19960728 Ver 1_Complete File_19960730

.e_
9 6 0 7 2 8 401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 15, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
-?. ...
JUL 3 0 1996
WkrLANOS "
WATER 1 Gt
l AtIT9 $?.:;?
Subject: Wilkes County - Replacement of Bridge No. 54 on SR 1122 over Warrior
Creek; T.I.P. No. B-2874; State Project No. 8.2760201
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace the existing
structure with a new bridge on the same alignment, along with associated approach
improvements. Traffic will be detoured along existing roads throughout construction.
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). We expect to proceed with this project under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of this project.
No fill in jurisdictional wetlands will be required. Warrior Creek does not support
trout, and is not designated as a Wild Public Mountain Trout Water by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. Construction shall be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact stream water.
In accordance with current procedures for projects located in the designated trout
counties, the concurrence of WRC must be obtained prior to construction. By copy of
this letter, we hereby request that WRC review the proposed project and provide any
comments they find necessary. A copy of the CE document is included for the WRC
review. Please note the special construction conditions included in the Summary of
Environmental Commitments.

&.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Cyndi
Bell at [phone], Extension 306.
Sincerely
ra -lin VickAP.E., n ager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachment
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E., Division I I Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, P. E., Planning & Environmental Branch
Wilkes County
SR 1122
Bridge No. 54
Over Warrior Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1122(2)
State Project No. 8.2760201
T.I.P. No. B-2874
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
31274 (o
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
3 /ZF
DATE Ni as L. af, P. E.
?0A1
Di sion Administrator, FHWA
Wilkes County
SR 1122
Bridge No. 54
Over Warrior Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1122(2)
State Project No. 8.2760201
T.I.P. No. B-2874
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
MARCH 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
ip?p
CAR(
Pamela R. Williams DxgN SS%
?. pEE 0,
Project Manager SEAL
's 7521
J es Wang, Ph.D., P.E.
rincipal
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. I Grime .E., Unit Head
Con ultant E,neering Unit
9?'? A . jl1 -
Phil Harris, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Wilkes County
SR 1122
Bridge No. 54 Over Warrior Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1122(2)
State Project No. 8.2760201
T.I.P. No. B-2874
Bridge No. 54 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
All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project
prior to right-of-way acquisition.
3. Bridge No. 54 over Warrior Creek was determined eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. The bridge will be recorded and disassembled in
accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)(see Attachment No. 2).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 54 will be replaced on existing location 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 an approximate length of
28 meters (92 ft).
The roadway grade of the new structure will be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3.0 ft) above
the existing bridge grade at this location to accommodate the hydrological design requirements.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft)
grassed shoulders.
Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $553,000 including $28,000 for right-of-way and
$525,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $603,000 including $28,000 for right-of-way and
$575,000 for construction.
111. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1122 is classed as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily forest land in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Bridge No. 54 is located
approximately 1.3 kilometers upstream from the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir in southwest Wilkes
County. NCDOT's Maintenance Department has realigned and paved the existing road on the
east side of the bridge as shown in Figure 1.
Near the bridge, SR 1122 has a 4.8 meter (16 ft) roadway width with 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders.
The projected traffic volume is 400 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1998 and 1000 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted at the project site but assumed to be 90
kmh (55 mph) due to the horizontal and vertical alignment in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
The existing bridge was built in 1962 (Figure 3A and 3B). The superstructure is one span
timber deck on low steel truss on timber substructure. It has been determined that this bridge is
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places because of the "pony" truss
construction.
The overall length of the bridge is 18.3 meters (60 ft). The clear roadway width is 4.5 meters
(14.9 ft). The posted weight limit is 4,540 kilograms (5 tons) for all vehicles.
Bridge No. 54 has a sufficiency rating of 16.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There are no school buses from the Wilkes County School system crossing Bridge No. 54.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Replacement at the existing bridge is the only reasonable alternative. No re-alignments were
considered for replacement of the existing bridge since the existing bridge utilizing the existing
roadway approaches provides the best design and the lowest cost. In addition, recent
improvements have been completed along a 150 meter (500 feet) section of the roadway
immediately east of the bridge. A relocated alignment would result in excessive cost and
undesirable environmental consequences. Replacement at the existing location would utilize
other existing roads as detours during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1122. No other reasonable method of
providing access to the area appears possible.
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.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternate studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
$ 4,500
165,100
183,200
107,200
65,000
28,000
$553,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. An eight month road closure period is anticipated. The off-site detour
roadways and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction
period.
A road user analysis was performed based on 400 vpd and an average of 3.8 kilometers (2.4
miles) of indirectional travel (See Figure 1) along the detour route. The cost of additional travel
would be approximately $109,000 during the eight month construction period. The estimated
cost of providing an on-site detour is $126,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 0.86. This ratio
indicates it is not economically justifiable to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period
for this low volume of traffic.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 54 will be replaced with a bridge approximately 28 meters (92 ft) long with a clear
roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft). This structure width will accommodate a 6.6 meter (22 ft)
travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
proposed approaches.
Based on preliminary hydraulic analysis, the elevation of the new structure will be raised
approximately 1.0 meter (3.0 ft) above the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
3
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
It is anticipated that a design exception for the design speed will be required. The existing 8
percent grade approaching the bridge from the west and the existing horizontal alignment in the
vicinity of the bridge will require major approach changes to SR 1122 to improve the design
speed to 90 kmh (55 mph). Due to the additional environmental impacts and construction
costs major changes to the horizontal and vertical alignment is not justified.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area in Wilkes County (Figure 1) south of W. Kerr
Scott Reservoir. The project site lies within the northern portion of the Mountain Physiographic
Province in North Carolina. Wilkes County is a predominantly rural county at the foot of the
Blue Ridge Mountains. Agriculture, including a large poultry processing plant, and light industry
provide the main economic base for the county.
Methodoloov
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Boomer); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200), Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps;
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Boomer);
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 18, 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 (80.0 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 being moderately to steeply sloping.
Project area elevation is approximately 344.0 meters (1130.0 feet). This portion of Wilkes
County contains soils from the Rion and Pacolet soil complexes, which are fine sandy loam and
sandy loam soils. The project study area can be characterized as moderate to steeply sloping.
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
4
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 construction staging area southeast of the bridge which is
associated with the current road widening project. 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 the above as well as, goldenrod (So/idago 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
brachyfiynchos), 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 Warrior Creek. The dominant
canopy trees in this area include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and red maple (Ater ?ubrum). There is an
understory of dogwood (Comus florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). The herbaceous layer consists
mainly of honeysuckle, greenbrier, muscadine grape (Vids rotundifolia), and Christmas fern
(PolysUchum acrostichoides). Animals previously listed may also be found in this community
along with raccoons (Procyon lotor) and a variety of woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Animals likely to be found; reptiles: copperhead (Agkfstrudon contortris), red-bellied snake
(Storeria occipitomeculata), milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta);
amphibians: easternbox turtle (Terrapene carolina), ground skink (Scincella lateralis); birds: red-
eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), American red start (Stetophage ruticilla), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura).
5
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Warrior Creek. Within the project area
