20021109 Ver 1_Complete File_20020711

?. ,
r 2316. / ?---
21 -4 p
1 w 2143
i • "'' '. r','`2312 ' _. I I ', - °j? 4 °
t2261
2311
I
orr s P? ?n R4,?tQ Ile
jr - B-3505
2233 INrti. /'(i/ r 2128 P "" y
r,
eUS " 48 2148 1,61 2145 <r
w .... _.,
Cedar Falb c ;
2215 yi
2218 t
trr 01.:^ i 2144'•
2152 6 `, v § u
2157 ASHEBOR
?21b3r cc f >oy,2267
O POP. 18,226, ,
21665
2255- 1M
211 4 G
y?,.. X171-
21160 Ita'61
117-0d -T'w?
aM?28??5?/?cR,1
6168
-2103
252 Z1n67 7+` f 215 p' t 221"?
E Bailey St 2164 1600 2185 2216
fir, N :t ? X2254/ M' . ... - 77]
?. R A N
16 64
a
r
I
f Fa lm
Isrt
AT
so
4 c e Fes- 98
Mount V
Cole.??t
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 434 ON SR 2261
OVER THE DEEP RIVER
B-3505
4 kilometers 046 kilometers 1•g
0 miles D,b miles 1,?
0

In °
4
o a e
0
0
e
D
0
0
0
0
0
? v
Q a
o G
4 O
o
v
0
64S',.--9A11
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 12, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890 0 2110 9
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
Regulatory Specialist
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 over the Deep River, in Randolph;
NCDOT Division 8. Federal Project No. BRSTP-2261(1), State
Project No. 8.2572201; T.I.P. No. B-3505.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 434 on SR 2261 over the Deep River [DWQ Index # 17-(4)]. Bridge No. 434 will be
replaced with a new bridge on new alignment approximately 37 feet upstream of the
existing structure. The new structure will be approximately 370 feet in length and 30 feet
wide. The bridge deck will include 12-foot lanes and 3-foot offsets. The existing
structure and approaches will continue to maintain traffic on-site during the construction
period.
Waters of the United States
Bridge No. 434 is a seven-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
steel I-beams in the approach spans and a reinforced concrete deck. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete spill through end bents and reinforced concrete post and
beam interior bents with reinforced concrete post and web interior bents supporting the
main span. NCDOT does not plan to drop any material from the bridge demolition.
However, should there be an unplanned event, the resulting temporary fill associated with
the demolition is approximately 56 yd3. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by
the construction of the proposed project nor will there be any fill in surface waters.
This project is located within the Cape Fear River Basin, but not within the Randleman
Lake Water Supply Watershed. Therefore, Randleman Buffer Rules do not apply to this
project.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: www. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
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 March 07, 2002,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists two federally protected species for
Randolph County: the Cape Fear shiner and Schweinitz's sunflower. Field investigations
in October 1998 revealed that no habitat for Cape Fear shiner exists within the project
area. Also, no specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were observed during a plant by
plant survey. Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were rendered for each species.
The biological conclusion for the Cape Fear shiner remains valid. However, an
additional survey for Schweinitz's sunflower needs to be performed during the Fall 2002
flowering season in order to validate the original plant survey.
Summary
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR
number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate a 401 General
Certification number 3361 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.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
mi, 6?19? ??
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Art King. DEO Division 8
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
.1
Randolph County
Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Rd.)
over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-2261(1)
State Project No. 8.2572201
T.I.P. No. B-3505
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
And
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
Q Q
JI,
t

021109
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
4- a14 aoo/
DAT Willi D. Gi ore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Randolph County
Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Rd.)
over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-2261(1)
State Project No. 8.2572201
T.I.P. No. B-3505
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
And
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
April 2001
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
S ? wa6 I q1 I
William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE ate
Project Manager
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stacy B. Harris, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Randolph County
Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Rd.)
over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-2261(1)
State Project No. 8.2572201
T.I.P. No. B-3505
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
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:
Roadway Design, Structure Design and Resident Engineer
The York House (Mill Supervisor's House No. 1), located at the southeast corner of SR 2145 and
SR 2261, and the Peeler House (Mill Supervisor's House No. 2), located farther east along
SR 2261; have both been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
State Historic Preservation Officer has agreed to a determination of "no adverse effect" for these
properties on the condition that NCDOT minimize changes to the landscape around these homes.
Impacts to these properties will be avoided to the extent possible during final design for this
project.
Once NCDOT completes the final plans for this project, the State Historic Preservation Officer
will be provided an opportunity to comment on the plans for this project.
The proposed bridge design will include a "Texas Classic Rail" instead of a standard rail design.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Bridge No. 434 has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
State Historic Preservation Officer has agreed that the removal of Bridge No. 434 constitutes an
"adverse effect" according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore,
prior to the demolition of Bridge No. 434, the bridge will be documented by photography in
accordance with the Historic Structure Recordation Plan developed for this project in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
April 2001
Randolph County
Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Rd.)
over Deep River
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-2261(1)
State Project No. 8.2572201
T.I.P. No. B-3505
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 434 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The 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 STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 9.7 out of a
possible 100.0 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located northeast of the city limits of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County,
approximately 0.2 miles (0.3 kilometers) west of SR 2145 (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is residential and industrial in nature.
SR 2261 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is a Federal-Aid Highway. It is not a designated bicycle route. There is no evidence of
significant bicycle activity in the area, therefore no special bicycle provisions will be made on
this project.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2261 has a 19-foot (5.8-meter) pavement width with five-foot
(1.5-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway is in a sag vertical curve through
the project area. The existing bridge is on a tangent that extends 670 feet (205 meters) west and
100 feet (31 meters) east of the structure with curves at both ends of the tangent section. The
roadway is situated approximately 51 feet (16 meters) above the river bed.
Bridge No. 434 is a seven-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel
1-beams in the approach spans and a reinforced concrete deck on a deck truss in the main span.
The substructure consists of reinforced concrete spill through end bents and reinforced concrete
post and beam interior bents with reinforced concrete post and web interior bents supporting the
main span. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1929. The overall length of the
structure is 390 feet (119 meters). The clear roadway width is 20 feet (6.1 meters). The posted
weight limit on this bridge is 21 tons for single vehicles and 25 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but overhead power lines cross the Deep
River on the north side of the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
The current traffic volume of 3,350 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 5,300 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes one-percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and four-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 35 miles (55 kilometers) per
hour in the project area.
One accident resulting in property damage only was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 434
during the period from January 1995 to December 1997.
Nine school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 405 feet (124 meters) long and 30
feet (9 meters) wide. The replacement structure will include a spill-through abutment on each
end. This structure will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with three-foot (1-meter) shoulders
on each side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The elevation of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location. The length
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by more detailed hydrologic studies during the final design phase.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width, to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and an eight-foot (2.4-meter) shoulder on each side, two-feet (0.6-
meters) of each shoulder will be paved, in accordance with the current NCDOT Design Policy.
Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are included as Figure 4.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
The two reasonable and feasible alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 434 that were studied are
described below.
Alternative 1 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on new alignment approximately
37 feet (11 meters) upstream (north) of the existing structure. The new bridge and approaches
will have a design speed of 40 miles (64 kilometers) per hour and will be approximately 2,150
feet (657 meters) in length. The existing structure and approaches will continue to maintain
traffic on-site during the construction period (see Figure 2).
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment. The
design speed is 40 miles (64 kilometers) per hour. Improvements to the approach roadways will
be required for a distance of approximately 156 feet (48 meters) to the west and 194 feet (59
meters) to the east of the structure. An off-site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain
traffic during the construction period. The length of the off-site detour is approximately 9 miles
(15 kilometers).
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2261.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 434 will be replaced approximately 37 feet (11 meters) upstream (north) of the
existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2.
This alternative is recommended because it allows traffic to be maintained on-site and has a
minimal impact on adjacent properties. An off-site detour is considered unacceptable due to the
traffic volumes using SR 2261 and the excessive length of additional travel required (see
Figure 1).
The Division 8 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two detailed study alternatives, based on current prices, are as
follows:
Alternative 1
Preferred Alternative 2
Structure $ 887,000 $ 887,000
Roadway Approaches $ 366,000 $ 67,000
Structure Removal $ 62,000 $ 62,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 592,000 $ 456,000
En g. & Contingencies $ 293,000 $ 228,000
Total Construction Cost $2,200,000 $1,700,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 206,000 $ 131,000
otal Project Cost $2,406,000 $1,831,000
The estimated cost of the project shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program is $1,560,000, including $120,000 for right-of-way and $1,440,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Randleman, NC 7.5 minute series
topographic map (1970, photo revised 1981); Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Soil Survey Field Sheet, Randolph County, NC (not dated, published survey unavailable); NRCS
Soil Survey of Stanley County, NC (September 1989); United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory map (Randleman, NC, 1995); the current USFWS
Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North
Carolina list; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database, via the
Internet, of rare species and unique habitats; and NCDOT aerial photography of the study area.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on October 19, 1998.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows.
Impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full right-of-way limits for
each individual alternate, the width of the replacement structure, the width of the river for aquatic
impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less,
but without specific replacement structure design information the worst case was assumed for the
impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Fall Line and east of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This province is
underlain by igneous, crystalline metamorphic, or occasionally, sedimentary rocks. The
topography of the project area can be characterized as rolling, with more steeply sloped areas
along drainageways. The elevation in the project area is approximately 570 to 650 feet (175 to
200 meters) above mean sea level (msl). Current land use in the project area is predominantly a
mixture of residential properties, small businesses, and patches of undeveloped areas.
The Soil Survey Field Sheets for the project area indicate that four soil classifications occur
within the study area. The Soil Associations designation was extrapolated from the Stanley
County Report (USDA-NRCS, 1989). The Tatum-B adin-Georgevi Ile Soil Association dominates
the project area (USDA-NRCS, 1989). Soils in this association are gently sloping to rolling, well
drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. These upland soils were
formed in residuum from Carolina slates. Individual soil types are described below. In general,
field conditions conformed to the field sheet mapping.
Riverview loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded is mapped in all quadrants of the
project area adjacent to the river except for the area east of the northeast approach. This soil is
well drained and moderately permeable. Erosion is a slight hazard and shrink-swell potential is
low. Riverview soils are not listed as hydric (USDA-NRCS, 1991).
Badin-Tatum complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes, is located on both sides of the southwest
approach next to the Riverview soils, and also on both sides of the northeast approach. Badin
soils are well drained and moderately permeable. Soft bedrock is within 20 to 40 inches of the
surface. Tatum soils have the same characteristics as those listed for Badin, with the exception
that soft bedrock is within 40 to 60 inches of the surface. Neither of the soils in this complex are
'listed as hydric (USDA-NRCS, 1991).
Badin-Tatum complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes is located on both sides of the northeast approach
approximately 200 feet from the bridge. Properties of these soils are generally the same as
discussed in the preceding paragraph.
Georgeville-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes is found in the project area on both sides
of the southwest approach beginning about 400 feet from the bridge. Georgeville soils are very
deep and well drained. Urban land consists of areas where the original soils have been cut, filled,
graded, or paved to the extent that a soil type can no longer be recognized. These areas are often
covered with shopping centers, parking lots, factories, or other urban structures. Georgeville soils
are not listed as hydric (USDA-NRCS, 1991).
C. Water Resources
1. Water Characteristics
The proposed project falls within the Cape Fear River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
CPF9 (03-06-09), a federal hydrologic unit designation of 03030003, and an NCDWQ
classification index number of 17-(4). The Deep River has a Class C rating from the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Point-source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within the project vicinity,
[0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers)] was conducted for the NPDES permitted discharges and none were
found.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, runoff from paved surfaces and areas where
exposed soil is present may cause water quality degradation.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The DWQ uses benthos data as a too] to monitor water quality as Benthic
macroi n vertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the
Benthic M acroi n vertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality
assessment but phased this method out approximately six years ago and has converted to a
basinwide assessment sampling protocol. Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five

years and the number of sampling stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is
sampled for biological, chemical and physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index
of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), as another method to determine general water quality in the
basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity initially
proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The IBI method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The
Index incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish
abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors
influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow
regime, and biotic interactions).
The DWQ was contacted regarding sampling information relevant to the Deep River in the
project area. No information was available. Due to an impoundment downstream of SR 2261, the
DWQ does not sample in the vicinity of the project.
2. Anticipated Impacts
General Impacts
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
one mile (1.6 kilometers) of project study area. The new replacement structure construction and
approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates, which are an
important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs) and
the use of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, as applicable.
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's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented by
the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure to be removed into water will be attempted only if no other
practical method of removal is feasible. In the event that no other practical method is available, a
worst case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering the water. The maximum potential
fill calculated for bridge No. 434 is 56 cubic yards (42.8 cubic meters), which is calculated from
the superstructure only. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-
beams in the approach spans and a reinforced concrete deck on a deck truss in the main span. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete spillthrough abutments, post and beam interior bents,
and post and web interior bents.
6
The river substrate in the project area is very silty, with clay and fine sand. Due to the nature of
the substrate, increased sedimentation would occur if the bridge were dropped into the water
during the demolition and removal process. Species which filter feed, as well as those species
that feed upon them, could be negatively impacted by increased sedimentation. Sediments could
be contained by means of turbidity curtains, where feasible, or similar devices. Aquatic life
which is not very mobile could be harmed by components of the bridge entering the water. In
addition, compaction to the stream bed would occur.
Under NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, work done in
the water for this project would fall under Case 3, which states that no special restrictions other
than those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
are suggested or required. This conclusion is based upon the classification of the waters within
the project area and vicinity, as well as comments received during the reporting process from
NCWRC and USFWS. The WRC had no special recommendations for the project other than to
implement the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. Both
agencies noted that the project area consists of mostly pool habitat and is not likely to support
any threatened or endangered species.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project study area. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of natural plant
communities is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current
information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field
observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
1. Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities within the project area include Man-Dominated and Dry-Mesic Oak--
Hickory Forest. Information on each community and associated fauna is given below.
Man-Dominated Community
This community includes road shoulders and adjacent embankments, residential and commercial
properties, and remnants of a floodplain community west of the southwest approach.
The Man-Dominated community includes the entire project area on both sides of the southwest
approach. Embankments that descend approximately 30 feet (9.0 meters) from the edge of the
road are located near the bridge on this approach. Vegetation there consists of tree-of-heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus sp.), aster (Aster sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), poke weed (Ph_ytolacca americana), and greenbriar (Smilax sp.).
The floodplain area adjacent to the bridge and river west of the southwest approach has been
disturbed to the extent that it is included within the Man-Dominated community. An unpaved
road extends through the area and under the bridge. Debris such as trash and old boats are
scattered about here, however there are species remaining that are indicative of the natural
community that was located here prior to disturbance. Vegetation includes boxelder (Acer
negundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore, smilax, and violets (Viola sp.).
Maintained lawn and areas of exposed soil are located adjacent to the bridge and in the
floodplain area south of the southwest approach. Prestige Fabricators, Inc. is also located in this
area near the bridge. Further away from the bridge, dominant vegetation consists of maintained
lawns of commercial and residential properties.
Embankments next to the bridge at the northeast approach, as well as the power line right-of way
north of the road, consist of vegetation described previously on the embankments of the
southwest approach. Several residential lawns are present along the northeast approach. An
upward sloping embankment approximately 15 feet (4.5 meters) high is located north of the
approach about 400 feet (122 meters) from the bridge. Many areas of exposed soil are present on
the embankment along with Chinese privet, and sapling yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Wildlife observed in the Man-Dominated community on the day of the site investigation included
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and several unidentified sparrows
(Fringillidae family). A burrow was observed in this community near the river and adjacent to a
weedy area south of the southwest approach. It is possibly home to a woodchuck (Marmota
monax).
b. Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest
This community is located near the bridge on both sides of the northeast approach, and near the
outer edge of the project area approximately 500 feet (153 meters) from the bridge on the east
side of the northeast approach. It is somewhat more mesic near the river, however oaks and
hickories are dominant. According to Schafale and Weakley (1990), white oak (Quercus alba) is
most prevalent in this type of community. That is not the case in this instance, and this
community does not fit precisely into the Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory description, but contains
vegetation as well as soil characteristics of both that community as well as a Mesic Mixed
Hardwoods community. Since oaks and hickories are abundant, even though white oak is not, the
site was classified as a Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest.
Vegetation in this community includes southern red oak (Quercus falcata), mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa), scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), dogwood (Corpus florida), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), yellow-poplar, northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), elm (Ulmus sp.), ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), sweet
gum, American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
grape (Vitis sp.). The herbaceous layer was sparse to absent in this community.
No wildlife was observed while in this community on the day of the site investigation, however
several species may find this habitat useful. The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) could find
abundant food sources and nesting sites in this community. The downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens) and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) might find nesting habitat here, foraging for
insects. The redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) could inhabit this community, feeding on
slugs and earthworms, and the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) may be found here in the
more mesic areas closer to the water.
2. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Deep River. Within the project
study area of Bridge No. 434, the Deep River flows southeast and is approximately 80 to 100 feet
(25 to 30 meters) wide. On the day of the field investigation the river was a dark blackish brown
color and the flow was almost imperceptible. The river channel sloped steeply from the banks
and a depth could not be determined due to this characteristic as well as the dark color of the
water. The river substrate was very silty, with clay and fine sand. River banks were nearly
vertical in most places and rose approximately three to four feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters) from the
surface of the water.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussels. No shells of any type
were observed along the shoreline.
According to the District 5 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), this portion of the river is upstream from an impoundment and consists mostly of
pool habitat. The area is typical warm water Piedmont habitat and probably includes species such
as bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), catfish
(ktaluridae family), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and various types of sunfish (Centrarchidae family).
However, it is not believed to be the traditional habitat type favored by the Cape Fear Shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas), a federally endangered fish.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 434 Man-Dominated Dry-Mesic Oak- Aquatic Combined
Replacement Community -Hickory Forest Community Total
Impacts Acres (ha) Acres (ha) Acres (ha) Acres (ha)
Alternate 1 2.50(l.01) 0.34 (0.14) 0. l 1 (0.05) 2.95(l.20)
Alternate 2 0.44 (0.18) 0.03 (0.01) 0.11 (0.05) 0.58 (0.24)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on the right-of-way for each individual alternate.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where alternates
overlapped the existing roadway.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Since Alternative 1 replaces the existing bridge on new alignment, impacts will be greater for
this alternative than for Alternative 2. Details of impacts to terrestrial communities are provided
in Table 1.
b. Aquatic Communities
The proposed bridge replacement will result in up to 0.11 acres (0.05 hectares) or 60 linear feet
(18 meters) of aquatic community impacts to the Deep River. Impacts should be less than those
indicated in Table 1, but without further information on the replacement structure, the worst case
scenario was used. In the short term, the new replacement structure construction and approach
work will likely increase sediment loads in the river. Construction related sedimentation can be
harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food
chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of the NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs), as applicable, and the use
of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Program (ESCP). The following are some methods to reduce sedimentation
and water quality impacts included in an ESCP:
• strict adherence to Best Management Practices 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
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loading
• minimization of clearing and grubbing along the riverbank
10
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Up to 60 feet (18
meters) or 0.11 acres (0.05 hectares) of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due to
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 434.
2. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters
of the United States". This project is subject to the provisions of Nationwide Permit 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated,
funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency. It states 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
environment. The Categorical Exclusion is submitted to the USACE to document that the terms
and conditions of the Nationwide Permit 23 are met. However, final permit decisions are left to
the discretionary authority of the USACE.
If no practical alternative exists to the removal of the existing bridge other than to drop it into the
water, fill related to demolition procedures will be considered during the permitting process. A
worst case scenario will be assumed with the understanding that if there is any other practical
method available, the bridge will not be dropped into the water. Permitting will be coordinated
such that any permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues related to bridge
demolition.
If wetlands or waters are impacted by fill from a proposed project, a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification may be required from the NCDENR Division of Water Quality. North Carolina has
developed General Certifications (GC) that will satisfy Section 401 of the CWA and correspond
to the USACE's Nationwide Permits. An application must be made if there are any impacts to
"waters of the United States".
3. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation will not be required by the USACE.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due to
natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Randolph County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists two federally protected species for Randolph County in the February 26,
2001 listing (Table 2). These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) E
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.)
