ae+atrve Vuu• I '7 e. (0 I - 7 O • (p I 71)
PART V (To ce ccmcierer dY SCSI Land :valuation C.•itznon
i

)
OR
-

2
,
I r S

(,.-l

S q ?Z
I
Reladve Value Of Farniandio Be Converted (ScieofOro nr
1C
v .
• I
PART V I (To ce ccrna/ere? oY F-reral.:gene1) ` Narcimum I l
S:tm ,t,cu=rnent C.itena (i here cnraria are azD/arnA in 7 C.FR 63a_1bl I ?o?nts _
1 Area 'n Ncrrur an Use I /? I ?j I G 1 ?/
I /? I 1
2 ?•-ime•er'n Nonurcan Use
3 P?rC_-nt Cf Ske'eing =armea I ?/` I /; I l
4 c otec-^cn c ovide^ 3v State Ana L^C]i Government I ?r I I I
S. Oistara F cm Ur=an 3uiituo Area I - I -- I - I 1
d. Oismnca -o Urran Succor, Services I - I I -' 1
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit C..mcarted To Averiar I l0 I /Q 1 %/1 I /U ' -
& Creanon Gf I onfarnacle Farmland I ?7 I /? I U I '
9 Availaciiirr Of Farm Succor Servic= I $ 1 a I S
10 On Farm Investments
I_ J I
11. "uet:^ Of C nversien On Farm Suooort Serviers I ?$ I ? I 1
12 C..mcattciii ., 'Nitn 'xis-ino Acricul'urai Usa
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTa I 160 I ?? I =? I 77
PART V11 (To ce ccmo/ered dY F-eery/ .49ent/) I I I I I
Reiativs Value (of Farmland (From par? VJ I 100 sf, G 56,7 1 $9,? 1
Total Site Assessment lFrom parr 'I/ stove ors 1=j I 160 Z? Z75 I ?'$
sire assn-,vrrenrl
TOTAL PCINTS (Total of 3cove 2lined I 260 I ? I ,ql, 7 R3•?
Was A Lxat Site ,taaeamerrt Weal
to Silec,ed: I Oats Cf Selecdon I Yes C No
Reason For SdfK;:an: