20050021 Ver 1_Complete File_20060130

i - --- -- - -,art
LIU JAN 3 0 2006 LJ
DENR - WATER QUALITY j JAN 2 5 2006
QYMMDS AND STDRMWATER BRANCH
Office Use Only: I RegInn,il Cfr.;, Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. (95-002-1 ?. o,
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:NW 23 & 33 & NW 12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: gthorpekdot.state. nc us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
t eleptione Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page I of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779 i'
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3834
Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Davidson Nearest Town: Thomasville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh take I-40 west
then exit onto 1-85. Merge onto I-85 business then exit north onto highway 109 Go
approximately 1.5 miles then turn left onto Hasty School Road Go approximately 75 mile
and turn right onto Payne Road Hanks Creek will cross approximately .5 mile south
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Approximately 35,55' latitude and
80,00' longitude
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Hanks Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Land use in the project area is predominantly residential and
light industrial with maintained right of way on each side of the road
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Plans for
this project include replacing bridge No 156 with a double barrel box culvert. An offsite
detour will be used during construction Standard bridge construction equipment will be
a
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To increase the safety of travelers along SR
1779 by replacing the old bridge with a new sturdier double barrel box culvert
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
XT/ A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Page 3 of 9
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 86.1 feet of existing channel along
Hanks Creek will be permanantly impacted. 71.8 feet of existing channel will be temporarily
impacted along the same water body.
Mod. 1 for NW-12 - 10 feet of temporary stream impacts to an unnamed trib. to Hanks Creek
for a sewer line placement under the stream
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
N/A
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no Disto
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact se parately and ;.tint; i„
- - • •? •?•••r?•u•? •••4,.,,,,_ nwftwe, out are not mmteu to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FGMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FGMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.pov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE, only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
Stream Name** Average Width
of St Perennial or

indicate on ma
(linear feet)
_ ream
Before Impact Intermittent?
leasespecify)
I Fill/Permanant 86.1 Hanks Creek 8 ft. Perennial
I Fill/Temporary 71.8 Hanks Creek 8 ft. Perennial
Page 4 of 9
Temporary I 10 I Un. Trib. Hanks Ck.
Perennial
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditch ing/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it (lows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 86
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma

N/A
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

acres
(if Name of Watble)
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.

* List each impact se parately an?i irhntifti t •rr...r,. .., : r __.
----- ----""? •- .."_... I PC S. riTacus intAuuc, Dui are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
Page 5 of 9
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The impacts to Hanks Creek has been minimized by selecting alternative 1 which has the
least amount of impact to biotic communities Alternative 2 which proposed placing the box
culvert on a new location downstream would have im acted a portion of undisturbed piedmont
low mountain alluvial forest. An additional minimization is the use of a Low Flow Channel Sill
on one of the two box culverts. The sill will reduce sedimentation buildup in the culvert and
allow safer passage for aquatic species
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.htmi.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
EEP will resume responsibility for compensator mitigation
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/MM/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 86
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 7 of 9
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
s uare feet
Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
-1? I cnwIw5 uui w ieci perpenuicuiar rrom near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agents Signature ate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
22?,
90 ?
eloo?
MIL BUS

DETAIL A
STANDARD*B SSE DITCH
? rourM
Mfn.O • I.0 Ft.
Fln?r FDDr1o Max, d = 1.5 Ft.
B •3.OFt.
Typo of Liner Close B RIP-ROP
CLAUDE T. GUYER
AND WIFE
SANDRA K.GUYER
1
DBPg ]I PG 5882

DETAIL B
LATERAL BAS aDIITCH FF
(NO t- 511oDe
ow D ??
Min. D I.5 Ft.
B • 2.0 Ft.
p = 5.0 Ft.
JUDY CAROL YNTH MAS COMBS R,
na DO 1301
imap:Hrob.ridings(Y(,40dwq.denr.ncmai I.net @cros.ncmai1.net:143/fet
Subject: 05-0021
From: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:02:06 -0500
To: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
I reviewed this one and its fine to consider it issued as filed. thanks.
Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
NC DENR
WSRO
1 of 1 1/27/2005 4:06 PM
A/Vty?
r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 3, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
050021
P ? qWR'23 D
I N 0 4 1005
DENR - WAI R QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779, Division 9, Davidson County.
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1779 (2), State Project No. 82604501, WBS
Element 33282.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-3834.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, as well
as, permit drawings, and %2 size plans for the above referenced project completed by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The agency proposes that
Bridge No. 156, consisting of a 31 foot long asphalt covered timber deck with concrete
encased timber caps and piles, be replaced with two 72 foot long 12' x 8' RCBCs. The
roadway approach will be approximately 400 feet on each side of the culvert. A 2.7 mile
offsite traffic detour will be set up along SR 1772 (Hasty School Road), SR 1771
(Washboard Avenue) and SR 1773 (Ballpark Road).
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Wetlands: There are no jurisdictional wetlands present in the project area.
Surface Waters: Hanks Creek is the only surface water directly impacted by the
proposed project. Hanks Creek is located in sub-basin 07 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin, No. 03-07-07 and has an Index No. 12-119-7-3. The drainage area for Hanks
Creek at the project site is 430 acres. At bridge No. 156, Hanks Creek is approximately 8
feet wide and 0.5 feet deep with a well-defined channel. The best usage classification,
which is assigned by DWQ, is class C.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or
WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile of the Project Study Area.
Permanent Impacts: Approximately 86 linear feet of stream will be impacted by the
project due to a double barrel box culvert.
Temporary Impacts: Approximately 72 linear feet of stream will be temporarily impacted
by the project due to class I rip-rap, erosion control equipment, and a dike at the
beginning and end of the culvert.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project,
the NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented in the NCDOT document Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Guidelines followed for
bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The super structure for Bridge No. 156 is composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure is a combination of timber and concrete. The substructure includes 26
cubic yards of concrete; therefore a maximum of 26 cubic yards of temporary fill could
potentially be dropped in the water during removal.
UTILITY IMPACTS
There is an existing water and sewer pipe, maintained by the city of Thomasville. For
these two pipes, there will be a replacement in kind with a slight offset, located under the
new double barrel box culvert and within the right of way. This replacement will
therefore cause no additional impacts. There is also an existing aerial utility line regulated
by Duke Power. This line will need to be relocated, but will not impact waters of the
United States.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 5, 2003
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three federally protected species for Davidson
County (See Table 1).
Table 1.
Federally Protected Species for Davidson County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened No No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered No No Effect
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A)* No No Effect
2
It is possible that eagles may occasionally fly over the project area. However, the lack of
appropriate feeding, roosting and perching habitat or suitable nesting in the form of large
trees with a clear flight path to water is not present within the project vicinity.
Additionally, the NCNHP database has no record of bald eagles within the project
vicinity.
A population of Schweinitz's sunflower has been recorded in Davidson County, however
a review of the NCNHP database revealed no records of the sunflower in or near the
Project Study Area. Additionally, the habitat for the sunflower is not found in the Project
Study Area. A site visit on April 12, 2001 and September 20, 2004 revealed no evidence
of the sunflower.
The bog turtle is listed as T(S/A). This designation is due to the bog turtle's similarity of
appearance to another rare species currently listed for protection. Species designated
under T(S/A) are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Therefore, a biological conclusion
for this species is not required.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States." The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable
and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The impact to Hanks Creek has
been minimized by selecting alternative 1, which has the least amount of impact to biotic
communities. Alternative 2, which proposed placing the box culvert on a new location
downstream, would have impacted a portion of undisturbed piedmont low mountain
alluvial forest. An additional minimization is the use of a Low Flow Channel Sill on one
of the two box culverts. The sill will reduce sedimentation buildup in the culvert and
allow safer passage for aquatic species.
Mitigation- Based upon the agreements stipulated in the "Memorandum of Agreement
Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District (MOA)", it is understood that the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP), will
assume responsibility for satisfying the Section 404 compensatory mitigation
requirements for NCDOT projects that are listed in Exhibit 1 of the subject MOA during
the Ecological Enhancement Program (EEP) transition period which ends on June 30,
2005.
Compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional
under the federal Clean Water Act will be provided by the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). The NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional
resources to the greatest extent possible. The remaining unavoidable impacts to 86 feet
of stream will be offset by compensatory mitigation provided by the EEP. (See attached
EEP confirmation letter.)
3
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Aspects of this project are 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 23 and 33 as authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 (FR
number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications number 3361 and 3366 will
apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/pennit.htmi.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Megan Willis at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/ attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NC DWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E. Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E. Structure Design
Mr. S.P. Ivey, P.E. Division Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, P.E. DEO
w/o attachment:
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E. Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E. Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
4
Y
?Fco ,stem
PROGRAM
December 15, 2004
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3834, Bridge 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779, Davidson
County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040103); Central
Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 86 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; however, EEP intends to provide stream
compensatory mitigation at a ratio up to 2:1 in Cataloging Unit 03040103 of the Yadkin
River Basin
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely,
Wi ' D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3834
R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1651 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
Eco stem
;J i "f
PROGRAM
December 15, 2004
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3834, Bridge 156 over Hanks Creek, Davidson County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated November 23, 2004, the impacts are located
in CU 03040103 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 86 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
44tm-
Wi ham D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3834
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
R
/ 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 05002 1;
(If anv narticular item is not annlicable to this nroiect. please enter "Not Annlicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested:NW 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: thorpe(a dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3834
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Davidson Nearest Town: Thomasville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Raleigh take I-40 west,
then exit onto I-85. Merge onto 1-85 business, then exit north onto highway 109. Go
approximately 1.5 miles then turn left onto Hasty School Road. Go approximately 75 mile
and turn right onto Payne Road. Hanks Creek will cross approximately .5 mile south
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): Approximately 35,55' latitude and
80,00' longitude
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Hanks Creek
8. River Basin: Yadkin-Pee Dee
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 9
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Land use in the project area is predominantly residential and
light industrial with maintained right of way on each side of the road.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Plans for
this project include replacing bridge No. 156 with a double barrel box culvert. An offsite
detour will be used during construction. Standard bridge construction equipment will be
used.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To increase the safety of travelers along SR
1779 by replacing the old bridge with a new sturdier double barrel box culvert.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
Page 3 of 9
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 86.1 feet of existing channel along
Hanks Creek will be permanantly impacted. 71.8 feet of existing channel will be temporarily
impacted along the same water body.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
1 Fill/Permanant 86.1 Hanks Creek 8 ft. Perennial
1 Fill/Temporary 71.8 Hanks Creek 8 ft. Perennial