Warrior Creek is approximately 11.5 meters (38.0 feet) wide and less than 0.3 meters (1.0 feet)
deep. On the day of investigation the stream was clear with a moderate to swift flow. The
stream has a substrate of mainly sand and gravel near the bridge with large rock outcrops and
cobblestones upstream.
The stream banks were moderately sloped, 1.6 to 3.0 meters (5.0-10.0 feet) high, and
vegetated with the mixed hardwood forest species previously listed. Animals such as the belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon) and Southern
leopard frog (Rana utricularia) reside along the waters edge. Fish species expected to inhabit
Warrior Creek include various sunfishes (Lepomis sp.), shiners (Cyprinelle and Notropis sp.),
chubs (Nocomis sp.), and darters (Etheostoma sp.). The macroinvertebrates observed within
the stream include crayfish (Cambaridae), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), caddisfly (Zenaida
macroura), and stonefly larvae (Plecopters). Midges (Chironomid larvae) and segmented
worms (Oligochaetes) would also be expected to dwell within the sandy 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.
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 54 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.04 (0.11) 0.04 (0.11) 0.01 (0.02) 0.09 (0.24)
Terrestrial Communities
In the project area, the man-dominated and mixed hardwood communities will be impacted from
construction, 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 0.04
hectare (0.11 acre) to the mixed hardwood communities and 0.04 (0.11) to the man-dominated
community.
6
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Warrior Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of modified substrate of 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of the
stream bottom. The new bridge construction and approach work will likely increase sediment
loads in the stream in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to
local populations of invertebrates, because they are filtered feeder, which are an important part
of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters".
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Yadkin River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Warrior Creek flows north into W. Kerr Scott Reservoir approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles)
downstream of Bridge No. 54. W. Kerr Scott Reservoir is within the northern portion of the
Yadkin River basin. The average depth of the stream throughout the project limits is less than
0.3 meters (1.0 feet) with a width of 11.5 meters (38.0 feet). The creek substrate is mostly sand
and gravel with rock outcrops upstream. Warrior Creek has a Class WS-IV rating from the
North Carolina Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resource, Division of
Environmental Management, indicating that these waters are protected as water supplies which
are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds and are suitable for fishing, fish
propagation, boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
Although the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management does maintain the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Network (BMAN) no monitoring stations are located in the vicinity of the
project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission sampled fish populations in the
stream near Bridge No. 54 on November 17, 1994. According to their data, Warrior Creek
supports populations of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), redlip
shiner (Notropis chilitus), fieryblack shiner (Cyprinella pyrrhomelas), striped jumprock
(Moxostoma rupiscartes), flat bullhead (Ameiurus platycephalus), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare).
No waters classed 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
Permanent impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge #404 with a bridge
instead of a culvert, minimizing in-stream construction activities and the implementation of
NCDOT's "Best Management Practice for Protection of Surface Waters".
7
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Warrior 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 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur
due to the proposed bridge replacement.
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. Final permit
determination authority falls under the jurisdiction of the COE. Nationwide Permit 23 requires a
Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
before certification can be issued.
Wilkes County is one of 25 counties in western North Carolina designated as having trout
waters. Although Warrior Creek is not listed as a trout water, all projects in these counties must
be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission prior to
issuance of the COE Permit.
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.
Since this project will not impact wetlands, no mitigation will be required. Mitigation for impacts
to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determination regarding
mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
8
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due
to natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed
for Wilkes 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 1 federally protected species for
Wilkes County as of March 28, 1995. This species is listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR WILKES COUNTY
I Scientific Name I Common Name I Status I
I Falco peregrinus I Peregrine Falcon E Y
The Peregrine Falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bills, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and
Greenland south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were
reduced during the 1950s and 1960s due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on
cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, pinnacles, on the ground, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests
of eagles, hawks, and ravens. In winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and
mudflats.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the peregrine falcon. It can be concluded
that there are no nesting in the project area and that the subject 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 Wilkes
County and their state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or of Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list
9
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
WILKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dendroica cerulee SR Yes
(Cerulean Warbler)
Clemmys muhlenbergli T No
(Bog turtle)
Speyeria diana SR Yes
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Orthotrichum keeverse E No
(Keever's bristle-moss)
notes:
Species presented in bold are afforded state protection.
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any protected species known to occur in Wilkes County.
No impacts to protected species will result from any of the proposed project alternatives. Also,
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for
rare species or habitats in the project area.
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.
The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the
area.
10
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 May 3, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that
Bridge No. 54 is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the SHPO letter
is included in the appendix.
4(f) Involvement
In a Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects, dated June 15, 1995, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), FHWA, and NCDOT concurred that the project would have an
effect on Bridge No. 54 since the bridge will be removed. A copy of the Concurrence Form is
included in the Appendix.
This project necessitates the use of an historical bridge structure, a programmatic Section 4(f)
evaluation satisfies the requirements since: (1) the project involves a bridge replacement with
Federal funds; 2) the project will require the removal of an historic bridge structure; 3) the
bridge is not a National Historic Landmark; 4) this project is being processed as a categorical
exclusion (no EIS is being prepared for this project).
The following alternatives have been fully evaluated:
(1) Do Nothing Alternative. The "Do Nothing Alternative" is not feasible and prudent
because it would not correct the existing deteriorated conditions and maintenance
problems of the existing structure. Additionally, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge; this is not prudent due to the traffic service provided
by SR 1122.
(2) Build on new Location Without Using the Old Bridge. The existing road west of the
bridge parallels mountain terrain with slopes as steep as 1:1 on the north incline and
south in the gully. Relocating would require extensive approach engineering and
construction work. The present bridge structure has already been located at the only
feasible and prudent site.
(3) Rehabilitation Without Affecting the Historic Integrity of the Bridge. Investigation of the
existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the old
bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. To widen and lengthen
the bridge to meet the minimum required capacity of the highway system would affect
the historic integrity of the bridge.
None of the alternatives discussed above are found to be feasible and prudent.
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historical bridge has been performed as an
integral part of this bridge replacement project. Approval of the programmatic 4(f) by the FHWA
Division Administrator is included as Attachment 1 of this document.
11
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.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested "that a comprehensive
survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist" prior to right-of-way. 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. Further consultation will be conducted if
necessary.
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). According to SCS there are no prime or state important
farmlands at this project site. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
The project is located in Wilkes 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 effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
Traffic volumes will not directly 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.
Wilkes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Warrior
Creek at the project site is not included in a detailed FEMA study. 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.
12
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
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 (9127/94 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.
Page, L.M., B.M. Burr. 1991. A Guide to Freshwater Fishes. Houghton Mifflin 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.1977. Soil Survey of Wilkes
County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
13

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
F. A. Project BR-Z - 1 122 (2 )
State Project 8.2760201
T. I. P. No. B-2874
Description: Replace Bridge No. 54 over Warrior Creek on
SR 1122 in Wilkes County
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or rehabilitated with ?
Federal funds?
2. Does the project require the use of a historic bridge
structure which is on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places? x 17
3. Is the bridge a National Historic Landmark? 17 x
4. Has agreement been reached among the FHWA, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through pro-
cedures pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO-BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and purdent:
1. Do nothing.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that
caused the bridge to be considered deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety hazards?
Yes No
X F-1
7 x
x 1-1
ATTACHMENT 1
{ t
2
2. Build a new structure at a different location without
affecting t die historic integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
G The present bridge has already been located
at the only feasible and prudent site
or/and (ii) Adverse social, environmental, or
economic impacts were noted
or/and (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties
reach extraordinary magnitude
or/and (iv) The existing bridge cannot be preserved
due to the extent of rehabilitation,
because no responsible party will
maintain and preserve the historic
bridge, or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
3. Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting
the historic integrity o the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally
deficient that it cannot be
rehabilitated to meet the
acceptable load requirements and
meet National Register criteria
or/and (ii) The bridge is seriously deficient
geometrically and cannot be widened
to meet the required capacity and
meet National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
1. The project includes all possible planning to
minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the
historic integrity of the bridge is preserved,
to the greatest extent possible, consistent with
unavoidable transportation needs, safety, and
load requirements.
Yes No
X F7
X 11
X F7
3
b. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the
point that the historic integrity is affected or
that are to be removed or demolished, the FHWA
ensures that, in accordance with the Historic
American Engineering Record (HAER) standards, or
other suitable means developed through con-
sultation, fully adequate records are made of
the bridge.
O For bridges that are to be replaced, the
existing bridge is made available for an
alternative use, provided a responsible party
agrees to maintain and preserve the bridge.
dO. For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement
among the SHPO, ACHP, and FHWA is reached through
the Section 106 process of the NHPA on measures to
minimize harm and those measures are incorporated
into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are discussed below:
This project has been coordinated with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and FHWA
whose correspondence is included as Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA).
The bridge is to be disassembled by NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit and will be stock piled.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to
approval. Consult Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
F V
4
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach
correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation X
C. Local/State/Federal Agencies
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criterial included in the programmatic 4(f)
evaluation approved on July 5, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are
clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic
bridge. The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and
there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be
incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
D Ate
3
Date
ager, Planning & Environmental Branc
NCDOT
F .
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PURSUANT TO 36 CFR PART 800.6(a)
REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 54
ON SR 1122 OVER WARRIOR CREEK
WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP NO. B-2874, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2670201
FEDERAL AID NO. BRZ-1122(2) a760Z a1
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that
replacement of Bridge No. 54 over Warrior Creek in Wilkes County, North Carolina, a
property eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will have an
effect upon the structure, and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on Bridge No. 54.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
Prior to the demolition of Wilkes County Bridge No. 54, NCDOT shall record the
bridge in accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan
(Appendix A). The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies sent of the
record sent to the North Carolina SHPO prior to the start of construction.
2. FHWA and NCDOT will offer the bridge for reuse at a new location in accordance
with NCDOT's Historic Bridge Preservation Program. If no responsible party
accepts the bridge prior to construction of the new structure, Bridge No. 54 will
be disassembled and stored at a NCDOT bridge maintenance yard for a period of
at least two years or until a new owner is identified and accepts the bridge.
FHWA will submit the following documentation to the ACHP:
a. A statement of the final disposition, decision, or treatment of the bridge.
b. The comments of the SHPO on the undertaking and/or the final treatment
of the bridue.
Evidence that the stipulations of this MOA have been fulfilled.
ATTACHMENT 2
r • T
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO
and implementation of its terms evidences that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 54
on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek and its effect on historic properties, and that FHWA has
taken into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.
rL FEDER:5L HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
TE
U?? l I q
NORTH C A ATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER DAT
11-16ly-5
NORTH CAROLINA DEP
Concurring Party
e
OF TRANSPORTATION

ACCEPTED for
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DATE
i 1
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures Recordation Plan
for the Replacement of Bridge No. 54
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Historical Background
A brief historical and physical narrative/description of Bridge No. 54
Photographic Requirements
Photographic views of Bridge No. 54 including:
Overall views (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the bridge in its setting
Details of construction or design
Format:
Representative color transparencies
3 5 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4 x 5 inch black and white prints (all views)
All processing to be done to archival standards
All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to be
made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
r ?
1148
- 1148
IA
I I ?,?) 1 V
11,9
1215-
---
1 -
1223
- -
1137
,
-. 1 197
1 35
1180
i
1106
Fps Goshon 1105
, Mt. Carmel
1138-
1193 `,268> - Ch.
1119 1107

/ IIU6
6
1117 --
i? 1216
1119 1199
l
\\
` I (
I 1 h •1
1 184 P 8
BRIDGE # 54 ?- - T
00
11 14 r 1117
- ? ? 1
- 11
--
1108 1f
11

?. ? 1121 08
1114
112 ?? 1123• FP
1124
- -
1 1218
?
; `N 1 19
P
112.5 1115
1 I 1

:: _
?
r
? A ?
j •
Y
6 :?";"'°'""+??' ?, :'
J 18 : • fuondl ???iTnurmond ? :• -
: ?--?- -?- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
McGgldw Aus On
r°... Goo ? • •
1111f MJI
e
/ :
t l
E S
W I V K l
l
•
??
Wilber •
6 ; : Hays.
r. a.
R
(
l ?
El
6
oannR
pBr« ro.k
T
• •
?a.nd. ° + M •b fr River r
• Fair
Doer :
rd- sr r
-1
? ?iNlls 40L

k

onda I
•
y
/Il Purlear j, e '
Norlh •FesDof +
?

/
IS • ilkesboro I. I
j
r /1
rS.&o i
Q W II all r :
r
.
??
R
_
Jw \ Ferguson rM Morav In Falls ll I

0v r 5
Boomer I
L?

r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
l y TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 54
WILKES COUNTY
B-2874
3/95 SCALE = 1:60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
l?
WILKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 54
B-2874
LOOKING NORTHEAST
ON SR 1122
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
ON SR 1122
FIGURE 3A
WILKES COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 54
B-2874
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE #54
DOWNSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE # 54
NORTHEAST ENDBENT
FIGURE 3B

WILKES
COUNTY
B-2874
W. KERR SCOTT'
RESERVOIR
W. KERR SCOTT
RESERVOIR
<i`? ` ZONE
ZONE A-?`::::::::•:.... X '.Q 1ZONE A
100 YEAR _?..... .... ZONE A s.
FLOODPLAIN
ZONE X ;..?
t
ZONE X
BRID E # 54
ZONE X,
ZONE A-' r
ZONE
ZONE X-4 ZONE X
ZONE A
•'? 117,!
? S.Q.
1 # 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 5 0 1 KILOMETER
FIGURE 4
TIP # If 14 Federal Aid # 6?? 1122 2? County Wtt-y.Ef,
CONCURRENCE FOPW
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
F-EFLACE. ?IiZIVOF, 01. 54 otj 5R 10-Z OyeR- WA-Paq- Ciz"V . -
On --?uaE 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-and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the proiect's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The proaerry/prope-ties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The prooerry/prope rties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
ail t h. ?Hrc. 1C; 1`1'1 ti
Reor , NCDOT Date
=HwA, the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
(over)
TIP # 13.2V74 Federal Aid # 13F- I-- • I I'm (2? County W1LV-E--;,
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
and describe effect.
Y i?IDGE No 54- - A.D?/E{ZSE 1?FFEG'?"
DE>
Initialed: NCDOT ?FHwA SHPO
STATE
3 1?
?E
DEC 1 3 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
L DIVISIC
cwkye:s?aA6
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division
T. *
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Williamce, Jr.,
Rnton
December 8, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of TcalLsportation
FROM: David Brook IIDeputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects
Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0298
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,
Wang Engineering Company, Inc., to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-
Earley to check our maps and files or to have her review aerial photographs or
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 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 #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 1ZP
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 presentee 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 location 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 survey_ 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

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
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for comments on Group VII fridge
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. 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
1C1WRC,HfCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:49 No.006 P.07
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 River.
At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested
floodplain some of which may be wetlands. This section
of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a
rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing
excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened
or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that
the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No
in-water work should be performed in April or May.
Also, no in-stream cover should be removed including
the old granite bridge abutment located upstream from
the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for
wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and
erosion controls throughout the project. If possible,
we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for
fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for
bank fishing.
4. B-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek.
We have no recent fishery data at this site and no
threatened or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our District 8 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.
AhRC, HCF , FALLS LAKE TEL : 919-E!S-9v J9 De C 0?5 '94 I C7 1-1 Flo . ?a06 F . 0
J 1
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 that this
bridge be replaced with a spanning structure.
9. B-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1928 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.
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 twat 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. P-3089, Yancey County, on NC 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Railroad. This section of the North Toe
River contains many pollution ini.;olerarit species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elktne
NC'ORC,HCP.FALLS LAKE TEL:919-5, 25-9 Dec 0'94 1?''?0 P!r.006 F.09

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 mini:tnize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
re,olacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures thrcughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of ''ridges with
spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David
Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects .
cc: Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section. Mgr.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
DEHNR
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 Projedts
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
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resourt:as Reviewing Office: W5 7P C)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
$ - O a°?2 1 ) ;?:Il' -[
After review of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicted may need to be obtaineC In
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these perrnits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicted on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Ofiiee. Normal Process
Time
. PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS tstatutory time
NMI)

? Permit to construct t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin eonsiruclion of award of 3C days
facilltiaa, bower system extensions, L bower construction contracts On-site Inspection. Postapplication
systems not discfuirging into state surface waters. technical conference usual t9t7 days)
NPDES • permit to otwsrpt into surface water andlor Application ta0 days bef" be;,n activity On-site lnapectron. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities he•application Conference usual Additionally. obtain permrt to
discharging into state wr(a`t waters. construct wastewater treatment fatihty•grsnied afit, NPDES Reply (NIA)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or isaut of NPDES
permit-whichever Is later.
30 Gays
Water the Permit Pm-,application technical conference tnuauy necessary
(NIA;
7 days
Well Ccinflruclion Nfmlt GYnpltte &Z0Iicalr0n must be Waived AMC permit issued
pnor to the installation of a well. (15 days)
- -
? Application copy must be se-vec on each adjacent nparisr• property SS days
Lkt dgt anci Fill Permit owner On-tile inspection. P.eJppliCation ConferenCt usual Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N C Department of (9C days)
A Iministrst.on and Faceral Drecpe and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct L operate Air Pollution Apatemeni
i
f
h
N
l
' E
S
AC 6C days
aci
t,eS and
miss
ources as per 1.A
21H.
o
on
C N/A (9C Cays)
Any open burning a- soc:a:eC with subject proposal
muS! be in eom;%AnCe *,in 11A NCAC 20.0'..20.
Demolition or rencval,ers of s:tuc!ures conisining ,
as;es!cs mate'ia' mus: be in com;fiance with 1.SA. fig. days
J NCAC 2D0:25 whic!% requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Astesics Control Gfoui7
919 733•0820 (9C days)
Complex Source Fe•m,t rectutreC under 1.?A NCAC 2D 0800
e Sec;mental,or. PCliut,cn Conlro' Ac! of 1973 mus! be pre;.erly add,esseC to, any land d,slur'„inr ac!ivity An e•cs,on 8 seC.mentat,o
eontre! plan wilt be requ.reC if one or mole acres to be d sturteC Plan filed with p,c;,e• Re,,ona' Cff,ce (Land Cuahir Sec: I a! least 30 20 days
Cass be'o'e be^ nn,nr a:!iv,t A fee c' S30 for the first a:,e anC S2!)00 to, er:`ad Gl?Ona' t^re or a^ mus' acCOm^anv the Clan 0C Cays!
J The SeC,mental.on Pollution Conlro! Act of 1973 must be adC,c:see with respe=l to the re'errenceG Local Crd naner. (3C days)
Cr. slle Inspection usual Surely bond file! will'. EMNR Bond •rnount
!.fining Permit va•ies with type mine and nurnter or acres of affected rand Any area 3C days
m,r.e: g,eater than one acre must be permile•C. The a,^,;.ro;nale bond (b0 Cays)
must be receive! before the pe,mit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources It permit 1 day
exceeds A days (NIA)
Special Ground C:earn.^•ce Beaming Pormit • 22 Cn :::e inspection by N D Civision Forest Resources rewired "if more 1 day
(ounce: In ecaLLia! N C with organic "It% tt•an five aces of pound c!eann? ac!ivlt;e: pit inro!.eC Inspections (N/A)
should be tequcsied a1 feast ten Cars before actual burn is planned.-
90 120 days
- 0.1 Re!ining Facilities NIA (NSA)
If pe,mit required. a;pl;cal;cn 67 day, before be;:n ccn:iruction.
Ap,-Ncanl must hi,r N C 21;Le.. eu n^:ne
vv - q? t' 10 pirpa:e plant. 3i days
C.m '.reey perml in,? !I ,• ,r,slni•. cc' . IL
:•
',?C! cn 20001 C.ng 10 C1.f; a;'-0v.
e•: ;frog May ar.,..: tcq:ife pe mil unCe, mosquito ca',:ecl p,C'y,am. And (E-0 Cays)
a 4'-4 "Lrrnil fiurn Co.;, of End::.ce's Ar• in:;'cC!.On of r;lc is neees-
sa'y to vtrlll Ifa:ard C't:s,fiLa'ion. A minimum foe C! S _= cr, rrusl aC•
C_',,ry lr.c a;;r,r a!icn An e•;c tau^.a' p,OCc•, r•` ruc t 'cd Cn a
•.,. •..It-P of ll.c lc,; .'C . <! f•:• ...,' 1.rr^ ,,.. r: .,.... r!,On _
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Mfr // --?
Reviewing Office C 1 67)
Numoer:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS I Project -iC' Due Date:
,57
Alter 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.
-- ...- . a n- ;-i niFfi i-4;-t-i - th. --ca of tha fnrrn
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Proces•
Regional Office. Time
istatutory :IF--
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
limlll
Permit to construct d operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 davsi i
NPDES permit to discharge into surface water andror Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90.120 days
permit :o operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
a nisctnarging ,r,:o state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply IN, 4)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
?0 gays
C °: ate' use =r .n Pre.application technical conference usually necessary

7 days
1 Well Cins:ruc:ion Fermi( 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 aavs

C C'edge a, -c; - Pe'mil owner. On site Inspection. Pre.application conference usual F,Iling
' may require Easement to Fiji from N C Deoartmen: of 9C
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
r -.. :ruc s operate Air F-,Ilulldn Abatement 5G c,..
mission Sources as be, 154 NCAC 21H 06 NIA ..sl
_ Anv ocen cur-nc associated with Subject procasal
must oe n =ciiance with 15A NCAC 2D()520.
i
pemal.• - .,.at cns of s:ruc:ures conlainmg
asbestos Ta._ yat must be in compliance with 15A ?? ,cv5
C CAC : _'_ _ .vnir,7 requires notification ano remo,al NIA
;)n ..Jnlact Asbestos Control Group

