19950982 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

..?
e ". SfA7F u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
August 31, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Davidson County, Replacement
NC 150, Federal Aid Project
T.I.P. No. B-2126.
q SGg:z
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
?Vl
JiA SFP 1 1 19%
WLTU 0'z! GPI
?1+AfER,Qfir'+1 I I"
of Bridge No. 56 over Reedy Creek on
BRSTP-150(4), State Project 8.16010011
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 56 will be replaced at the same
location and elevation as the existing structure. The new bridge will have a
clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft.) and a length of 49 meters (161
ft.). During construction, traffic will be maintained on-site with a
temporary detour. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts
on any jurisdictional wetland communities.
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 Appendix A (8-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will be
?'nl lov, J in i_hr, t)f J,( proj, (1-..
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.
0
August 31, 1995
Page 2 r
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms,. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sinc rely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr, Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator

NC 150
Bridge No. 56
Over Reedy Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(4)
State Project No. 8.1601001
T.I.P. No. B-2126
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-712S-19S- L Z. ga DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
"e?L;Z-
Zlo
-7 A15
DA E (,e;icholas L- Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

NC 150
Bridge No. 56
Over Reedy Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(4)
State Project No. 8.1601001
T.I.P. No. B-2126
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
mes ang, Ph. [Y.-, P.E.
President
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L.4 I Grimes, P714.1 Unit Head
Consu tant Engin ring Unit
R:tLg -,A - 0&-=-
Phil Harris, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
?••`;?N CARQ11
O? 4
?9- 0ESS&,?
SE AL
7521
?.,,'yfs S
NC 150
Bridge No. 56 Over Reedy Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-150(4)
State Project No. 8.1601001
T.I.P. No. B-2126
Bridge No. 56 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 classed as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey of the proposed project and detour will be conducted prior to
construction.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 56 will be replaced on existing location as shown in Figure 2. The new bridge will
have a clear roadway width of 12 meters (40 ft) and a length of 49 meters (161 ft). The
structure will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
grade at this location. The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with
2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulders, and minor improvements
for approximately 112 meters (370 ft) north and south of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure during the construction
period as shown in Figure 2.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $949,000 including $49,000 for right-of-way and
$900,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002
Transportation Improvement Program, is $699,000 including $49,000 for right-of-way and
$650,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 150 is classed as a rural major collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily agricultural, commercial and residential in the immediate vicinity
of the bridge. A pasture is located on the north portion of the project and cultivated fields on the
south portion of the project. Huffmans Creek and Reedy Creek converge at the project site.
Near the bridge, NC 150 has a 6.0 meter (20 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders
including 0.6 meters (2 ft) paved. The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the north
and south approach. The vertical alignment is relatively flat. The roadway is situated
approximately 4.4 meters (14.5 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 6500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 18000 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include four percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
The existing bridge was built in 1941 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck on steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of
reinforced concrete caps on timber piles and timber bulkheads.
The overall length of the bridge is 40.2 meters (132 ft). The clear roadway width is 7.9 meters
(26 ft). The posted weight limit is 23,608 kilograms (26 tons) for single vehicles and 27,240
kilograms (30 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 56 has a sufficiency rating of 19, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
This low evaluation warrants replacement of the bridge.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994.
Aerial utility lines are located on the north side of NC 150 in the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
School buses cross the bridge eight times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternative alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment.
Bridge No. 56 will be replaced with a structure 49 meters (161 ft.) long with a clear roadway
width of 12 meters (40 ft). This structure will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with
2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders on each side. The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2 meter
(24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained by constructing a temporary on-site detour immediately west of the
existing bridge. The detour structure will be 27 meters (88.6 ft) in length. Detouring of NC 150
traffic via other routes in the area during construction is impractical due to the considerable
traffic volume and inadequate detour routes.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 150.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Temp. Detour Structure
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
(Recommended)
$ 17,500
311,500
217,000
101,900
132,100
120,000
49,000
$ 949,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 56 over Reedy Creek will be replaced on existing location with a new structure
approximately 49 meters (161 ft) in length. Traffic will be maintain by a temporary on-site detour
immediately west of the existing bridge (Figure 2). Improvement to the existing approaches will
be necessary on each end of the bridge.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the bridge be replaced at the
existing location with a temporary detour on the southern side.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved
shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A 12 meter (40 ft) clear roadway width is
recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge
Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders across the
structure. The design speed is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour).
The structure and approaches will be designed to arterial design standards due to the traffic
importance of NC 150 and the significant current and future volumes.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis and the 50 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 50 meters (164 ft.). The elevation of the
roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure
should maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and
opening size may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
3
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Davidson County (Figure 1). The
project area contains agricultural, low-density single family residential, commercial and
undeveloped land uses. The project site lies within the central portion of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Davidson County's major economic resources are agriculture and
textiles.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Welcome); NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National wetlands Inventory Map (Welcome); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Program's (NC-NHPs) 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 12, 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 of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts
should be less, but without specific replacement design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the
worse case was assumed for the impact calculations.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as being gently sloping. The project site is
located at the confluence of Reedy Creek and Huffman's Creek. Elevations above sea level
within the project corridor range from approximately 207.3 meters (680.0 feet) to approximately
213.4 meters (700.0 feet). The general vicinity of the project study area has experienced some
low-density residential and commercial development, with some agricultural and undeveloped
land uses.
This portion of Davidson County contains soils from the Chewacla-Wehadkee soil association,
which are characterized as being somewhat poorly drained and poorly drained soils having
moderately permeable loamy subsoils on nearly level bottom lands, floodplains and old alluvial
deposits.
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
Man-dominated and mixed hardwood forest are the two terrestrial communities found in the
project study area. 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.
The banks of Reedy Creek and the intermittent drainageway are steeply sloped, well defined
and deeply eroded downstream of the existing bridge. No submerged or emergent vegetation
was observed in Reedy Creek or the unnamed drainageway during the time of the site visit.
Vegetation typical of man-dominated and mixed hardwood forest areas occur to the top of the
banks for both Reedy Creek and the unnamed intermittent drainageway.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes road shoulders, utility line easements, pastures and
agricultural fields. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Areas are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover
(Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago rugelii), wild onion (Allium
sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Irregularly maintained areas are dominated by
those species previously listed as well as mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) saplings, Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), and wild blackberry (Rubus sp.).
The animal species present in these 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. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), red-wing blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Eastern meadowlark (Stumella
magna), bluebird (Sialia sialis), starlings (Stumidae), vultures (Cathartidae), and red-tail hawks
(Buteo jamaicensis) are often attracted to roadside and agricultural habitats. Many faunal
species, such as the Virginia opossum, which migrate across heavily traveled roadways
become vehicular fatalities and forage items for other animals, such as the turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura).
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs in small fragmented areas along the project corridor and
adjacent to Reedy Creek. Gently sloping to nearly flat topography in these areas supports a
variety of mixed hardwoods including red maple (Ater rubrum), Eastern sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styracillua). The
herbaceous layer includes such species as Japanese honeysuckle, wild blackberry, greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), bulibrier (Smilax bona-nox), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), bedstraw
(Galium sp.), tick-seed sunflower (Bidens aristosa), joe-pye weed (Eupatorium purpureum), and
5
muscadine grape (Vids rotundifolia). Animals previously listed may also be found in this
community.
Due to the proximity of agricultural land uses, large mammals such as white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) would be expected to regularly inhabit this area. Small mammals such
as the gray squirrel, Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), Virginia opossum, raccoon
(Procyon lotor) and field mice may take advantage of food and protective resources offered in
this habitat.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Reedy Creek just downstream of its
merger with Huffman's Creek. Reedy Creek flows east to west through residential and
agricultural land uses upstream. In addition, one unnamed steeply sloped intermittent
drainageway flows parallel to NC 150 from the south to a confluence with Reedy Creek near the
toe of Bridge No. 56 (southern approach).
Animals such as the bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and
salamanders likely reside along the waters edge. Reedy Creek is a moderately flowing silty-
bottomed stream. The macroinvertebrates observed within the stream include crayfish,
dragonfly larvae (Boyeria vanosa and Gomphus sp.), and damseffly larvae (Calopteryx sp.).
Chironomid and oligochaete larvae would be expected to dwell within the silty substrate. Fish
species expected to inhabit Reedy Creek include shiner (Notropus sp.), bream (Lepomis sp.),
darters (Etheostoma sp.), and mosquitofish (Gambusia sp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Natural communities occur within the project area, and those communities have been
fragmented and reduced due to past and present agricultural activity.
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)
NC 150 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Bridge No.56 Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Replacement Community Community
Impacts 0.22(0.55) 0.11(0.28) 0.02(0.06) 0.36(0.89)
6
Terrestrial Communities
Most of the project area is urban and agricultural. Clearing and conversion of large tracts of
land for agricultural uses and housing has eliminated cover and protection for many species of
wildlife. The man-dominated community will receive the greatest impact from project
construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal
species in residence. The replacement of Bridge No. 56 will result in 0.22 hectare (0.55 acre) of
impact to man-dominated communities.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Reedy Creek and its unnamed
intermittent tributary. The replacement of Bridge No. 56 will result in 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of
impact to aquatic communities. Construction of the project is likely to temporarily increase
sediment loads to this aquatic habitats. Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to
local populations of invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less
mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered by this sedimentation,
preventing their feeding. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation
of NCDOT's erosion control policy, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines and "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 at the confluence of Huffman's Creek and Reedy Creek within the Yadkin
River watershed.
Water Resource Characteristics
Reedy Creek originates near Welcome, NC and is a perennial tributary of the Yadkin River
which is located approximately 3.6 km (2.3 miles) downstream of the project area. Reedy
Creek is approximately 6.1 meters (20.0 feet) wide and 0.3 meters (1.0 feet) deep with a silt and
cobble substrate. The banks of Reedy Creek are well defined and deeply eroded downstream
of NC 150, and the plane of ordinary high water appears to be approximately 3.10 to 3.7 meters
(10.0 to 12.0 feet) below the top of the creek bank. The creek flows northeast to west through
residential and agricultural development upstream, and vegetation typical of man-dominated
and mixed hardwood forest areas occur to the top of the creek bank.
An unnamed steeply sloped intermittent drainageway flows parallel to NC 150 from the south to
a confluence with Reedy Creek near the toe of Bridge No.56 (southern approach). The
unnamed intermittent drainage is also well defined by topography and the plane of ordinary high
water appears to be approximately 1.5 to 2.4 meters (5.0 to 8.0 feet) below the top of the bank.
This drainageway is approximately 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3.0 to 5.0 feet) wide with a silt and cobble
substrate, and is partially obstructed from view by a dense herbaceous layer including
blackberry, greenbrier, honeysuckle, joe-pye weed and pokeberry.
7
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resource, Division of
Environmental Management does not maintain any fish or macroinvertebrate monitoring
stations in this location, due to the small size of these waterbodies.
According to the Division of Environmental Management, Reedy Creek from its source to the
Yadkin River, is classified as a WS-IV stream. The unnamed intermittent drainageway would
also be classed as WS-IV. This best usage classification means that these waters are
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds,
point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted, local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required, and these waters are suitable for all
Class C uses. Class C uses include fishing, fish propagation, boating, wading or other uses
requiring waters of lower quality. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located
within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area. No impacts to sensitive water resources will
take place as a result of the project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water 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 will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Long term impacts to
water resources are not expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods from the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), and project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Approximately 0.02 hectare (0.06 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
8
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. Final permit decisions are left to
the discretionary authority of the COE.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher, 1991). However,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented,
as applicable, to minimize adverse impacts.
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 Davidson 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 one federally protected species for
Davidson County as of March 28, 1995.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1 to 2 meters (3.28 to
6.56 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or
above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the
lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick
texture. From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of
yellow flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3 to 3.5 millimeters (0.13 to 0.14 inches) long
and are glabrous with rounded tips.
9
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the Carolinas, and occurs in
clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams
with a high gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of
upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
Habitat exists In the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched for the presence of Schweinitz's sunflower. No Individuals of this
species were observed In or adjacent to the study area during the site visit 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 or Endangered. Table 3 includes 1 federal candidate species listed for Davidson
County and its state classification. 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
DAVIDSON COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Lotus purshianus var. helled C No
(Heller's trefoil)
notes:
C denotes Candidate species, which are considered by the State to be rare and need
population monitoring.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat does exist in the study area for the federally-protected Schweinitz's sunflower. A search
for this species was conducted along the project corridor, and no plant individuals were
observed in or adjacent to the project corridor during the site visit. No habitat exists in the
project area for any candidate species known to occur in Davidson County. Also, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed, and no records exist for rare
species or habitats in the project area.
10
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, coded at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
Bridge No. 56 is the only structure over fifty years of age located in the project's area of
potential effect. In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) concurred that the bridge is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
Archaeological site 31 Dv401 is located on both sides of NC 50 at this location. A temporary on-
site detour is recommended immediately south of the existing bridge. The Deputy SHPO, in a
letter of July 13, 1995, requested site 31Dv401 be tested to assess its eligibility for nomination
to the National Register of Historic Places. The NCDOT and FHWA will consult with the SHPO
regarding an archaeological testing program for 31 Dv401 prior to construction. In addition, an
archaeological survey of the proposed project and detour will be conducted prior to
construction. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
11
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.045 hectare (0.11 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
101,366 hectares (250,471 acres) of prime or important soils found in Davidson County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 81.6 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Davidson County, which is within the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/High
Point nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment area for 03.
However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance"
for 03 on November 7, 1993. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans,
programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP).
The current SIP does not contain any transportation control measures for Davidson County.
The Greensboro Urban Area 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the TIP is October
25, 1994. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is January 24, 1995. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. The project is
to replace the existing 2-lane bridge over Reedy Creek with a new 2-lane bridge; hence, the
project is classified as a neutral project. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effect on the air quality of this maintenance area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project and the bridge will be
replaced at its existing location with a bridge. Therefore, its impact on noise and air quality will
not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Davidson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
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.
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 (September 1994 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.
State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classification and Water Quality Standards. NCAC:15A NCAC213.0306.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1972. General Soils Map
of Davidson County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (September 1994 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
• \ I
cooe
R••dy Crwk ?'.
b•dn Q..k
?. Ch.
R•My
Ch. •;
I ?.3
IY]
un

ia.?
ISL
iur
BRIDGE # 56
I,ae

y.mod
c - IIDurR I
10
Ri
atlu
A, g 0
Midway y
el •Se 68
adkm
l it Thomasville ,?
d
ette
Col 3
tld
1J
1
'
'
zinvon
e
Re*d r
I 6
• ?
?
?
l
orc.land h
y,o .l 5
r
10 »,p A V O
5 , I
in w0o 10 ,
to
I
r t II v id
;

? Soutnmonl I •
?
•
8
Deny ;
i
\
Balm Spin •

'."Rock 6
I
+on HIII :
4 r
d•
j
T
UO, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 56
DAVIDSON COUNTY
B-2126
3/95 SCALE = 1:30 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
1 1
Yt?.

sr k 4i ?Y
x
r~ "? 3
4 79 ? f ) b 3 ?a
ape S
nY G? ? Q
Y4^, ? na
(D
to
iW
C)
OC
co
b v
4 ?
CL 'cY
?i

3
w

'

1 S t1 ( . \. ?{Gi?3'? 6 \t¢ fit\a`
1 2
fi r" ? ? I' ??
d a- S 11

P
\
Y

DAVIDSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 56
B-2126
i
UPSTREAM SIDE
OF BRIDGE

z ;f

DAVIDSON
COUNTY
B-2126

FIGURE 4
APPENDIX
e?,. SYNC v'k
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Concurrence forms for nineteen bridge
replacement projects, Multicounty, ER 95-8232
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 17, 1995, transmitting the concurrence forms
for nineteen bridge replacement projects. I have signed and dated them, and they
are enclosed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
?ViA_b?
Preservation Officer
Enclosures
cc: VH. F. Vick (w/enclosures)
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 0EP
-TIP T i ? rv Federal Aid # - ISO (4) County I)Av i-l?n
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
RdrW" fivi,l4;. 9r. ti(v c't Nv 1C;o rvc? F-eck, crc4t_
On ?? +?? , t'1?1? , representatives of the
V North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as ?mr*e ? z;&, 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 r the ivision Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative,

ate
His`C ric Preservation Officer
_ 2-
6
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
S .?o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 13, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects,
ER 95-9216
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
P ce?\
JUL 17 1995
Z DiVISIG q
2 . of.,
o''?,ctdIGHWAYS
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 14, 1995, concerning the following bridge
replacements.
Bridge 56 on NC 150 over Reedy Creek, B-2126, Davidson County
As noted in our letter of December 8, 1994, site 31 DV401 is likely to be- affected
and should be tested to determine its National Register eligibility. The remaining
area involved in the on-site detour should be surveyed to determine if additional
archaeological sites will be affected. '
Bridge 139 on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek, B-2822, Davidson County
Had we been informed that Bridge 139 is located in the middle of Willow Creek golf
course, we probably would not have recommended an archaeological survey. We
agree that prior land disturbance associated with golf course development has
reduced the likelihood of significant archaeological remains within the area of
potential effect. Therefore, we no longer recommend an archaeological survey for
this project.
Bridge 90 on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek, B-2847, Randolph County
Bridge 404 on SR 2830 over Richland Creek, B-2858, Randolph County
Bridge 1 on SR 1526 over Grants Creek, B-2865, Rowan County
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project areas, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with these projects.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
July 13, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
('Slin erely,
David Brook
. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw?
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission t'
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919433-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: David Cox, Highway P.
Habitat Conservation
DATE: December 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for comments
Replacement Projects
Project No. 95-0298.
roject Coordinator
Program l • .;
on Group VII Bridge
in North Carolina, SCH
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. B-2126, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Reedy Creek.
Two small tributaries intersect Reedy Creek in the
vicinity of the NC 150 bridge. There is a broad,
forested floodplain along this section of stream which
may be wetlands. The stream is approximately 30 feet
wide with sandy substrate and has fair fish habitat.
There are no known endangered or threatened fauna
concerns at this site. We recommend that the bridge be
replaced with a spanning structure, on-site with road
closure. NCDOT should avoid any channel relocation,
survey for wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation
and erosion control measures.
2. B-2804, Avery County, on SR 1164 over North Toe River.
The North Toe River is habitat for many pollution
ICWRC,HCP,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 burzoni.), 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.
JCWRC,HCP,FALLS LRKE
Memo
TEL:[phone]
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. B-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Dean 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 1925
This stream provides a fair fishery
catfish. We prefer that the bridge
spanning structure.
10. B-2858, Randolph County, on 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 t:o 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 of the North Toe
River contains many pollution intolerant species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Aopalachian elktoe
Dec 06'94 15:50 N0.006 P.08
NCWRC,HCP,FRLLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Dec 06'94 15:50 No.006 P.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 minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with
spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
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
November 30, 1994
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihad%ater 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, Rdeigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equcl opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50'. 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
• Stata of North Carolina Reriewinp Office;
OapaKment of Environment, Health, and Natural Rasouttas C,(75'',O
Project Number. Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS S . O ac1? , -l
After reriaw of this project It has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated may MCC to be ObtaineC 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 raverse of the form.
All applications, Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are availaDie from the L-rne
Regional Office. Norma! Process
Time
•
PERMITS
' SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
Ltrhil)
Permit to Construct i operate wastewater tfsatnvenl Appfication 8o clays before begin construction or award of ?G days
facilities. Hewer system extension, L sewer Construction eorttra;!z On-site inspection. Post a; plitatton
systems not discharging into state surface raters. Whnical danferenu usual ? days)
NPDES • permit to diW.arge into surface water anwor Applrcalion IM days before begin actavrty. O+*site inspection. fl0•t20 Cays
permit to operate and construc, wastewater facilities he-application conference usual AeCrtional!y. obtain pem,n to
J discharging into state surface avatar=. ccnstruct waste-ater treatment fa:ilily•granieC after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 Cars after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit•whicheyorr is Later.

Water Um latrm)tt
Prs-a;plicit ion technical rAn(eren:t usually nctessary 30
Cays
(NIA;
J Well CpnsIruc:Wn Permit C,-npltte s.; pGUtron mass: be recei.eC and permit issue' 7 cars
prior to tot fns-vat,on of a wait. (t! days)
-' '- Ap;ffcat,on copy must Dt seNed on each adla:ent npa• ar. prcpeny .S days
t>e9gt ar+C Fill hrrnd owner On-site in.s;ectien. Pre-application conference usual Filling
may repuire Easernent to Fill from N.C Decariment of (9o days)
Admrnisiratron and Federal Orecge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct 1 o;,e:ate Air Pontoon Abatement
f
il
• r 60 days
ac
ities anwo
'-mission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA (9C days)
Any open burning issoc:a:ed Witt'. SUb)eC) prO;CSSI
must U in eam
%ance with 1.A NCAC 2D
0e
0
;
.
4-
.
C.e m0lq.or. or renc.al.oni of Vlw"!ures contarnrng f
as.;eslcs malt!ia' must tie in eompt.anct with 1JL 6;, days
NCAC 20 0925 wh ch rewires notification and removal NIA
pf:or to demotft.on Conlac: As`.estes Control Group
919 733.0820
(9L days)
ComPle. Source Permit rewire= under t=A NCAC 2D 0800 •
e Selimenlal.on Poliul.On CJnlrot Ac! of 1973 must be pr0;.erly ajdressed for any land Q.Sturrin; activity An e,CSron 8 SeC.mentailc
control plan will be re-,wired if one or more acres to be disturt„ed Plan filed with Prc;,e• Re;,cnar Cftice (Land Caal.ty Sec: I a! least 30 20 days
Cass before bec nn.nc ;izovrl A fee of S3^, lot (he firsf acre a^C S 000 for ea:-? arC-l.ona' acre or art mws! accorr%::3nr the Dian 0C cavil
Toe Sed.menlat.or. Poilulron Conifol Act of 1973 must h addre:sc: with fespK! to the re'erfenced Local Ordinance: (3L days)
On site fnspeclion usual Surely bond filed weir. EHNR Bond amount
M,ning Parrnll varies with type mine and num,`,er of acres of affecled land Any area 31, days
mined greater than one acfe must be yemnrte:. The a,^,pfc;nale bond (=Z% days)
must be receive! before the Dermil can be issued.
J North Cafohna Earning permit On site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 Cay
eiceeds t days (NIA)
Spe:ral Ground Cfeara.•`ce Surnin, Permit • 22 Cn site inspection by N D. Division Forest resources required 'If more 1 day
counties In CCasla! N.C. with Orsank "1,% It.an five acres of ground clearing aclivlties are involved Inipectrons Ot!A)
should be fequcsled at feast ten days bcfore actual burn is planned."
l g3 120 days
Od Refining Facilities NIA (N!A)
If ;,Vmlt requAcQ. a:;l;czl:cn 67 days Gr.fore be,:n con-!ruction.
J Appl;cant must hire N C Quzhf.ed eng;reer to pre;a:e plans. 3?7 cars
Crm V
!Cry Permit .npec! .i
rr,nStrw: cc: . 0
- n.!r .
? . uC:.Gn ff. Y_CGrd'ng IC CIa1n a;.prOr'
e% -far,s. ).!1y ar;.: lvquife permit under m,osg;;ilo CGr.)rcl prGyram. And (VO day S)
• a 4'?4 perrnil from Corp., GI Enr,;acc-rs An in:;;ec!,on of &;:c is neces•
sa•y to vtrify lfa:add C:t::•Gca::on. A minimum foe c! S.'7: C4 must rK•
Car any tr.e a;^rica! Cn. An e0_:ffcr+a i occs.:nr f,,c L.:cd Cn a
••.,. •cr?^r or II•C Ic!_,C'r '! C'?_. w.:. t,.• rr^_.... .. ., . r-- r.,,i,i.on
Slate of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
iI
Reviewing Office:
Project N_umcer: Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same !
Normal Proces•.
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS l_tatuto ;im^
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
17 facilities, sewer system extensions. 3 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Pcst•acclication
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days) i
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90.120 days
O permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
i
liscna(ging r.to state surface waters construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reoly (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days !
'.Vater Use Permit Pre-application technical Conference usually necessary
JVA)
1 dogs
Weil Construction 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 gays
C Drecce ante F .Ii Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre•aoplication conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N C. Deoanmen; of 90 gaysi !
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
i
ermn ccrs;ruc: 3 operate Air Pduutien Abatement ?v cans
C 'ac:n!:es :nc:or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H 06 NIA I 90 a3:sf
Any ocen :urning associated with suolect proposal
C must be -n compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demos,;i.n •enovaticns of structures containing
asoes;es mate•iaf must be in compliance with 15A 50 Gays
C NCAC vnicn requires notification and removal NIA

pr?Gr :p .ter„ .;:cn Contact Asbestos Control Group i
atu.7: ;c2^ 90 ;a'sl
n
-l Cor
. S rra ?term t required under 15A NCAC 20.0E00.
i I
lie ad m:- a::rn Pollution Contra Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An eres cn L sedimentaue.
1 1on:rci p:ar :: a be required if one or more acres ;o be disturbed. Plan filed min proper Regional Office (Lana Cuanly Sec; l at least 30 20 day=_ I
e ,re ---:lining activity. A fee of S30 !or *me first acre and 520.00 for each acational acre or Dart must acccmcanv the -_!an 3J ;= •S, !

C

Th ?
S-cjm?^•aion Pollution Control Art of 197 must be addressed with resoect to the referrenced Local Ordinance '30 a. S)
!
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with E-+NR. Bond amount
C Mining Pyrr + varies with type mine and number of acres of alfec:eq land. Any area _;, :a+s
mined greater than one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond !60 Gays;
must be received before the permit can be issued
` .... hint perm t On-site inspection by N C. Division Forest Resources if perrrit -
) I
exceeds a days .
NIA
Su•:c:r. Clearance Burning Pyrrtit 22 On site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 'it more Gat
L_ counties: it .pasta) N C with organic soils than live acres of ground clearing activities are invoived. Inspections N; 1
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is ,iannea."
C
;; 90.120 days
00
,11- ...r -acilities NIA it,