Page 4 of 9
* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.Qov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.manauest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 86
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres
(if Name applicable) Wat) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
? wetlands
installation of
Page 5 of 9
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The impacts to Hanks Creek has been minimized by selecting alternative 1 which has the
least amount of impact to biotic communities. Alternative 2, which proposed placing the box
culvert on a new location downstream, would have impacted a portion of undisturbed piedmont
low mountain alluvial forest. An additional minimization is the use of a Low Flow Channel Sill
on one of the two box culverts. The sill will reduce sedimentation buildup in the culvert and
allow safer passage for aquatic species.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
EEP will resume responsibility for compensatory mitigation.
Page 6 of 9
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 86
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): n/a
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): n/a
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 7 of 9
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
s uare feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Page 8 of 9
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

Ap?licant/Agent's Signature ' Dfite
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
DAVIDSON COUNTY, N.C.
e?
AS
a
END -40JEC-T
e ! l -
VON
'I B GIN PRO CT
1i w
o..a „
s ? v
Q
1ODO 0 10p0 2(PO
Scab in Feet
VICINITY MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
PROJECT. 83604501 (B-3834)
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779 FROM
NORTH OF BALL PARK ROAD
TO SOUTH OF MAGNOLIA LANE
SHEET I OF 1 October 12, 2004(
Z
pN
&LLo
Q Q S
ao m??oa
M I Z??O co
+ 00 NjMU-
Z
LLOO ?pOO
LL
0??a Wzx
r wo o O p o t2"
n- oO?rii
v a>zoW
Q z o ~y
COQ
T
O Q?
W + ?
U to
? N
CL <
o ?
w
,o
O
a `o
M
C/)
W
M ,
TO It 109 TO THOMASUIL-LE
hIN
BALL PARK ROAD
0
0
co
°
ti o
v
0
Co
N
O

z
U?
U ?a?< c
O ! ?'
LO r-- aa
z Ln
o
z
a -'
o x ! O
Q (n
x
ZZ
0 O 0
U
> e
a O
F zz Fa

O
O
O x
W >>
UU k. z
° ? :D 0 U.
OO O
? ? w xx O > ?
WV ?
Ox
W W A O
F
Z
Ww Q x .
7p
aA
4
F
_
U >LLJ z U t71
0
>C?O W
z zF
D= °
I U U
I F- 12
V) N
W W
S.

Z

0 I
I ?- I
I
F- I I J
II W
W I I to I I %n Ind c?

N

Z I
II
Lq I

I

I
N
Q O
?
I
O Q II I I
V --- -
x I I o C?
w ?I I I
0
z
I I L
I I °
I
Z a.

U I I O I
Z J
II
3 _ I
N
C7
3 Z
F-= Z
0
J zQ
-
d W W Q J

?a
mLL-
h ? 03
V)
\ J , O 0
Q- O J p z D O
OF J 00 Z0
F-- Q W ~ W
-Q
/ z?
w
X
°
w

N
/
Q zocr 3 =j a
~~
U
O O O 0a3W0 mU
>
co ^ ^ ^ F-F HW
0WJ
?
N
a
Z
Z U
LLJ
0
oz Om
O
o,
>
Y
n
=0 J?ZOZ
W-FU ?aQWQ
JW
lnWCr 3wWOW>
WWXOWXF-000
F- Q Q .J >F- Q W Cr Z
OppMLL-ZlnZ>a.Q
Z • • •

Z
O
F-
V
W
V)
t/)
N
O
GC
V
GC
F-
N
0-
D
o 10
10

Z

O II
I
II
II
I I

I
I
I n
I
? I I ?
a II
I
Q I I ao
x
W Ir----
I
I
I I
w II ? II
Z II J II
I
I
w
I
I
= II 3 II
I
U I O II
I I -J I
I I
J
O 0OAz 8
a e N
O Z

z -p
a0 O
!
o
c
w o z ei
It!
z
0 A :Dco
UUc o

w
14
>

° x
0
?Opx?

° CA E-
A.°O?
w
U
z
ozE° - w

i

F
b *=4
o

U

Z N

O
It R?
I-
Q
Z In
> O 0
Z
Q
U
Q
0 Z
w a w w aQJ
a
x -
03: CO
0 CL
W
Z w LL.J 0Z Cl O
QZ J O J 00 QZ 0
-i
=
U z
Z F Q LL.
Q L?.
Z
= J=
Z? LJ O
Cr O
U Z=N? Qa
?
N

N F-
U
QZ?cr3 JQ
w O Q 3 W 0 co U
WF- >J QX
W
w W D Q N
Z
o
Oco
?
N
m
ai,..
> ,
C
20 J?.=.C) Z
W U Q Q W
J ? Q
O
WD
3
?
viLLX
:X
j>
WLL.XOwXi--0o o
M
Z
Q a
oo
O
>a-
LL-ZVV)
Z.
-a_
NQ
a
J a-
U w
00 0 0,0
co E& o
d iF?

ZN
g
C;

CD

8
00
0
C,
U
F- 2?
.
•X t a E
n aq
Q
a LL1U EF

W c c .-
Q
? N c

E
u'j 0 E C, 9
o
(D

co

co
w

D R: N N r
U) c C.
c
o
=zE c °

C
d to

C O W ca
€ 10
o
c N
q
o
Z
LL ? N
a

Q v c
c c? v
g

N

H

N r U)

? ?
Q
CL F- A c v

F- ? 1L c
_

W Z to
Z'
IL
Q
lL y G lV0

N C
8
? W
lL O
?
d
a

a
m
?^ U
co
?
CO
?c
CID
x
N
r
N

C
O J j' N
J
l0 ? ? H
li ago 0
t ? !-
'? n F-
Cl
W

r o a
(n Z
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME
PARCEL NO.. & ADDRESS

O Brokers Inc.
107 S. Urban St.
Thomasville, N.C. 27360-9700

O H&B Polycurves, Inc.
549 Rich HIlton Rd.
Thomasville, N.C.27360
John Swady Farrell
O3 2215 Plainview Dr.
High Point, N.C. 27265

O Brokers Inc.
107 S. Urban St.
Thomasville, N.C. 27360-9700
Danny E. Thomas
5O 123 Payne Rd.
Thomasville, N.C. 27360-8968
Judy Carolyn Thomas Combs
6O 125 Payne Rd.
Thomasvill,, N.C. 27360-8968

O Tony G. Johnson, Jr.
1 Magnolia Ln.
Thomasville, N.C. 27360

8O Barry Scott Hilton & Wife, Terri Hilton
549 Rich Hilton Rd.
Thomasville, N.C. 27360

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
PROJEC7% 8.2604501 (B-383W
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779 FROM
NORTH OF BALL PARK ROAD
TO SOUTH OF MAGNOLIA LANE
SHEET (7 OF 1 O
c(.bar 12.2004
4 IS``OB
ca\Noedwey\Pr
DT
m
U1
rL

boong
IIo ?
?N?;11 V II
7+. a
m S? A ?
-Ar
o-
/ N
1Sr I \
\ C3av o .
aa\°O IIg ? . i
r
? w!S _ - - Nt
pp K ?
o NI
nn g n I
?'<& s6 II 7S
? n moll ??
]t - .Iwo?>ro w # W N
Gat ? wg i * p1 pi
3a? M a3 a ,7 <O
G*? ,Q ? N 3_ n II II " II

o
A0
i
1 ? OK A
0
/ I 19
? aoo ^; i
?fnA X113 a / ? '
FibN 8' - \I
N ? Jp.
A
L Jill s
N
Q ary ? S
ICt I

t4i?iaS?ir',UC??
Y 11 I? Y ?!II M?
Cb
I rn _?
r
pl

nr 7
7
O?

n ?
O 9 T 14
?
?
pM
I
I I
i
Q
O Urn
U ? J a oo-iRff ?n, s
I\ 1?k
i
o
7 D
m n
4
moo _
?\ D ? ti ti n
2
C?9 Q ? CWT ? N?B?-al
A P
0 a Jr UI
N-COW.. v
/n
T ?
i L ? VPpH7l?
ep as Q

? A J
I ?I? Q Q
?f O

(\ 8 C, C,
? \ ?
?
A A

Q? ? ?- ?- O
C
II
OCQIGy't•Oa711o1
G
0
e dyppll
/ / A
75 q
a
3 n

\n/, ? 1 Na1Jl

o Q
P
G

w11 4 VJ
R t
pit
Age*

I

IIpo < OV-20OO 58
R:\ oe eu o.l\b 3834_, d4_ tsh.dgn
019/NA/99
IKOA: tTRA CT: 33282.2.1 TIP PROJECT: 8-3834

L
R
,u
co V)
1

I

v v N "QQ'
s K m

O o
? r?

[n0
N N U N N N m r.L R` ..w. / >m 1
g g w fn '? _ maw
Z

t
M

o b
o
Ell
O
-

tj
?1
p G

O
en 0
p
J b Q 1

v ?
O
o ?F++11
a
g
NdN
S
Vj C

t?4
' S? M
?I

3 Ito (A m cn
z -i
o
W A I 00 D

e O
r _--i N_

+
O
D
o

? N
u,
O
O
m O
m

"
rl
i
CP
w
00
LAJ
?
G

f •p'
1

ti

RIGR T-OF-WAY PLANS ??

NOV-2004 3 35
\Locetion urveys\b3834_In_lo_040503.dgn 99
1
r m V m f11 A i N
., r r n
o
N SOWN m m h
4?'`ae8 mm?cil> fi' `6"aW
mzroov'v
V V
?? 6 11 ° G7 O °
aj -4 r- 'm I mV.,.,V' mgV?V?i
7e ?+ x L11I cti1 00 n r Q?j {? 0 VD (??S ?, ;
o E H =1 °°m Qf NI??JIW ro A W i=
NNp D ap N o Iv .1 di8i3S
a,
--I
? ??N D mmmamm
? x
Lo 00 O O LTI O °aa
JN nC)10_Ln
600y O am cn (A '4 Lo
44 . ? w O?a ~ Z
O . . . a ? 01 y
1 ?di:?•- 01 m m A
p-4 G? p
?ON1 ?d0? D 1D Z
a
~ ~
0 N > OD
9; C03
v a
m vmmcil 1 '
'r r
m2 .p ^ ul w W o i w a m
£t m ww01 ? WD N; ;t O
m in m
v? IT °v°?S?muv4 DmN
Z „' p?p?rr err
a ?
Po
O r z 4) . S 'l A r Z r_
??11 A UI V Z yy \ v,
?m SQD rI Amm
In fi 5 m A mmr
r?w-'w < Fn
M 0-0
W $ ? ? ?Aibi w
b
` .
v L r
t5 tb„ n
?ARA?
r H
0
y O 11 11 D p p
mgr-mV),
?y o °' 0-04 r-
D-1r
to O 1-0I N?m D
;-4 Lj p -o -I N
??1t
Ei 1a'v1-0 O-0 D
--4 0
y ?t O JNb M n O Iv
h 8®, n ?nN
O N000
M -4fV
p wO
ZNCLn
D ?-
a m o
s (A
h
ua?-y" ?roj\63834_rdy_typ.dgn

O
c
i rrI L
A'b
?rn
o
I
i
Ilk

0
m

rrn
c
r ?
i
A ?
?rn
$a?
000
ADO
?o
?O
N
0
Z
1,
i
m
rh
M n
6
LA -n
z
o `i o
Irv
6 ? R 6
r? rn ? v
f AAA f?
rf)

rn
O ? N

1
n
?n
?Irw 1 I
P 1 1
r, Z O
I
I!
rrl

U o

M
r =

g
M
o p
z

N y

]$
G

s ?

S
8 ? ?
o ?

o
2
i

Nu

o ?

i
rn
-
g j r N i N R W N C)

??^
kkk
lll ?
(
>
Z p
FF+ s
z
°m ?i??i
??> ?x
> z
?i x
w? ?ZZO
]?y >i
< o
7 0
4 os
w '<
Y ? S? ? C• ? 0. 1
1Ty1
T
11171i
C
Gs

111

s

0

rTH

?11
a

'

?i

'i1
a (Z?

(7
_

_o
?A
m
, m m
?? O m
i i ?p O O
q ¦
,
r
Z
Qq
z
r
N

Ri\Roodw ey\Proj\b3834_ r dy_pah04.dgn
? j''1 \ SVQ ? N
\s $ ',
\ Z
8 ?00
i / C t` V IA
N8 62
rrl
k
$m
i
f=1
A
9
$z
OS r
m
/r

rL

?ya? h
N

15? N
? e
a
H
to n
zz

m
i
?miT
mm
? A A O
1 ? t
?nw
N C
22•ll5l ? n
N?y?yZ
Spiapp?
? Q a'?4N
Q ?
N
.,iv •oz.
+
O
o \+\

r " H i ll

_rdy_pfl.dgn
o IT7
I:i Eff
IZHi
?I ` r
w EFff
IA
ILK
Ian
ICE
la
I%
to
I?" liff

Ono `i

rrrrrr?rr
w

V) AA
i
iii!Iliiiii!il::,,, ....
?i
3
r,
10
s?
it
r
to
. 1 . , 1 0 . I • •I .

