20001104 Ver 1_Complete File_20000821

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment MONAA
19 4
and Natural Resources
•
Division of Water Quality
T
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
September 6, 2000
Mr. Bill Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation •4011SSUED"
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
Re: Permit Application for the construction of Bridge No. 47 over Back Creek on SR 1420 in Randolph
County
DWQ No. 00104; T.I.P. No. B-3224, Federal Aid No. BRZ-420(2), State Project No. 8.2571801.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Division of Water Quality has reviewed your submittal for a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
aforementioned project. Review of your application revealed it lacking necessary information required for
making an informed permit decision. The permit application was deficient in the following areas:
The bridge design does not indicate any mechanism for the collection and removal of hazardous substances
in the event of a spill. Given that the bridge is located in the Critical Area for a drinking water supply, the
project will require the design and installation of a hazardous spill catch basin. Moreover, a closed system
designed to collect hazardous substances and deliver them to the hazardous spill catch basin shall be
designed and installed on the bridge.
Therefore, pursuant to 15A NCAC 2h .0507(a)(5), we will have to place the permit application on hold
until we are supplied the necessary information. Moreover, unless the permit application is modified, we
will have to prepare a Public Notice for an Individual Certification for the referenced project. Furthermore,
until the information is received by the NC Division of Water Quality, we request (by copy of this letter)
that the US Army Corps of Engineers place the permit application on hold.
Hopefully, we can work together to expedite the processing of your permit application. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact John Hennessy at 919-733-5694.
Sincerely,
JJhn R. orne
er Quality ification Program
cc: Jennifer Frye, DWQ Regional Office
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3224\correspondence\00I 104hId.doc

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501,'o recyclcd/10'7o post consumer paper

.
STATE.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.IAW"s B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 14, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric C. Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
A
b01 10 4
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
i
CgP?T';r' ??I
Subject: Randolph County, Bridge No. 47 over Back Creek on SR 1420, TIP No.
B-3224, State Project No. 8.257180 1, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1420(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning documents for the
subject project. This project consists of a bridge replacement at the existing location,
with traffic detoured onto existing roads nearby. The existing cross section of the bridge
is 6.1 m (20.1 ft) wide. The existing structure type is a timber deck on timber joists. The
proposed cross section of the replacement bridge is 7.3 m (24 ft) wide. The proposed
structure type is a prestressed cored slab bridge. The existing bridge is composed entirely
of timber and will result in no temporary fill due to bridge demolition debris. This
project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions beyond those
outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. No wetlands will be
disturbed by the project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Programmatic Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
November 22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
To construct the proposed center pier, a temporary causeway must be employed.
The amount of temporary fill in surface waters will be approximately 0.014 ac. The fill
will be composed of Class II Rip Rap (1.5:1).
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: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
The NCDOT requests that you review this work for authorization under
Nationwide Permit No. 23 and Nationwide Permit No. 33. It is anticipated that 401
General Certification No. 3107 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) and General
Certification No. 3114 (Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering) will apply to
this project, and the attached information is being provided to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Matt
Haney at [phone] ext. 333.
Sincerely,
P -4-
b William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
U Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. N.L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, PD&EA

VICINITY MAP
_ t- In, I
1 ?
187 7 s 1 .-
-1 1 5 • =^-F(^` r' _ - heboro
1 -,3? 2416 '?.,,? ??
/ __ ? ? . ? - - ? x•`11;,/-,?;
1 ASH O RO
?' • 1418 _? ._ •
.18,226
PROJECT / J
B-3224 .
r..,"
141, 1420
I , I
' 1374
1326
1 N ASHEBORO WEST
138 (UNINC.)
1 321 ! POP. 1,491
1 3E?2 -? I ?. Q
1360
11319 ---- --
1361 \
sr . l
V/

1
I
I?
I
I
I
>- I
a
3 I?
?
< I
cn I

a d ?
U ? ?
° - 1
vwi N 1
CD ,
a
C-) 1
(r U

a_
1
v?
1
1?lo\\"?-
N
gyp- I o _- ??-T:.
I' o
X i
I
I
I
X
I
IN
I?
Ioz?
V)
1
I
I
._I
r=1
`?
4
7
ji- LL-
43 o
1 ?-
+
A
4
Q
I
A
F
? x
F p
A
0. ?
W
Q
U Q
z
ov
Iti
I ?
1`ti? cn
0
°I
cc:
w I t
c4i
co
W
A
T CD
A ? W
U ? ? U
CxL o0 '? ?
A
A U
? p W
0
O
0
r?
P-
,°r,
w
F
3
? w
U
ao,
w ]
F N
H
o .a
w a
A w
i
l a
I 9 ? ?
W cv
I F >" ?, C
® 3 7 e ?
CA Q
I C7 ® a°o W
7 c?
I U N U
I E~ W °c 7 a4
a I z ® ..5 F; U
O co j l ® z A v Q ?"
I ® w cc
- m I i c a W a M
Lll w a Q> p Q F,
'- I j? v A w
co w
U I I Uf. 7
m I -Lq
LLJ LJ L/) P
V) V)
C) CD I ? b o'-)
LJ
CL J
LJ W
a m
o o x F
V LJ Q }
O + Lq x 3
LO °M?O I a w
N a Q' p U
v -
a
(Y) ?Lnww w z
T N Cj' LJ Ln
---- - - ---- F z ?
Z .? U
I! A u, W
M 32
OM"'!
CY)
T
I I x ?
I
I I °
V .
I
? N
co
O Q
LO N
+ I I O
C7 _I
N QLJ
T
O -
?t (DI co O c
co r- (D CD
III ?i Nt IQ-

0
v
M

W U
Z
O

m
N U Z
2 7
W O ro
O
x
a
O O
-
i
O
F
n
° U
° Q O
v
U 2
Z LL
O

c
H
W
w
X
N

q c
IL

LL a

.6 ,N
V) W

0
W p N ?
LL N
7
fL

J
J d
c U
? m
LL N

w c 0
p c ..
C L
a
m ? °
c r
m
? L
? U

rn m ?
c c 0
N ? a?
V w U E

a v v
? LL,
N 0
0 0
0
? ?
a
W E c
F- d -

0
w
U
LL
? O m

a
O

N ?
m
Z

G L ? L (9

~
(n
Q
c ? o

m
U ? ? w m
U
Ca Z W c
G ? ti O
= a
3
U
m
E m
m?
F' c
y

C C
0

U
_ co
LL >N

N 7
N
X
j
N O
O_

? C7

CD
O t
EO O
? LL

_l
? O Q
F-
? z O
0
?
H
? w+
001104
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. 13-3224
State Project No. 8.2571801
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1420(; )
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 47 on SR 1420 over Back Creek
in Randolph County. The existing structure will be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will be two
3.3 meter (1 1 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (1 1 foot) lanes with 1.8 meter
(6 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will
be approximately 1 13 meters (370 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1416,
SR 1418, and US 64 during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 47 has a sufficiency rating of 13.5 out of 100. The structure is a
two lane bridge with 5.9 meters (19.2 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design
standards specify a bridge width of 8.6 meters (28 feet). The bridge is posted with a
weight restriction of 10 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for TTST's. The "Do-
nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical. For these reasons, Bridge No. 47 needs to
be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvementso
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(311 and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
low i
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
2
x,97
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Construction of the new bridge and approaches will be contained within
existing Right of Way. If final design plans require additional Right of Way, further
3
TV,.

archaeological investigations will be conducted to determine the project's effect on
archaeological resources.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 350,000
Right of Way $ _ 30,000
Total $ 380,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 700 VPD
Year 2018 - 1,200 VPD
TTST - 1 %
DUAL - 3 %
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1.0 meter (3 feet) on the bridge
1.8 meters (6 feet) on the approaches
Design Speed:
65 km/h (40 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 8 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists Qnly of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
4
.,-w
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on an,,
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? h
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures ---"
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely --
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters
(HQ W)? - -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
X
X
X
5
!r .
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL. AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
YES NO
N/A
X
X
X
X
YES NO
X
X
X
X
6

(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control'? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land -
use of any adjacent property'? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? - - --
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the --
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action. X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
7

(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in --
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined x
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a river designated as a component of or proposed for _ X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? J
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part Not Applicable

8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3224
State Project No. 8.2571801
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1420(2)
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 47 on SR 1420 over Back Creek
in Randolph County. The existing structure will be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 27 meters (90 feet) in length at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will be two
3.3 meter (1 1 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.3 meter (1 1 foot) lanes with 1.8 meter
(6 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The project length will
be approximately 113 meters (370 feet). Traffic will be detoured along SR 1416,
SR 1418, and US 64 during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
X_ TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Droved
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/-/Z-9':? _ a- - , c-_7-/, a
Date Project anning Unit He d
Date Pr Pl j&i Enginee
9
1712/
150,
l I
7 6
y 3137
-a s Mit
.; \ v Z a
Qom`;, > N
M?NA. ? 004
r
PR Fp ti 1519 .3
1414 .9 _
141 3 IV- '.4 b
?• '?. ?•"
co ti 1520
1877
1735 b
.? 1415 -, ' QP 0 r 1004 1518 `~.' 1411 0' ? Asheboro Q? 1 "1 L 220(
1410 ?A 1413 2 3 \1416 r
7 0 >c
64 1416'\• t 1420 m
1411 , ?
'c9P 6 ` 3136
Q, w
?0 6 M 1417 1418 AS
1318 6 , i•'' i
1 330 •2 4 1419 142
`¢ `.j r .6 ?. • 1422 ?;:.' '• ?
1328 1-3
=
1331 Cree,
1318
1329 1326 ASHEBORO WEST
3 •? 1327 Q
1365 1 (UNINC.)
1347 / \ t5 .6 1326 F POP. 1,491
Ir
` b
1 ;' 1349 ?P G i•.
q
1
r? - cAt1a _ ?- 64 ,
~
y
° Gtonas i ov cs, ° , V I 21 1322 a °' F
FAS / i 4 e:,
° y s jztu/ 2 e«t b 1193
\ atom. 501363 /
Soon, Gays cn.oot' Q
tt sta. ? - 1160 \.&)
I °' ? tfaar ir.ad?mnn 1° L .1 3 ^ G
all Romo.ur 12 107
a ? ? I Ashehor 5 -.1160 Fum« - iZ:71 ? ?j
'on \ y Io . I? co1«il
.n., "UwAARR1E z , Studied Detour Route
Y1n'r?j Whyrtgt

North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUN'T'Y
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 47 ON SR 1320
OVER BACK CREEK
B-3224
i I:ilometers .04 kilometers 0.8
Figure 1
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
V

4;_

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 5, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1420(2), Archaeological
Study, Replacement of Bridge 47 on SR 1420 over
Back Creek, Randolph County, State Project No.
8.2571801, TIP B-3224, ER 97-7274, ER 98-8092
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of November 24, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth Robinson, Brian D. Smith, and John J. Mintz of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following property is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion D:
31RD1190"'
The site is unlikely to yield important information due to its lack of integrity and fragmented
nature.
Archaeological site 31RD1189 was also located during the survey, but it is outside the area
of potential effect for the project and will not be affected.
In general, the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior. We do not recommend any additional archaeological investigations in connection
with this project as currently planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Zrav`id__Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. Nor,h Carolina 37601.3307 ????

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Beay Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 10, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 47 on SR 1420 over Back Creek,
Randolph County, B-3224, ER 97-7274
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 27, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for_this project.
Archaeological site 31 RD503 is an Archaic period site near the existing bridge. We
recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted of the proposed project
area. Deep testing of the affected floodplain area of Back Creek should be
conducted as part of this survey. If site 31 RD503 will be affected by the proposed
replacement, testing will be necessary to determine its eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 13 ?(?
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Si erely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Arr
`s t 3 A s:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 60x25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
24 February 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
j1
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 47 on SR 1420 over Back
Creek. Randolph County; TIP No. B-3224; State Project
No. 8.2571801; Federal Project No. BRZ-1420(2).
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Unit
This report is to assist in the preparation of a Type II Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project. This report contains information regarding
water resources, biotic resources, waters of the United States, permit requirements and
federally protected species within the study area.
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 47 at existing
location, with traffic detoured on existing roads during construction (Figure 1). The
existing cross section for Bridge No. 47 is a 6.1 m (20.1 ft) wide bridge. This structure
will be replaced with a bridge 27.4 m (90 ft) long and 8.5 m (28 ft) wide at existing
roadway elevation. The existing right-of-way (ROW) for this project is 18 m (60 ft) and
the proposed ROW is 24 m (80 ft). Project length is 91 m (300 ft).
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area
was obtained and reviewed. Information sources include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Farmer), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map, NCDOT
aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200), Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), formerly known as Soil Conservation Service, general soil maps
(Randolph County, 1973), N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Randolph County (1995), U.S. Fish and Wildlife

?2.7 1504 6 3137
l-_ Y L V z `c
1004 i~
pRP? P? ?Pr' ?? 1519 .3
1414-" •9
r•
1413 4
1520 1877 5 ?I
i 1735 P 1518 = _1
b •17 1415 .?? O1004
.or Cl? 1411 Asheboro
1410 A 1413
7 s V O .2 3 1416 O>c
64 4410' t 1420 m T
1411 1
FqP 6 N 3136 ry a w i
Q a1.2 z ?.1
Q FAS r.•:
Cl) t:.
1417 1418
.9 tGOy
1318 6 • ?..
I ?? •.
1330 •2 •4 ti 9y? 14

T 9
>1 I
1220(
i
.6 F 14z2 C- ??`
1328 Q
1331 y Creel 9 ` _:;:• a
i . ...
1 318 1329 1326 ASHEBORO WEST
3 ,? • 1327 (UNNC.)
1365 1 ` /
.6 r-
N 1347 %,? 71349 1326 q ?qP POP, 6491 `N
i ?a ,! ?S
m
,h ,
t
4d.
IrR
I a
( F.,1
1
r \? 1
x (r
Mount
Cot*na r
'I.
1
lot
21 1322 FAS ,i .
b 1 19 3 4
i/?i
?G 1 ?
501363 Q
v 1 160 49 \ Al
Z ?
12102
i1 ST 14 60
.2 7
236 10
J
North Carolina
r `•
_ Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 47 ON SR 1420
OVER BACK CREEK
B-3224
Q kilometers .04 kilometers 0.8
-1 Figure 1
0 mild 0.25 miles 0.5