It permit required. application 60 days before brgm construction !
1- App! cant must mire N.C. qualified engineer to: precare plans. :0 :ay
• n.i insbect Construction. certify construction ?s accp'.ind to EHNR abgrnv
ed olans Mav also require permit unne• mocgwtr ccn:ml program Alid
a .Ca permit ;J9nt Jt Engineei:; .n utSpeCLrn ;I site ?s neGep-
;afy to verify Hazard Classilicahon minimum 'ee cl 5200 00 must au
company the application An additional orocess nr, !ee based on a
percentage or the total protect cost will be rgdwrgd ucon rompieuon
Crnunuea on
.i
I:NIV IAI.I\1
;ntcr-A,crlcy P:•ojc(a 1\Cvtcw U'Icsponse
:
,
-, o
„(liil1CV -
1-0;11c!. Nair /C11? -- C'ypC of Project -,??? - -
The applicarl.t should be act\, sect Chac plans and specifications for all water sysccrn
-•- I i117proveinenes must be approved by the Division of r1:?rlro111r.e11ta1 Health prior co:che award
of a contract or rile i.niclat. I of conscruccion (as requ -ed by 1SA. NCAC 1SC .0300 et.. seq.).
For informacioll, concact the Public- WAcer Supply Se_ci.on, [phone].
?--? This project will be classified as a. non-commullicy ouctic water supply and must comp?y will
L•--1 Stace, and federal 61-1111ci11, water iTioMC01'111c, ['COLI!renle:•:Cs. For mocc ,nformat;on the applicant
should concact the Public Water Supply Secc:e.n., (91c) 733-232-1.
. ••• ~••• feec?of adjaceri?
r-? If this project is consclucted as proposed, we grill recc::nmend closure of _
?--J waters to the har-rest of shellfish. For information regarding the •shellfisTi sanitation progr,
in, the acoiicant should concathe Shellfish SanicatiDn Branch ac [phone].
The spoil disposal areas; proposed for this pr'cject mv: produce a rnosculto breeding'preblem
c•- For information concerning aoproprlace :osquizo ._onu•oi measures, the applicanc'shoui(
contact the Public Health Pest,Managernent- Section m (919) 726'-8970.
--? The applicant shouia be adviseca that -Dri.or Co the removal or demolition of di.lapi date
J ,
S1rUGCl;I•e5, an eXtC11S!Ve 1'O(1e1?C GCnCI'OI Pl'C)gra.rrl rn2-•• be nCCeSSa'", Liz order t0'p!'eYeilt• tit
i111°oracioi? of EI-c 1.Odents Cc adiacen-_ area The :'form?.t1Un.CC:.1Ce1"nl!?d COdCL t coiltrc
contact tl-Le local health department or the Public Health Pest Manaaen:er.t.Scctio:l?.at t,91`
733-6?07.
Tf- e afi1111ranc shoula be ad:'lsecl, to cjntac-, the !-:)cal h catch dc,,,ar•ciaicn, rer,ara!ng the
C„JV,.! 1?'jrl?r. .a??t ,CAC• 'I
-Cr 1.nfOS 112t'On G.,nr;ern.Ily ^nC:r-. (:a l ; ind nthnr nn-s!!:°. waste Cl!SC!OS11 rnri [1r?d%, conzact t:
I-- Tile appllcam: Should be :,dvlsed to Gontrac!. car. IOCZ, * Calti'1 dep-,-, ant: legardinb chC sarl
1 _.. .? Mc ilitic required for C1115 prt,j(:c:!:
r
e 1V111 h. ti? C.011SCI•UCrti)I1, ?1At1S rot- did wau![' i'
- -? rCloc:lucn must b:: S1161111aCCI CC) till, i IV!SICIt O'i %n••"11-onmemal 1-LC:1?t11, Public Waccl' SU11',.
J 1CCla0i1, i?tall 1\evlC;'/ 1.ira1.IC1'I, 1.5.)0 `C. ?1?ary ; 1CCLCC i\.;1 l6 h, NL11•!.h C_.-, I-oI !1?., ( l9) 733-'I