Davidson County
Bridge No. 156 on SR 1779 (Payne Road) over Hasty Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1779(2)
State Project No. 8.2604501
TIP No. B-3834
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
D3
DATE Greg orpe, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE ?? John F. Sullivan, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
t
Davidson County
Bridge No. 156 on SR 1779 (Payne Road) over Hasty Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1779(2)
State Project No. 8.2604501
TIP No. B-3834
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
DECEMBER 2003
,M 111,14" Documentation Prepared by:
N CARP '?., ?q•. •.•?,,,???
.... li •, N CAR
`,?' ?? ESS pN9 '; PBS&J ?EEO"ft. 9''.,.
a SEAL
21082 l = SEAL 9
E
vfs=• ? 17265 ? s
Date: 12 3 03 d?e,4 Date: fZ 2 03
ill S. urak, P.E., A.I.C.P. Steve A. Drum, P.E.
Project Manager - NEPA Project Manager - Roadway Design
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
i
Stacy Baldwin,
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Davidson County
Bridge No. 156 on SR 1779 (Payne Road) over Hasty Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1779(2)
State Project No. 8.2604501
TIP No. B-3834
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions
of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
No special project commitments.
B-3834 Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Davidson County
Bridge No. 156 on SR 1779 (Payne Road) over Hasty Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1779(2)
State Project No. 8.2604501
TIP No. B-3834
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 156 is included in the North
Carolina Department of Transportation 2004-20010 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The bridge location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
22.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally
obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will
result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Project Setting. Figure 1 shows the project location
in relation to the county and state. The project is
located in the piedmont area of the central part of the
state.
SR 1779 (Payne Road) is classified as a rural major
collector. Land use in the project area is
predominantly light industrial and residential. There
is a large subdivision just north of the bridge,
Carriage Hills. The roads in Carriage Hills connect to
both SR 1779 (Payne Road) and SR 1780 (Hasty Hill Road), and residents are able to
access either major road from the subdivision.
An 8-inch ductile iron sanitary sewer line crosses the creek approximately 35 feet
downstream of and parallel to the bridge (see Photograph 1). Overhead cable television,
power, and utility lines are located about 35 feet downstream running parallel to the
B-3834
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Photograph 1: Bridge No. 156
from downstream (looking east).

.r-
bridge. There is a piped tributary at the northeast corner of the bridge. The utility
conflicts for this project are considered low.
Existing Bridge Data. The existing bridge was built in 1958 and has an asphalt covered
timber deck and concrete encased timber caps and piles. The two-lane bridge carries
SR 1779 (Payne Road) over Hasty Creek (see
Photograph 2). SR 1779 was resurfaced in 2001.
Across the bridge, the roadway width is 19.2 feet and
the total deck width is 20 feet. The approach width of
the roadway is 18.5 feet. The height of the bridge
(from crown to bed) is approximately 11 feet, and its
length is 31 feet. The posted weight limits for the
bridge are 10 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for
tractor-trailer semi-trucks. The drainage area is 430
acres.
Traffic Information. Estimated traffic volumes at the bridge are 2,800 vehicles per day
(vpd) for the year 2003 and 5,350 vpd for the design year 2030. The projections estimate
one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two percent dual-tired (DT) vehicles.
The posted speed limit for SR 1779 (Payne Road) is 35 miles per hour.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from January
1, 2001 to April 30, 2003.
Eight school busses cross Bridge No. 156 once daily.
There are currently no provisions for pedestrians, and no evidence of heavy use by
pedestrians, such as worn footpaths, on this section of SR 1779 (Payne Road). This
section of SR 1779 (Payne Road) is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed
in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication there
are an unusual number of bicyclists using this roadway.
B-3834 2
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Photograph 2.: Bridge No. 156
from Payne Road'North
(looking South)
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Bridge No. 156 is proposed to be replaced with a double barrel (each 12 feet by 8 feet)
reinforced concrete box culvert. Roadway approach work will be approximately 400 feet
in length on each side of the culvert. The design speed for the roadway is 40 miles per
hour.
The typical section across this structure is a 24-foot two-lane roadway with 8-foot
shoulders, including 2-foot paved shoulders (See Figure 2).
Based on the preliminary hydraulic analysis, the elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing structure. The replacement structure is a box
culvert with a minimum grade to facilitate drainage. The length and opening of the
reinforced concrete box culvert may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows, which will be determined from detailed hydraulic analysis during final
design. During construction, flow will be maintained by diverting flow to one side of the
channel while the first barrel of the box culvert is being constructed. After the first barrel
is constructed, water will be diverted into that barrel while the second barrel of the box
culvert is constructed.
B. Build Alternatives
Figures 3a and 3b show the two alternatives considered for the replacement of Bridge
No. 156.
Alternative 1 - Off-Site Detour
This alternative involves building a double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert in
place. Each barrel of the reinforced concrete box culvert will be approximately 63 feet in
length. During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site. The detour route will be
approximately 2.7 miles long, using SR 1772 (Hasty School Road), SR 1771 (Washboard
Avenue), and SR 1773 (Ballpark Road). Figure 3c shows the proposed off-site detour
route.
B-3834 3
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Alternative 2 - New Alignment Downstream
This alternative involves building a double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert on new
alignment downstream of the existing bridge. Each barrel of the culvert will be
approximately 70 feet in length. The new roadway will be offset approximately 30 feet
downstream from the existing bridge location. Alternative 2 was not selected as the
Preferred Alternative because it is more costly and has more impacts to biotic
communities.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure.
This is not desirable due to the service provided by Bridge No. 156.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1, placing a reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing bridge location, is
the Preferred Alternative. A minor shift of the roadway centerline to the west will be
needed to prevent impacts to Hasty Creek north of the existing bridge. An off-site detour
will be used. This detour will be approximately 2.7 miles long, using SR 1772 (Hasty
School Road), SR 1771 (Washboard Avenue), and SR 1773 (Ballpark Road). Figure 3c
shows the off-site detour route. Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred Alternative
because it is the least expensive alternative and has the least impacts to biotic
communities.
The Division 9 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the Preferred
Alternative.
B-3834 4
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Estimated Costs
Cost Item Alternative 1
(Preferred) Alternative 2
Structure Removal (Existing) $4,900 $4,900
Structure (proposed) $136,000 $163,000
Roadway Approaches $122,300 $161,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $121,800 $150,300
Engineering and Contingencies $65,000 $70,000
ROW/Construction Easements/Utilities $138,800 $130,000
Total $588,800 $680,000
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program is $510,000; including $135,000 for right-of-way and $300,000 for
construction. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for 2004, with construction to follow
in 2005.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area
denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; and Project Vicinity describes
an area extending approximately 0.5 miles on all sides of the Project Study Area.
A. Methodology
Background research on soils, water resources, wetlands, protected species and other area
features was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-
field investigation of the study area included:
• US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (High Point West)
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
(High Point West)
B-3834 5
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) soil maps
• NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (scale I"= 100')
Water resource information was obtained from the following source:
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study
area was gathered from the following sources:
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website list of Davidson County
Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern
• NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed project corridor on April 12,
September 18, and October 31, 2001. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed using delineation criteria
prescribed in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987).
Estimated impacts are derived using the construction limits shown on the functional
designs for each alternative. The estimated construction limits on the functional designs
were developed based on site visits, aerial photography, and USGS topographic mapping.
B. Physiography and Soils
The Project Study Area is within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography
in this section of Davidson County is characterized by gently rolling hills to hilly
landscapes. The Project Study Area is in a slight valley, with elevation changes of less
than 50 feet within 1,000 feet of the Project Study Area. The project elevation is
approximately 750 feet above mean sea level (msl).
B-3834 6
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
One soil phase occurs within the project boundaries: Chewacla loam, 0-2 percent slopes.
Chewacla loam is a deep, rather poorly drained soil commonly found on floodplains and
adjoining upland sideslope depressions. Permeability is moderate, and the seasonal high
water table is located 0.5-1.5 feet below the surface. Chewacla loam is frequently
flooded. It is not listed as a hydric soil, but has hydric inclusions.
The forest potential on Chewacla loam is listed as high, although excessive water can be
a limitation. Wetness may impede equipment use (US Department of Agriculture, 1976).
The soils sampled in the Project Study Area did not exhibit hydric conditions, such as
low chroma colors, in low areas of the floodplain. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as
defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987), were
not observed within the Project Study Area.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
Hasty Creek is the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project.
Hasty Creek is located in sub-basin 07 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (03-07-07).
The drainage area for Hasty Creek at the project site is 430 acres. Figure 4 is an aerial
photograph of the Project Study Area.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Hasty Creek, at Bridge No. 156, is approximately 8 feet wide and 0.5 feet deep and well-
defined. It has a Rosgen rating of G5 upstream (moderately steep, fluvial dissected
landforms with heterogeneous substrate consisting of sand and soil) and C3 downstream
(broad alluvial and glaciated valleys with predominantly cobble substrate).
3. Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Best Usage Classification. Streams are assigned a best usage classification by the
NCDWQ. The classification of Hasty Creek [Index No. 12-119-7-3] is class C. The C
listing indicates water uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or
WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile of the Project Study Area.
B-3834 7
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
A
Water Quality Monitoring. The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) is managed by NCDWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long-term trends in water quality. The program
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are
reflections of water quality. The nearest BMAN station to Bridge No. 156 is on Hasty
Creek approximately 2.5 miles downstream. It was sampled in 1987 and received a
BMAN rating of Fair.
Hasty Creek has not been sampled for a Use Support Rating, and is therefore categorized
as Not Evaluated (NE) for Use Support Rating (NCDWQ, 1998).
NPDES Permitted Dischargers. There are 19 major and 41 general NPDES permitted
dischargers in the subbasin (NCDWQ, 1998). It is not anticipated the project will impact
any of these facilities.
Non-Point Source Dischargers. Non-point source dischargers contribute to water
quality degradation in sub-basin 07. These sources in the basin include agriculture
(especially cattle and poultry production), urban/residential areas, construction, timber
harvesting, onsite wastewater disposal (generally from septic systems), and solid waste
disposal (NCDWQ, 1998).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
The use of a box culvert to replace the existing bridge will result in permanent
disturbance to the stream. The box culvert will be approximately 63 feet long for
Alternative 1 and 70 feet long for Alternative 2. To construct the culvert, the streambed
material will be excavated and the culvert placed one foot below the current streambed
level. Aquatic organisms will recolonize the area.
The removal of material will cause increased sedimentation and siltation downstream.
Siltation adversely affects many aquatic species temporarily, including
macroinvertebrates, fish, and mussels. Additionally, equipment working near the stream
is likely to erode the streambanks, thus increasing erosion and sedimentation. These
impacts are likely to dissipate over time, but adverse affects to water quality can be
expected temporarily.
B-3834 8
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Impacts to water resources can occur during construction. NCDOT, in cooperation with
NCDWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects titled,
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters. The following
are some of the standard methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
® Strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life
of the project;
® Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water
bodies and minimization of activities conducted in the water;
• Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to
reduce runoff and decrease sediment loadings;
Reduction of clearing and grubbing along stream banks.
5. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project,
the NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge
demolition and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents,
entitled: Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal, Policy:
Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States, and Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project can be classified as Case 3,
where there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
The super structure for Bridge No. 156 is composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure is a combination of timber and concrete. The substructure includes 26
cubic yards of concrete; therefore a maximum of 26 cubic yards of temporary fill could
potentially be dropped in the water during removal. Replacement of Bridge No. 156 with
a double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert will result in permanent fill to Waters of
the United States.
D. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the Project Study Area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the Project Study Area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
B-3834 9
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003

influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Dominant flora and fauna
observed or likely to occur in each community are described.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where
possible. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980); Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980); and. Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. An asterisk (*) after the faunal species name indicates
that an animal or evidence of a particular animal was observed on the site visits (nest,
scat, tracks, sound etc). Published range distributions and habitat analysis were used in
estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
1. Terrestrial Communities
As shown in Figure 4, two distinct terrestrial communities occur in the Project Study
Area: Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Maintained/Disturbed. Community
boundaries within the Project Study Area are well defined, without a notable transition
zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the Project Study Area will
exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
a. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
There is a fringe alluvial forest along the Hasty Creek corridor extending 20 feet or more
on either side of the stream bank. The transition from alluvial forest to
maintained/disturbed community is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance activities.
Intermittent flooding during high flow periods drives
the hydrology of the alluvial forest. Periodic flooding
provides nutrient input through sediment deposition,
making this system very productive. The banks are
well vegetated and provide foraging opportunities for
faunal species. However, periodic flooding can also be
a destructive factor during large storm events by
undercutting banks and eroding soils. In fact, some
streambank erosion is evident in the "s" bend west of
the bridge as seen in the photograph.
B-3834 10
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Photograph 3: The "°s" bend west
of Bridge No. 156.
The canopy of the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest is composed of Chinaberry
(Melia azedarach), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red oak (Quercus rubra), black
walnut (Salix nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), cherry (Prunus serotina), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana).
The shrub layer consists of saplings of mimosa, sycamore, redbud (Cercis canadensis),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), seedbox (Ludwigia
alternifolia), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Herbs
found in the study area are plantain (Plantago sp.), violets (Viola sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum sp.), jewelweed (Impatiens sp.), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), and turf grasses. Crown vetch (Coronilla varia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.) comprise the vine portion of this
community. The emergent aquatic plant, rush (Juncus effusus), was observed along the
water's edge.
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis),
opossum* (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) will use this forest community for cover and will forage on
twigs and leaves as well as mast. Amphibians and reptiles likely to inhabit this habitat
type include the two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer), and snake species such as the northern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix
mokasen), black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), common garter (Thamnophis
sirtalis sirtalis), and the black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta). Frog and turtle
species likely to inhabit this habitat type include the bull frog (Rana catesbeiana), green
frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (Rana
sphenocephala), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon
subrubrum), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carlina).
Avian species using the alluvial forest include blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), northern
mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura), European
starling* (Sturnus vulgaris), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), wild turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). The barred owl (Stria
varia) is a permanent resident in this community type.
B-3834 1 1
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
b. Maintained/Disturbed
The Maintained/Disturbed area, which includes commercial and residential development,
is primarily vegetated in turf grasses (Festuca sp.), with planted trees and shrubs.
Wildlife associated with the Maintained/Disturbed area include species associated with
the alluvial forest, including squirrel*, opossum*, white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and raccoon. Amphibians and reptiles likely to inhabit this
habitat type include the two-lined salamander, spring peeper, and snake species such as
the northern copperhead, black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus), common garter
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) and the black rat snake.
Avian species using the Maintained/Disturbed area include Eastern bluebird* (Sialia
sialis), mourning dove*, blue jay*, northern mockingbird*, American robin (Turdus
migratorius), American crow (Corms brachyrhynchos), and rock dove (Columba livia).
2. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Hasty Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Hasty
Creek, at Bridge No. 156, is approximately 8 feet wide and 0.5 feet deep and well
defined. Hasty Creek flows to the southwest. It has a Rosgen rating of G5 upstream
(moderately steep, fluvial dissected landforms with heterogeneous substrate consisting of
sand and soil) and C3 downstream (broad alluvial and glaciated valleys with
predominantly cobble substrate). Stream bank erosion is evident in the "s" bend west of
the bridge (see Photograph 3).
Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource influence
faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Fauna associated with the aquatic community include minnows* (Family Cyprinidae) and
red breasted sunfish* (Lepomis auritus). Caddis-flies* (Family Limnephilidae) were
observed. A great deal of algae was covering most of the rocks, indicating high levels of
nutrients, especially phosphorous and nitrogen.
A small wetland (approximately 230 square feet) was observed along the water's edge of
Hasty Creek outside the estimated construction limits of both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2. The wetland consists of a monoculture of needle rush (Juncus effusus), an
emergent aquatic plant. A hand auger test was attempted, but the auger was refused due
B-3834 12
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003

to the rocky conditions of the soil. This area may serve as habitat for small fish and
macroinvertebrates.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a. Biotic Communities
Calculated impacts to biotic resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation
of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to
these biotic communities resulting from Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Estimated
impacts are derived using the construction limits shown on the functional designs for
each alternative.
Table 2
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities

Community Alternative 1
Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest

(acres) 0.11 0.14
Maintained/Disturbed (acres) 0.48 0.53
Aquatic Community (acres) 0.01 0.01
Hasty Creek (linear feet) 63 70
Total acres 0.60 0.68
linear feet 63 70
As indicated in Table 2, the total area of impact for Alternative 2 is slightly greater than
for Alternative 1. Many of the impacts from Alternative 1 will be temporary since the
disturbed streambank vegetation will regenerate after the bridge is replaced. Impacts
from Alternative 2 will be permanent. Areas modified by construction, but not paved,
will become road shoulders and early successional or maintained/disturbed habitat.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 156 and its associated
improvements will temporarily reduce habitat for faunal species. However, due to the
size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
B-3834 13
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
..,
b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Both
alternatives will result in permanent impacts to the aquatic community as the stream
substrate will be removed to place the box culvert. Replacement will result in 0.01 acres
of aquatic community impacts (see Table 2). Impacts were obtained by measuring the
width over the water times the length of the culvert over the water.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank increase the likelihood of erosion
and sedimentation.
Minimization Techniques. Implementation of the NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) will minimize
construction-related sedimentation and erosion and will minimize the effects on terrestrial
and aquatic habitats through the use of erosion and sediment control structures that are
designed for the 25-year storm event.
c. Wetland Communities
No jurisdictional wetlands are present within the Project Study Area.
The small wetland present outside of the estimated construction limits of Alternative 1
and Alternative 2 (see Figure 4) will not be directly impacted by this project.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3 and
in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Waters of the United States are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
B-3834 14
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987). According to the three-
parameter approach outlined in the manual, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland. No jurisdictional wetlands are present within the Project Study Area.
Hasty Creek is a Jurisdictional Surface Water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 USC 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of Hasty
Creek were presented in the Water Resources Section (under the Natural Resources
portion) of this report. Approximately 63 linear feet of stream will be impacted by
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) and 70 linear feet will be impacted by Alternative 2
(see Table 2). The project cannot be constructed without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters.
2. Permits
a. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Permanent impacts to jurisdictional surface waters (Hasty Creek) are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit is required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States."
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a)),
which is a type of general permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved
Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes activities, work, and discharges
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all terms and conditions of
the particular permit.
b. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) is necessary for projects that require Section 404 Permits. If this
project qualifies under Nationwide Permit 23, the NCDWQ must be notified, however
written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required.
B-3834 15
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
c. Bridge Demolition and Removal
The bridge superstructure is composed of timber and steel. The bridge substructure is
composed of timber and concrete. Since the substructure is made of timber and concrete,
there is potential for some of this material to be dropped into Waters of the United States.
Permitting will be coordinated such that any permit needed for bridge construction will
address issues related to bridge demolition. If the bridge is to be removed in a fashion
such that there is a practical alternative to dropping bridge components into the water,
that alternative shall be followed. This project can be classified as Case 3, where there
are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters.
3. Avoidance
Bridge No. 156 will be replaced with a double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Hasty Creek; therefore, totally avoiding
surface water impacts is not a practical alternative.
4. Minimization
Best Management Practices will be used in an effort to minimize impacts. No
jurisdictional wetlands are present within the Project Study Area.
5. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which embraces
the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, including wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three
aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially. There are no wetland impacts associated with this project. Mitigation is not
expected for any alternative.
The USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States
total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands or 500 linear feet of perennial and intermittent
streams.
B-3834 16
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
The NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States
total more than 0.10 acre of wetlands and/or 150 linear feet of perennial streams.
A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the agencies noted
above.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Hasty Creek; therefore, totally avoiding
surface water impacts is not a practical alternative.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected be subject
to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
1. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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 (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Table 3 includes the federally protected species listed by the USFWS for Davidson
County as of October 31, 2003. A brief description of the species' characteristics and
habitat follows.
B-3834 17
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Table 3
Federally-Protected Species for Davidson County

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status Habitat in
Project Study
Area
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened No
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered No
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) No
Endangered species are in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of their
range.
Threatened species are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of their range.
On November 4, 1997, the northern population of bog turtles (from Maryland to New York) was
listed as threatened. The southern population was listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance
(T(S/A)). This listing bans collection, interstate and international commercial trade in bog turtles, but
it has no effect on private landowners.
Bald Eagle - (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight, bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in proximity to water with a clear flight path to the water. They
nest in the largest living tree in an area, with an open view of the surrounding land.
It is possible that eagles may occasionally fly over the project area. However, the lack of
appropriate feeding, roosting and perching habitat or suitable nesting habitat in the form
of large trees with a clear flight path to water is not present within the project vicinity.
Additionally, the NCNHP database has no record for the presence of the bald eagle
within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
B-3834 18
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Schweinitz's sunflower - (Helianthus schweinitzh) - Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Schweinitz's sunflower is a perennial with a pubescent stem and a head less than 1.4
inches broad. It is 3.3 - 6.5 feet tall, often with several flowering stems. The yellow
flowers bloom from September to frost, with rays 0.8 - 1.2 inches long. In September
through October, dark brown glabrous nutlets develop. These are rounded at the apex
and 0.12 - 0.13 inches long. The stiff pubescent leaves are the plant's most readily
identifiable indicator. The upper surface is rough, with broad-based spinose hairs
directed towards the leaf tip. The underside is densely covered with soft white hairs that
obscure the leaf surface.
The plant is generally found in upland areas, in wood fringes, thickets or pastures in
moist to fairly dry clay, clay-loam, or sandy clay-loam soil.
A population of Schweinitz's sunflower has been recorded in Davidson County.
However, a review of the NCNHP database revealed no records of this sunflower in or
near the Project Study Area. Additionally, the habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower is
not found in the Project Study Area. The soil type in the Project Area is not generally
favorable for Schweinitz's sunflower growth. The plants prefer moist to dry clay soils,
and the frequent flooding expected in a streambed and common to the Chewacla soils
would not be conducive to this plant. No plants were found during the site visit on April
12, 2001, or on September 18, 2001 when the plant would be in bloom. Project
construction will not affect the Schweinitz's sunflower.
Bog Turtle - (Clemmys muhlenbergu) - T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Table 3 lists the Federal Threatened Species due to Similarity of Appearance (T(S/A)).
These are species that are not Threatened or Endangered themselves, but are listed to
protect Threatened or Endangered species that may be difficult to differentiate. These
species are not subject to Section 7.
There is one Federal Threatened Species Due to Similarity of Appearance (T(S/A)), the
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergh), listed for Davidson County. Directed surveys for the
B-3834 19
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Bog turtle were not conducted during the site visits, nor was this specie observed. There is
no suitable habitat for this specie in the project vicinity. Project construction will not
affect the bog turtle.
2. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are three Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Davidson County. Federal
Species of Concem are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or
species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to
support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened.
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species state status
and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes, as the status of these species may be upgraded in the
future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visits, nor were any of these
species observed.
Table 4
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Davidson County
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat
Present
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SR Yes
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus T Yes
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri C No
C = Candidate species are very rare in North Carolina and/or throughout their range. inese are species
whose fate depends largely on their conservation in North Carolina. If present land trends continue,
candidate species are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened.
SR = Significantly Rare species are very rare in North Carolina. They are generally more common in
other parts of their range.
T = Threatened species are likely to become endangered through all or a portion of its range.
+ No specimen found in Davidson County in 50 years.
B-3834 20
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
All structures within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) were photographed, and later
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated
September 13, 2001 the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred there are no
historic architectural resources either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), in a letter dated May 30, 2001, stated that
they had "conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance, which would be affected by the
project." A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Summary. The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences. 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 implementation of current NCDOT standards and
specifications. On the basis of information included in this document, it is concluded that
no substantial adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
proj ect.
B-3834 21
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Land Use Planning. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of the
project.
Community Services and Facilities. No adverse effects on public facilities or services
are anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or
religious opportunities in the area.
Relocations. No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way
acquisition will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the
proposed alternative.
Utilities. Major existing utilities within the immediate project study area include a
sanitary sewer line and an overhead cable television line. All utility providers will be
contacted and coordinated with to ensure that the proposed design and construction of the
project will not disrupt service.
Section 4(f) Resources. 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. This project does not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any
land protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
Air Quality. This project is an air quality "neutral" project. Therefore, it is not required
to be included in the regional emission analysis and a project level carbon monoxide
analysis is not required.
The project is located in Davidson County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality (1990 CAAA and
NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
B-3834 22
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Noise. Because traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project and
there are no noise sensitive receptors located in the immediate area of this project, no
noise impacts attributable to this project are expected.
Noise levels can increase during construction, but this increase will be temporary. Heavy
construction equipment and blasting operations (if required) will generate noise and
vibration.
The NCDOT may also monitor construction noise and require abatement where limits are
exceeded.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise
(23 CFR Part 772) and no additional reports are required.
Hazardous Materials. A field reconnaissance survey was conducted in the vicinity of
the existing bridge. In addition to the field survey, a file search at the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, Groundwater Section and the NC Dept of Human Resources, Solid Waste
Management Section was conducted to identify any known problem sites along the
proposed project alignment. No underground storage tank facilities or hazardous waste
sites are known to be present in the Project Study Area.
Prime and Important Farmland. 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 United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). An assessment was completed
using Form AD 1006 to determine if the project's impact on Prime and Important
Farmland would require consideration of mitigation. A score higher than 160 on Form
AD 1006 indicates mitigation should be considered. This project was not submitted to
NRCS for land evaluation due to the low site assessment criteria score. The completed
form is included in the Appendix.
Floodplains. Hasty Creek is included in a detailed flood insurance study with regulatory
floodway established. The proposed replacement is not anticipated to increase the extent
of upstream flood hazard. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize harm to the floodplain. A copy of the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (see Figure 5) shows the approximate limits of the 100-year
floodplain in the vicinity of the project.
8-3834 23
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Geodetic Survey Markers. No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
Environmental Justice. In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a
review of the project was conducted to determine whether minority or low-income
populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the
project will not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations since
the project will not create any substantial adverse impacts.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Newsletters providing an overview of the project and an announcement of the Citizens
Informational Workshop were mailed to local officials and 63 residences and businesses
in the vicinity of Bridge Number 156.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on January 28, 2003 in the Ledford Middle
School cafeteria. The workshop was attended by five citizens.
IX. AGENCIES COORDINATION
Local, state, and federal agencies were contacted to provide technical assistance in
identifying the key issues and potential impacts associated with the proposed project with
scoping letters mailed on June 1, 2001.
Agency Comments
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are
included in the Appendix.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical
clearances provided by bridges allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does
not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters. "
B-3834 24
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
Response: The proposed culvert will be buried to allow fish passage. Human passage is
not required. The stream is too narrow and shallow for canoeists or boaters to use. This
stream crossing is located in a developed area. The double barrel culvert and the shallow
nature of the stream will allow for wildlife passage. The culvert will be less than 150
linear feet in length; therefore, mitigation is not expected for this project.
Comment:
"Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is required.
Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in
water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future maintenance. "
Response: No channel realignment or widening is expected with this project.
B-3834 25
Categorical Exclusion
December 2003
NORTH CAROLINA TIP NO.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION B-3834
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779
(PAYNE ROAD) BRIDGE N0.156
PROJECT TION
FIGURE I
OVER HASTY CREEK
6.- \/ " Quit Hwy dm - - --