Service (FWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
A field investigation was conducted on 12 February 1997 by NCDOT biologist
Matt Smith to assess natural resources at the project site. Water resources were
identified and described. Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife populations
were predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments.
Water Resources
The project study area lies within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Drainage Basin.
One water body is crossed by the proposed project, Back Creek [DEM Index no. 13-2-
3-3-(1.5), 8/3/921. Back Creek is 12 m (40 ft) wide as it flows through the study area,
with steep banks and a well-developed riparian canopy. The substrate is composed
primarily of sand and gravel with bedrock exposed in some areas. Sand bars and drift
piles are common in the stream course and add habitat diversity to the infrequent pools
and riffle zones. This stream exhibits generally low flow and has a uniform depth of 0.6
m (2 ft). High water clarity and low turbidity were observed during the site visit.
Back Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the Division of
Water Quality,(DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which
denotes water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usage
classification for Back Creek is C. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macro invertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and
assigned a taxa richness value. Samples are also assigned a bioclassification that
summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. Data recorded from sites
located on Back Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project can be found in table 1.
Table 1. BMAN data.
Sample Date Distance from Taxa Bioclassification
Location project km (mi)w Richness'
- SR 1327 2/89 0.04 (0.75) ds 21 good-fair
SR 1504 2/90 1.6 (1.0) us 21 good-fair
SR 1512 2/90 2.4 (1.5) us 17 good-fair
Note:
• EPT values are ranked such that a value <6 is poor and >21 is good (the
scale changes for each physiographic province).
• ' "ds" denotes downstream and "us" denotes upstream.
3
The bioclassification and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of
chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as
sediment.
Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential
sources of impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading,
vegetation removal, pavement installation, and increased construction related vehicular
traffic. These activities can result in increased sediment loads and the runoff of toxic
substances such as fuel, oil, and tar into lakes and streams. Impacts are best
minimized by limiting earth removal activities and implementing NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project, where applicable.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communities in the study area are described as Disturbed and
Floodplain Alluvial Forest. These communities are well-defined and there is little
overlap of flora between the communities. The faunal component of this community is
dominated by species found in the forested community that forage in the disturbed
community.
Disturbed Community
This community is composed of the fill slopes and approaches for the existing
bridge and portions of the floo.dplain that are maintained in an early successional state
surrounding the bridge. The roadsides are maintained on a regular basis and
dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolate), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), and wild onion (Allium canadense). Other portions of this
community appear to maintained much less frequently and therefore, have a higher
diversity of species. In addition to species found on the roadsides this portion of the
community also supports privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), goldenrod
(Solidago spp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), dayflower (Commelina communis), and
knotweed (Polygonium sp. ).
This community provides foraging opportunities for permanent residents of the
forested communities in the project vicinity. Foraging opportunities exist for species
which feed on seeds, insects, and carrion. Larger predators which commonly feed on
smaller organisms all also known to take advantage of the foraging opportunities that
exist in this community. Various grasshoppers (Orthoptera), butterflies and moths
(Lepidoptera), and bees (Coleoptera) feed on the flora found in this community.