required uncer 'SA NCAC <C 0800
?..,r P')llution Conirci Ac: of 1972 must be properly addressed for any sand disturbing ac!tvily Ar. iresicn se^_imen(atici
c e required if one or more acres •o be disturbed. Plan filed wdh proper Regional Office (Land Cuality Sac:: at least 20
v
2., c, _
- n mn activity A Iee of S30 for he ',,st acre and 52000 for eac^ additional acre or Bart must c?crnbanv Ir? cian
C ' . .-.. . ;n Pollution ;Jntrdl Ac: -1f 197'. mus: be addressed with resoec: 'o the referrenced Local Orcl-ance
i
On-site inspection usual. Surety bona filed with EHNR Bond amount
(- Minmc ? varies with type mine and number of acres of ailec:ed land Any area
mined greater than one acre must be Permi(ed The appropriate bond 6u 'a Si
j
must be received before the permit can be issued.
• v; ;1err i On-sile nlsceciion by N C. Division Forest Resources if perm t
"I exceeds a days r:r
-:e3rance Burning P,_rrro _.. On site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required if more i :av
:a wt,it: n :_astat N C with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections IN. A,
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned
rr-- 90 12C ^ay_.
L_ ?•u:-ire; =;c,lines NIA iNl!-1
II permit required. application 60 days before begin construction
--, Apo!icant must hire N C qualified engineer to' prepare plan,. ?0 :ear,
.. ^? insaec; construr.:a)n certify construr,:ian is according to E?-,rdR anurnv
en .Plans M.iv orr) require permit Inner nnnnuor control prn(,ram A-1 I _..
I 1„4 permit 'rt7171 ,orpL )i En jinee L) -.i, in•',p?9c hr-n dt silo 's nece;

Lary to vr-rily Hai3rd C:asslhcation A rninimurn 'ee of 520000 must ac i
company the lpplication Art additional processing fee hasea on a
percentaue or :he total project cost .viii be requirgc upon eomclelinn
(_-,nnnued oi•.
A I ,