.08
V AR 2:110
II' WHERE GUARDRAIL REQUIRED
/2'-0"
W?
.02 o P '02 na
6.•/
ADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1
-L- SR 1779
NORTH CAROLINA TIP NO.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION B-3834
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779
(PAYNE ROAD) BRIDGE N0.156
OVER HASTY CREEK
TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 2
t br •PCSta. 13-2.377
F f .y
DEPARTMENT CAROLINA 4 TIP NO.
ALTERNATIVE 1
TRANSPORTATION B-3834
OFF SITE DETOUR
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779
(PA Y11 tE ROAD) BRIDGE NO. 156
OVER HASTY CREEK FIGURE 3a
LEGEND
ammom Detour Route
* 8ridpe No. 156 ReplocemerM Project
r
NORTH CAROLINA TIP NO.
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION B-3834
DAVIDS011f COUNTY SR 1779
(PAY11lE ROAD) BRIDGE 1110.156
OVER HASTY CREEK

ALTERNATIVE I
OFFSITE DETOUR
ROUTE
FIGURE 3c

wr
/; ?•
14,
i
/
V;

//".XZ" -,r" .,Y, t LEGEND

Piedmont Low Mountain
Alluvial Foreet
Weiland
f Maintained Disturbed
l Stream
11iORTH CAROLINA TIP NO. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
??? AT OH 8-3834 FOR ALTERNATIVE 1
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779 (PREFERM ALTERAIFE)
(PAYNE ROAD) BRIDGE N0.156 FIGURE 4
OVER NASTY CREEK
MAIMSII RSM NgIMS1I ?M?Ir AMMQM DTI SCAM
eao o eao wr
FIRM
m Ummm WE W
DAVIDSON COUNTY
HOUR CAROLINA
AND MaPORATID ABU
NASSN4N
iR>!
¦S? Rra to Rs
..r.w

YIr INrEA
51111011111
[RlCIMt ?'
fMlIOEw T, SIM
?.... r....,..... N
NORTH CAROLINA TIP NO.
DEPARTMENT OF FEMA FLOOD
TRANSPORTATION 8-3834 AMP
DAVIDSON COUNTY SR 1779
(PAYNE ROAD) BRIDGE N0.156. FIGURE 5
OVER HASTY CREEK
.. p' ? t I Ir r" r'!'t?????bs'-? rk ° '?>???,'?'j?L??Pii ???s?i° p{i?•?`'??J e,
.. J i'? 4 ?rIY v Ct S + € ? n
ilk.
a" t a a, .
rr.
t 4;7
. ? ? •t1y7'ry?t- '1f i }
rye., s
5 e F>r d? ?th,? y + r
t S o r s ?41?'?. 'S ? *k]y ? 7iNt" c ? ?`'kY.•
i 1V v + L k? y ?? `FFV? i o?ti 3 '.
ay3 f!'t?a 1' ? ?,? 5' 1 I:nfC 1 '. ?r?.
"e r7 1 _ 4
4 r,:+
APPENDIX
1.
l yy.
+ a n+p 11 Y tkt ?ly
? ?M +????a y r YN \ 4 ill.
[ 'far K, ., a ,,}n?l.?..u a ?p ? u ?' ? ,tSh +,+?JW7-?Aa{Y n A ` ?
n* i tyt4y
_. ? r` r :??j j. .. ? r r t `r,;'ai ?y? ,S?y tiJ• f.
Jar " r ? : ? ek ? v5. s t n 1-lr d1s?W? { °a A?' ? r o A??`v. ?t
.'S. Y,r4Y l.Y r 'nY.°i 'G P{ , t H• rtJ
' c "r1w?y. ?a•i?k r ? rp t??f ?' 4? x,, nN
} yY Y
r, a41 ?j ?r1' kr+y? ! !1'
_ _ r+ ? '' ?. x Y i?'_t? Y ?ti X -{? r t .x 5?' ?',y J. ? Ijh t• G?r'y i
?t r?L ? aT r?gw„ ar?,^?'? !SV.. n.; d•r ? N'.
_ ' _r '?':+ r'?{ pv v F Lh f x?? X = r? V ?0 S?1* ?1
T r ? ,
r ? t
3 F
- k ii"?1? ?rh?F?M* ? •"'? / Ali t`?f?M 'S. 9 , S,Y!'x . t. 1Lr TSS ;?'?
t' K S a i
[SIP 3?'? Y t? 1y 1y'n`h
Jill. M
i
?or,wl'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
May 30, 2001
Suzanna Spence
PBS&J
3214 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC 27616
Re: B-3834, Davidson County, ER 01-9489
Dear Ms. Spence:
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 2001, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic,
or archaeological significance, which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no
comment on the project as currently proposed.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
LJLSL., )??" -
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 [phone].715-4801
Federal Aid # Bht,-1779(2) TIP # B-3834 County: Davidson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 156 on SR 1779 over Hanks Creek
On 9/13/01, representatives of the
LJ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Q.-" North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
? Other
Reviewed the subject project at
? 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 effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property identified as ( ist-M eebed) is
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary. e. I
EY" There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
OVII, All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
a/,," There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed
Signed:
Q
Representative,
x-13.0
Date

v
A, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev. 1-91)
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request Sheet 1 of 1
1. Name of Project 8-3834 5. Federal Agency Involved
Federal Hi. hwav Administration
2. Type of Project Bridge Replacement 6. County and State Davidson, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1. Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form
3. Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES ? No ? 4. Acres Irrigated Average arm Size
5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction
Acres: % 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in PPA
Acres: %
8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
Alternative Corridor For Segment
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services
C. Total Acres In Corridor 0 0 0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be oomp/eted by NRCS) Land Evdbo bn kftmudon Cl1brion Reitzfive
value of Fa?mland to Be SwWced or Converted Scab of 0 -100 Pointe
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained In 7 CFR 658 3(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 0
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 0
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 0
7. Availablili Of Farm Support Services 5 S
8. On-Farm Investments 20 0
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0
10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 30 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Corridor Assessment (From Part A above or a local site
assessment)
160
30
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 30 0 0 0
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project: 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES ? NO ?
5. Reason For Selection:
Signature o Person Completing this art: DATE
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Ron Elmore
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program A,.d a
00
DATE: June 27, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Cherokee,
Davidson, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos.
B4033, B-3814, B-3818, B-3826, B-3834, B-4095, B-3854, B-3859, B-3860, and
B-4184
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U. S. C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the strewn and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Wet concrete should not be allowed to contact stream water. This will lessen the
chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed

Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1 73 1
(0101 '711
' Bridge Memo 2 June 27, 2001
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
stream underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the.option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.

' Bridge Memo
3
June 27, 2001
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must, be designed to allow for fish passage. The culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed. The installation of the
culvert or pipe should insure that all waters flow without freefalling or damming on
either end during low flow conditions. If culverts are long, notched baffles should be
placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot intervals to allow for the
collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow velocities, and to provide resting
places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving through the structure.
2. When two pipes are installed, only the lower pipe should be buried 12" into the
substrate so that all base flows continue uninterrupted in the lower pipe during normal
and low flow conditions to maintain aquatic life passage. The bottom of the second
pipe should be placed at grade or at bankfull elevation. The second pipe should
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. Where disrupted,
natural floodplain benching should be restored upstream and downstream of the
second, "dry", pipe.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the streambed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4033 - Buncombe County - Bridge No. 85 over Hominy Creek We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3814 - Burke County - Bridge No. 56 over Canoe Creek. Canoe Creek at the bridge
replacement is in a designated water supply watershed. NCDOT should adhere to strict
erosion control measures.
3. B-3818 - Caldwell County - Bridge No. 3 over Lost Cove Creek. First class trout waters
with wild populations of brown and rainbow trout present in both Lost Cove Creek and
downstream in Wilson Creek. The area is designated Public Mountain Trout Water. We will
require a trout moratorium from Oct. 15a` - April 15''. We request that High Quality
A T
I
' Bridge Memo 4 June 27, 2001
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality
classification of ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters).
4. B-3826 - Cherokee County - Bridge No. 166 over Bates Creek. The upper portion of Bates
Creek is on gamelands and is designated wild trout. Trout are also likely below the bridge
replacement. We will require a trout moratorium from Oct. 15`h - April 15th . NCDOT should
adhere to strict erosion control measures.
5. B-3834 - Davidson County - Bridge No. 156 over Hanks Creek. No comment.
6. B-4095 - Davidson County - Bridge No. 130 over Abbotts Creek This Creek flows into
High Rock Lake. Abbott Creek supports a diverse fishery including Largemouth bass,
redbreast sunfish, bluegill, channel catfish, and crappie. White Bass make a seasonal spring
run up the creek to spawn. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control
Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-III CA
7. B-3854 - Haywood County - Bridge No. 329 over Jonathon Creek. Jonathon Creek is
designated hatchery supported water. Therefore, Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout will be
present. We will require a trout moratorium from Oct. 15I' - April 15a'. NCDOT should
adhere to strict erosion control measures.
8. B-3859 -Jackson County -Bridge No. 138 over Pressley Creek. The upper section of a
tributary to Pressley Creek is on game lands and supports wild trout. The lower end of
Presley also supports wild trout. Hatchery supported water begins at the confluence with
Cullowhee Creek. It looks like this bridge is actually over Tilley Creek Tilley Creek is
considered trout waters. We will require a trout moratorium from Oct. 15* - April 15a'.
NCDOT should adhere to strict erosion control measures.
9. 3-3860 - Jackson County - Bridge No. 33 over Buff Creek. Upper sections of the creek
support wild trout. The lower section is designated Hatchery Supported. We will require a
trout moratorium from Oct. 15 - April 15th. NCDOT should adhere to strict erosion control
measures.
10. B-4184 - Madison County -. Bridge No. 4 over Ivy River. We have no specific comments.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
We request that NCDOT 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 most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
N you need finther assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Pbt-11-
moo DO ^ I PROGRAM
December 15, 2004 ??U V
o ?D
?( Q 3 j004
Mr. Eric Alsme er DM.
US Army Corps of Engineers fts% ?lTY
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3834, Bridge 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779, Davidson
County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040103); Central
Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 86 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; however, EEP intends to provide stream
compensatory mitigation at a ratio up to 2:1 in Cataloging Unit 03040103 of the Yadkin
River Basin
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at [phone].
Sincerely, rr,,
rr` tc,
i1`
.744,
Wi ram D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3834
® w
DEER
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
Ecos P't **--
stem
PROGRAM
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
December 15, 2004
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
moo z
B-3834, Bridge 156 over Hanks Creek, Davidson County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated November 23, 2004, the impacts are located
in CU 03040103 of the Yadkin River Basin in the Central Piedmont (CP) Eco-Region,
and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 86 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the
Memorandum of Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the
subject project will be provided in accordance with this agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
- r,\-? ?. L.'c * 11
Wi am D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
ivz C& ('4'L, L'
cc: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE-Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3834
Ain
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1651 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
FAWNW191
NOV 2 4 2004

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
November 23, 2004
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
yyEngNpS AND ST EORMWAfER BRANCH
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Dear Sir:
Subject: Davidson County. Replacement of Bridge No. 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779,
NCDOT Division 9. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1779(2), State Project No.
82604501, WBS No. 33282.1.1, TIP Project No. B-3834.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that the EEP is willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR, and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes that Bridge No. 156 be replaced with
a new double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. Each barrel of the box culvert will be
approximately 65 feet in length.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. In the future, a copy of the permit application can
be found at http //www nedot org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. The remaining
impacts to jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP.
We estimate that 86 linear feet of jurisdictional perennial stream will be impacted.
Hasty Creek is a class C stream located in: Wilkes County, sub-basin 07 of the Yadkin, Pee-Dee
River basin (03-07-07), and Hydrological Cataloguing Unit No. 03040103.
• The stream impacts will be to a warm, second order, perennial stream. NCDOT proposes to
mitigate for the stream impacts by using the EEP for the 86 feet of impacts.

• There are no wetland impacts associated with this project.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, (6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615). Mr. Alsmeyer's FAX number is [phone]. The current let date for the
project is August 16, 2005 for which the let review date is July 5, 2005.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed, the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT requests such a letter of confirmation be addressed to Mr.
John Hennessy of NCDWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Megan Willis at 919-715-
1341.
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Mr. Brian Wren, DWQ
Mr. Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
Ms. Laurie Smith, CPA, NCDOT
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
1-1-17-"04 11:49 FFOM-DENS EEP 91971521001 T-1'_,5 P035 11-391
f
`v-
,os se_m
PROGRAM
December 15, 2004
Mr, Eric Alsmeyer
US Atnny Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter-

B-3834, Bridge 156 over Hanks Creek on SR 1779, Davidson
County; Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040103); Central
Piedmont Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) will provide mitigation for the 86 feet of unavoidable stream impact
associated with the above referenced project.
The subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S, Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003; however, EEP intends to provide stream
compensatory mitigation at a ratio up to 2:1 in Cataloging Unit 03040103 of the Yadkin
River Basin
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Hannon at [phone].
Sincerely, _
l?-
Wi k ? D. Gilmore, P.E. )
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NC'DOT
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3834
ACA
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service (enter, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-115-0476 / www.ticeep.net
DEC-17-21004 FRI 11:20 TEL:[phone] HAME:Dl•.1n-WETLANDS P