Vertebrates, such as white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)`, song sparrow
(Melospiza melodic)", and slate colored junco (Junco hyemalis) will also feed on the
flora in this community. The invertebrates and small vertebrates that forage in this
community serve as a prey base for carnivorous and omnivorous vertebrates.
Predators known to utilize disturbed habitats include: five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhychos)*, evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
Floodplain Alluvial Forest
A Floodplain Alluvial Forest is located on the banks of Back Creek and is well-
developed in portions of the study area that have not been cleared. The canopy is
composed of : sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracif/ua),
swamp red oak (Quercus shumardii), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The
understory is composed of tag alder (Alnus serrulata), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
American holly (Ilex opaca), and privet. A diverse herb layer includes species such as.
wild onion, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicondendron
radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and cranefly orchid (Tipularia
discolor).
Habitats found within this community support a highly diverse association of
fauna. Raptors such as red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and barred owl (Strix
varia) roost in the canopy and hunt in the adjacent communities. Northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), and various mice (Peromyscus spp.) can been heard
searching in the leaf litter for worms and insect larvae. Avian species such as Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis)* and white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) are
frequent visitors in the dense understory. Larger vertebrates such as muskrat
(Ondantra zibethicus) and many of the species that forage in the disturbed community
seek shelter in this and other forested communities.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Table 2 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are
derived based on the project length 91 m (300 ft), and the entire proposed right-of-way
width of 24 m (80 ft). However, project construction often does not require the entire
right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
I-)
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities
Community Impacted Area
ha (ac)
Disturbed Community 0.05 (0.12)
Floodplain Alluvial Forest 0.07 (0.17)
Total Impacts: 0.12 (0.29)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will have a
minimal impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Construction will impact the
disturbed community and the edge of the floodplain alluvial forest community which is
already altered from its natural state. Plants and animals found in this community are
generally common throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in
disturbed areas. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should
repopulate areas of suitable habitat following project completion. Narrow zones along
the edge of the forested community may be impacted by project construction, which
would reduce the amount of suitable habitat available for interior species and
increasing opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become too small in area,
interior species will not repopulate.
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While,
mortality among migratory species can be expected from project construction, these
effects are anticipated to be minor since, the existing roadway already serves as an
effective barrier against wildlife migration.
In order to minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity it is
recommended that all cleared areas along roadways and embankments be revegetated
immediately following project completion.
Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community
composition and structure.
Back Creek provides a high diversity of habitats as it flows through the study
area. Habitats include shallow riffle zones, rocky pools, sand bars, and fallen debris
piles. Rocky riffle zones are home to northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus) and two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata). Deeper riffle zones and pools
provide habitat for piscine species such as, pumpkin seed (Lepomis gibbosus),
redbreast sunfish (L. auritus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), and rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides). Reptiles are
also likely to be present in this community and include musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus) and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Shells of freshwater mussels
(Elliptio spp.) and Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) were observed on sand bars in the
6
stream channel. Many of the species found in the adjacent terrestrial communities are
likely to be found utilizing habitats in the aquatic communities.
Aquatic Community Impacts
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities
will occur from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat.
Sedimentation covers benthic organisms and filter feeders, inhibiting their ability to
feed and obtain oxygen. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates in the
water column can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light
penetration in the water column, reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations in water
temperature. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation
may also increase water temperatures.
In order to minimize impacts to aqautic communities in the project area it is
recommended that instream activities be kept at .a minimum.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in section 33 of the code of Federal Register
(CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, also defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to
place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C 1344.
No jurisdictional wetlands are located in the study area for the proposed project.
Permit Requirements
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(x) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge 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,
and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
7
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
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 of 1973, as
amended. Two federally protected species are listed for Randolph County by the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) as of 23 August 1996 (Table 3). A brief description of
these species and habitat requirements follow.
Table 3: Federally protected species for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Note:
*"Endangered" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 26 September 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The
strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population is
located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow that rarely exceeds
5 cm in length. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs
along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The
upper lip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along its margin. It is easily
distinguished from other similar species by having an elongated digestive tract to
accommodate its diet of plant material.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
associated with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater,
among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools.
8
The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other
periphytes. Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal material. No
information is presently available on the breeding, fecundity, or longevity of the Cape
Fear shiner.
Biological conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project is located in the Yadkin Pee-Dee Drainage Basin and the
above species is endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin. Rivers outside of the Cape
Fear River Basin do not provide suitable habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner. A search of
the NHP database shows no records of the Cape Fear shiner from the project vicinity.
Therefore, the construction of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to the
Cape Fear Shiner.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) ,Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 6 June 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
This sunflower is found only in the piedmont of North and South Carolina.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows from 1-2 m
tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and
only branch above mid-stem. The narrowly lanceolate opposite leaves are greater than
18 cm long and greater than 2.5 cm wide. The leaves are rough textured above and
resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves are opposite on the lower
part of the stem and usually become alternate on the upper stem. The 5.5 cm broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and
arranged in an open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-
black achene approximately 5 mm long. Based on its similar morphology to H,.
laevigatus and H. microcephalus it is difficult to positively identify this species prior to
flowering.
Schweinitz's sunflower grows best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and
along the edges of open stands of oak-pine- hickory upland woods. Common soils that
this species is found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams, often
with a high gravel content and always moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large
herbivores are considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for
these sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing, controlled burning, and
logging help maintain its open habitat.
Biological conclusion: No Effect
9
The proposed project is located in the floodplain of Back Creek. No open habitat
that occurs on dry rocky soils is present in the study area. A search of the NHP
database shows no populations of Schweinitz's sunflower as occuring in the project
vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to Scweinitz's sunflower are anticipated from project
construction.
cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3224