Section/]3rancli:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Mirtin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Willlam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: q s "' O Z J`' County: /ti ?t- T /
Project Name: Z 9,?
Geodetic survev
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
,-'Other (comments attached) a Cam'"'!`' '`
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer t.tiC Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
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.
y` 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].
Gt1/4;?c?
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh. N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
?A
.7.5, ?et7Jr;T77ent ace :.cncuittir!
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I / 7 o 'e ccincie:e.: cy=/eoe'JI .lge.^.G%,r1? Catt Ct Lino Evaluation deauxst 1Z/30 f'97'
, /
Name Ct J,oirc, 1J - 11 L eo , o a I cv, S ?,p I Ftotrai Agencv Invoiv*c 1=?A W IA
Prooosto Lind QSO H IGI-A VJ AY I Counrv Ana State DRv yD60/4
l-
PART II (To ce ccmo/ered by SCSJ I Cate Req`tst fb? wgsavw I?1?
Oaes me site contain pnme, unique, statewide or local important farmland? II- Y :No Aa" irn.atsd Average Form Sae
(If no. 77e FFPA does nor aeoly - do nor ccrnplere additional parts of erns tare"). , G I Q014 i= I q 4
A"Jor C:oolsi F-arrnaoie Lana in Govt.urtscicuon Amount Ct Fern" As Cttinto in ?PPa
C Ore ` \ I Acts: 2.1 S 23 4 % . 4 I Ae.-es: 2 5 0 , 4"11 % 11.4
Name Ct Lino rvaiuauon Svstern l:seo Went of ua Sit Acsatsmatrtt Svsttns Cate Land Evaluation Returned 4v SCS
17. Au:&Sal,^ 1_E I ?J d E I %I%3 ct sws,--2
I Site
PART 111 (76 .1e ccmp/eted by Federal.3genr/) Ait_rnanvo an nc
I Silt A I Sitt 3 I Sim C I Sim 0
A. Total Acres To Be Canvered Ciree:ly I !?, 1 I I i
S. Total Acres To Be Convened Indirectly 1 I I I
C. Total Acres In Site I. 1 1 I I I
PART IV (To be comp/er-d by SCSI Land Evaluation Information I I I - •
A. Total Ac.--s Prime And Unique Farmland I 0-0 2. 1 1 1
3. Total aces Statewide And Local Imoart3nt Farmland I -Q s O I I
C. Percantage Of Farmland In County Or Lxal Govt Unit To Be Converted 1 O . 00 I I I
0. P!rzifru" Cf Farmtano in Govt. 'unscicnon wimn Sarno Cr Higntr Ra tva Value I I
PART V (To be cgmpler-d oy SCSJ Land Evaluation Ccitrrion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/eofOro 1COPoinrs)
! rj(as (o I I I
PART V1 (To be ccma/ered by Fr eral.:genr/) !ouximum
to Asumil tent Cinna 177tarc crirrria art exclain.d in 7 CFR 6W.51b1 Pairttt f
1. Area In Nonurban Use I ?? I Q I I I
2. Perimeter in Nonuroan Use l /? I Q I I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed I _Q I Q I I I
4. Protect-en Provided 3y State And Lo=t Gavemment I 20 ( t? I I I
b. Ul=na t=ram Uroan Bud= Area I I - I I I
8. Oismncs 7o Uran Sucoart Services I I I I I
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Czmoared To Average I / 1 !19 1 I I
8- Q aation Of Nonfarmable Farmland I I 1 I 1
9. Availabilitv Of Farm Sucoort Services I S 1 5 1 I
10. On-Farm Investnents I I I ( I
11. Effers Of Conversion On Fans Sucocm Smites I 2S I Q I
12 Comoatibiii;i Witt Existina Aari=ltuml Use I /(J 1 Q I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMEVT POINTS I 160 I ZS I I
%RT V1I (To be come/ered by Federal Agercyl
Rtlativt Value Of Farmland (From Parr VI I 100 I ?'Gr?o
Total Site Assessment (From Par, V1 above or a /o=i I 160 I :25*
I
mrsi a.srasJrtenr) TOTAL POINTS (-/Ora/ of acove 21i17esl I 260 I e/
Waa A LOCX1 S+tt AcpUsmirM thee?
Salettcd: I Data Of Salec:ion I Yes Q No G
axon mar Saec;:on?
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS O?p
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199505676 County Davidson
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent NC DOT / Frank Vick
Address Post Office Box 25201. Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No.
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.) Davidson County
Bridge No. 56 located off of N.C. 150. adjacent to Reedy Creek. Welcome. Davidson County,
North Carolina, State Project No. 8.1601001. T.I.P. No. B-2126.
Description of Activity
Replacement of Bridge No. 56 at the existing location resulting in 0.06 acres of impacts to the
jurisdictional waters of Reedy Creek.
X_Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
NWP 23 Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number.
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and
conditions of this permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent Si
Regulatory Project Manager Signatur
Expiration
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.