Species: Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
The Cape Fear shiner is a small fish, rarely exceeding 2 inches (5 centimeters) in length. Its body
is pale silvery yellow, with a black band along the sides. The upper lip is black and the lower lip
has a black bar along the margin. This fish feeds largely on plant material. It is generally
associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates. The Cape Fear shiner has been observed
in riffles, slow runs, and slow pools, as well as slackwater areas among large rock outcrops in
midstream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Critical habitat has been designated for this
species by USFWS in portions of Randolph County that include the Deep River.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
According to the WRC District 5 Biologist, traditional habitat favored by the Cape Fear
shiner does not exist in the project area due to a downstream impoundment. The USFWS
was contacted to discuss the possibility of the species occurring in the project area or
vicinity. They agreed with the WRC on the lack of available habitat at the site, and said
that the Cape Fear shiner is not likely to be found within the project area or vicinity. The
USFWS did not recommend a survey for the species at this time. NCNHP records indicate
12
no recorded occurrences of this species in the project area or vicinity. This project will not
affect the Cape Fear shiner.
Species: Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters)
tall with a tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem,
pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to
alternate above. They are lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough, thick texture. The yellow
flowers have small heads and bloom from September until frost. The nutlets are approximately
0.13 to 0.14 inches (3.3 to 3.5 millimeters) long and are glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the Piedmont region of the Carolinas. It occurs in open
habitats such as edges of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. Soils are
usually moist to somewhat dry clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Open habitat similar to that preferred by this species is available in the project area in the
Man-Dominated community. Field work was conducted during the flowering time (between
May and October) for Schweinitz's sunflower, and all areas of possible habitat within the
project area were covered in their entirety during a search for the species. Schweinitz's
sunflower was not located during the search. In addition, NCNHP records indicate no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project area or vicinity. This project will not
affect Schweinitz's sunflower.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the
NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. Table 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Randolph County and their state
classifications (July 14, 1999, http://www.ncsparks,net/nhp/element.htmi).
13
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF
CONCERN IN RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) North Carolina
Status Habitat
Present
Alasmidonta varicosa (brook floater) T No
Dactyloctythere peedeensis* (Pee Dee crayfish ostracod) SR Yes**
Etheostoma collis collis ? (Carolina darter) SC Yes
Villosa vaughaniana (Carolina creekshell) SC No
Moxostoma sp. ? (Carolina redhorse) SR Yes
Fusconaia masoni (Atlantic pigtoe) T No***
NOTES:
* Historic record - the species was last observed in the county over 50 years ago.
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
** NCNHP records note that habitat requirements for this species are not known.
Records indicate that only three populations have been documented, none of
which are in the Deep River. However habitat is assumed to be present since
further information on habitat requirements is not available.
*** NCNHP records note that portions of the Deep River and its tributaries have been
listed as critical habitat for this species. The records indicate that appropriate
habitat for this species consists of riffle areas. Riffle habitat is not present in the
project area due to an impoundment downstream.
? Listed by USFWS but not the NCNHP.
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, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
14
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on August 6, 1998. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated December 16, 1999 and a
memorandum dated December 20, 1999, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that three structures in the APE are eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places: Bridge No. 434, the York House (Mill Supervisor's house no. 1), and the Peeler House
(Mill Supervisor's house no. 2). The York House and the Peeler House are located southeast of
Bridge No. 434 (see Figure 2). Copies of the concurrence forms and the memoranda are included
in the Appendix.
As indicated on the December 16, 1999 concurrence form, the SHPO determined the proposed
project will have "No Adverse Effect" on the Peeler House and the York House provided
changes to the landscape near the properties are minimized during final design. Bridge No. 434
will be removed. Therefore, the SHPO determined the project will have an "Adverse Effect" on
this historic resource. Mitigation for the adverse effects to Bridge No. 434 are discussed in the
attached Programmatic 4(f) evaluation in Section IX of this document and the Memorandum of
Agreement in Section X of this document. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has
indicated, by memorandum dated October 13, 2000, that their participation in resolving the
adverse effect is not needed.