Cis cr \gcney P'.-o'ecL hevlcw Rcspollse
i '
....... ... .? ......._.. -
ro?ec:;: Na.n'': ?
hhe applic;111t should be advised dwc plans and specifications for all wacei sysce!r!
__.? impro\reme!ies must be approval by the Division of EvVll•Olllr.e11cal Health prior to:the award
Of a contract Ol• dric imil-,L1011 Of C61-Iscrticuoii (as requi:•ed -by 1SA- NTCAC 1ST.: 0300 cc. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Wam- Supply Se_L;.on, [phone].
;IC , water supply and must comply with
This project will be classified as a. non-comcminity ouc
state and feCC!'al dl•I111k11?? 71111C(21, i110n1L01Itlg I?'U!reille['.CS. For mocc Informai cii the aplpllcqll?
should Con CaeC the Public Water SuppI Secc'Cn, (91` 733-232'x.
r -µ,••Eeec? of adjaceZ+.
:mend closure of
?-? 1r this project is conscl-ucced as proposed, we -will recc.--a
?rateis to the harvest or , shellfish. For inEorn.atlon -egardir.g the sh.ellfis Fsanlcatlon progra
Lln, the ac--licanc should conc;lc'_ the Shellfish SanlcaC,:,n Branch ac [phone].
T I 1 r I
i ne sUCii c, spcsal are; (s` proposed roi t`iS pro;ect -oduce a mosquito breeeing problen-_
- r
?--J Fcr iniormaclon conce:ning aopropnace mosquito _ontrol measures, tlhe applicant shoudk:
conuacL the Pubiic He21ch Pest Management Section ;.7 [phone].
1--, .L he applicant slioulG be 2d`JISCa Lh?t p1"lOr Co Ilc rcmoval Or 6emOlltlon of 611:1p! _2te:
Sti ?1Ct111 es, 2r, ertenslve Cocl-nc C`)t'.CI.Oi program ma--- be 1CCeSSu! ;' Li: CrdCr Co prevent. til
n7lgraClC Of lift L'Ode^CS CC IaC.cl1C •"e'Z The :-c"Orris?.L10r1 . CU!iCel" il!1g Loden is contrC
Contact the local health depa:tir:enu or cr!c Pubilc EZaltl, Pest hh.anaQen:enc ecuion au (91c
733-6107
71;r anr?lr'anL Shi)llld be adVlSCd t0 C?)nL2;:' the ?-?C;iI . healC.l d.•;:ar-cl-nen..!.- . rt.-gharalI _no b L'11e
rr- t:, Ir nor-3111i, 2!nc (n(: 'p(,11 ,r,+1 ,, ll-der. i ,i ??_ Lei ?_A?• LO Nt 19 C'l.' -?,'._:..'
1-C! 1.nfJCrn?.t,On^C,2 nr_'nihv -)C,!.r , is-mK )r1C `;r nr )r •SI!a. wasrn dlsnnsai mtr hods, corer.;ac. C:
--- The appi:cam-. should be advlscd m cow r;l;a. 1:1C. locz; n?:allal de;). rumenr. regardlnb I he. s
I _.. .J I aCtllC!c ! cgll r(• d f0l Cllr; it rXI;C.:'.•v V';ICCf llnr; N111 i)• '?l) ;; ?'.'I!ilh lil.`. ..OIlSCIIICII )II, I++)i'.l:l`; ()i Chc w-ml(n 1;
I- -? r(lOC1t:Crl IiIUSt ?. Slll)111lC1CC1 cc Cl1C .?I':'!,';ICI; Ot ifl' tl\)11111eI1C?.l ?-??aICl1, l?lll)?IC ??ral'C1' ?LII)1.
j(:C1:1011, .Mall 1\I:\'lC':'J 11C;11IC1-1, 1) )0 ?i M-.1ry i ?SL1C(IC i\;llC.lh;l, N01-!11 011112., 73
?'>+U-,•cviev?er Sect ion/br.lnch, ate
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: _ q 5' d Z f ,? County: Y? v& T l
Project Name: 0 Z 9
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey.tnarkers. 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) -1- a ef" I
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer y? Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
i
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion.and sedimentation control plan.
i/ If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
United States Natural Resources 4405 Bland Road
Department of Conservation Suite 205
Agriculture Service Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
Ms. Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
119 West Maynard Road
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Re: Replace Bridge No. 54 on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek T.I.P.
No. B-2874, Wilkes County.
Dear Ms. Williams:
There are no prime or state important farmlands at this project site.
The first block under Part II of the AD-1006 reflects this.
If there are questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Phillip L. ant
Soil Scientist
Enclosures
January 9, 1995
JAN I
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(formally the Soil Conservation Service)
is an Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture
1 • I M
J S. "eaar-men c of Agncutcure
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I 170 .7e cofrlclere? oY =e?er7! 49enc%1 I Oata at Lind Evaluation Pieou.st
Name tit Prol+ct 6_2,j?1_\ t F `{ ,5A' D6C r ?.S/?-- I Ptaeral Ag"cv Involved ? ?w `t
Prooosea Lima Use a ' I H W AY Caunty And Stag 1 G. \<. E-S
I U H W ,
PART 11 (To be comolered by SCS) I Oate Aeduest AeCnved 9v SCS
Oces the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes :`{orl Acres Imgatveage corm 5140
(/f no. rlre FPPA does nor aoe/ y - do nor complete addirional parrs of this form). ?
As Oatinea in F ;50A
Major Groors) la Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of arrt-
Aces: % I Acres: %
Lima Evaluation Svattm Used
to Assessment
atlno
PART 111 (To be corriplered by Federai Agency) I Site A I Site 8 1 Site C I Site 0
A Total Ares To Be Converted Oirectly I D- ?5 ?3 I I -
8 Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly I
C Total Acres In Site I l ?5 I I I S I I
PART IV (To be comolered by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Aces Prime And Unique Farmland I I
a T-1 -A,-, <"t-lrfn .1-4 I -ni ITnnrY?nr F9fTI9Af? I I I I
C_ Percantaae Cf Farmland In County Or Lxal Gov?- Unit To Be Converted 1 I I i
0. P-rcentage of Farmlana In Gwt. Junsdiccon Mtn Saris- Or Higner Reanvo Value I I I I
PART V (To be comolered by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sa/e of Oro 700 Points)
PART VI (To be comolered by Federal Agency) I Maximum
S;= Aneasrnent Cnnana (ni fto enrr"a art ea-D)drwo, in 7 CFA 668Xb) ?olmm
1. Area In Nonuroan Use I I
2. Perimeter In Nonuroan Use I I I I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed I I I I
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government I
5 Oirtance From Urban Buiituo Area I I I I
8 Oistance To Urban Suaoort Sli vita s I I I -_
7. Sze Of Present Farris Unit Comoared To Average I I
& Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Sucoort Services
10. On-Farm Investments I I I
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Serviaa I
12 Comoatibiiity Wivi Existino Acricuitural Use I I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PAINTS I 160
PART V11 (To be comolered by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr VI above or a /oov I
shat asseumenr) 180
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) I 280

Site Selected: I Om Of Selection I Wad A Loos Site Aixoamem Used?
Yes ? No ?
Re"xin For SeleCiton:
3-
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR FIDESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1900601 COUNTY_i Yancey/I\/titchell Alternate I of I Alternate
I. D. NO.: B-3089 F.A. PROJECT BRST'p_80u
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 80, Replacement of Bride #59 Over the North Toe River

. .... . . ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis laeees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWE11AN DS6 DWtLt iNO AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 SO-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
Yee No E xplain aU "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 0 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10W 0 400-600 0 70-1o0M 0 400-600 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 irn 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 Ur 0
displacement? TOTAL i . .... .... 0
X 3. Will business services still be available after RiMAi s Res rind b Number
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. (a) Mitchell News - Journal
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? (b) Howell-Sparks Real Estate
6. Source for available housing (list). (c) Lunsford Realty
X 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X R. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. As necessary In accordance with State Law
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 11. County of Mitchell Community Development Program
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project'?
X 11. Is public housing available? 12. Howelt-Sparks Real Estate, Ray Howell, owner and local
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing newspaper Indicated that sufficient decent, safe and
housing available during relocation period? sanitary housing properties would be available for the above
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within displacees.
financial means?
n/a 14. Are suitable business sites available gist
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 6 months

Relocation Ai6t Dalle roved b Date
Fmm IS 4 Reamed V90 Original & I Copy: Slate Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office