C. Archaeology
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), in a memorandum dated December
3, 1998 stated that "an archaeological survey should be undertaken of the area of potential effect
for the project." The HPO identified a known archaeological site in the project area that must be
considered during the survey of the project area. Results of the survey were reported to the HPO
and, no further archaeological surveys are needed (HPO memorandum dated July 28, 2000).
Copies of the HPO memoranda are included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
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 the construction of the project.
15
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.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the
vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland
acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on noise
levels. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23,
Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the
project area.
Randolph County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. The approximate 100-
year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. This project will not have a substantial
impact on the existing floodplain or floodway. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the
floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All
reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible harm. The project will not increase
the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
All comments from federal and state regulatory and resource agencies and local government are
addressed elsewhere in this document.
16
IX. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS
THAT NECESSITATE THE USE OF HISTORIC BRIDGES
Description: NCDOT will be replacing Bridge No. 434 over the Deep River in Randolph
County. The bridge will be replaced on new alignment approximately 37 feet (11
meters) upstream (north) of the existing bridge with a bridge approximately 405
feet (124 meters) long. The existing bridge will maintain traffic during
construction. The existing steel and concrete bridge has been determined to be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Yes No
1. Is the bridge to be replaced or rehabilitated with Federal funds ? X ?
2. Does the project require the use of a historic bridge
structure which is on or eligible for listing on the National X
Register of Historic Places?
Is the bridge a National Historic Landmark? ? X
4. Has agreement been reached among the FHWA, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) through procedures pursuant X
to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be feasible and prudent:
Yes No
Do nothing_ X ?
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct the problem situation that caused the bridge ? X
to be considered deficient?
(b) pose serious and unacceptable safety hazards ? X ?
17
2. Build a new structure at a different location without X ?
affectingthe historic integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The present bridge has already been located
at the only feasible and prudent site
and/or (ii) Adverse social, environmental, or economic
impacts were noted
and/or (iii) Cost and engineering difficulties reach
extraordinary magnitude
and/or (iv The existing bridge cannot be preserved
due to the extent of rehabilitation, because no
responsible party will maintain and preserve
the historic bridge, or the permitting authority
requires removal or demolition.
Rehabilitate the historic bridge without affecting the historic X ?
integrity of the structure.
(a) The following reasons were reviewed:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) The bridge is so structurally deficient that it
cannot be rehabilitated to meet the acceptable
load requirements and meet National Register
criteria
and/or (ii) The bridge is seriously deficient geometrically
and cannot be widened to meet the required
capacity and meet National Register criteria
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm . X ?
2. Measures to minimize harm include the following:
(circle, as appropriate)
a. For bridges that are to be rehabilitated, the historic
integrity of the bridge is preserved to the greatest
extent possible, consistent with unavoidable
transportation needs, safety, and load requirements.
b? For bridges that are to be rehabilitated to the point
that the historic integrity is affected or that are to
be removed or demolished, the FHWA ensures that,
in accordance with the Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) standards, or other suitable means
is
developed through consultation, fully adequate records
are made of the bridge.
C. For bridges that are to be replaced, the existing bridge
is made available for an alternative use, provided a
responsible party agrees to maintain and preserve the
bridge.
O For bridges that are adversely affected, agreement
among the SHPO, ACHP, and FHWA is reached
through the Section 106 process of the NHPA on
measures to minimize harm and those measures
are incorporated into the project.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are discussed below:
Bridge No. 434 shall be recorded in accordance with the Historic Structures
Recordation Plan, prior to demolition of the existing bridge and the initiation of
construction for the new bridge.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
19
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer x
b. 'Advisory Council on Historic Preservation X
C. Local/State/Federal Agencies x
d. US Coast Guard
(for bridges requiring bridge permits) N/A
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on July S, 1983.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic bridge. The project includes all
possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that the measures to minimize harm will be
incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
ate a a roject Development & Environmental Analysis Branch NCDOT
252001Z 0_`_
Da e ?ofDivision Administrator, FHWA
X. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OF iq ?Nsp0Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
's W Raleigh, NC 27601
February 22, 2001
'S'PATES Of
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Office of Planning and Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. No. 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
IN REPLY REFER TO:
HO-NC
Subject: Memorandum of Agreement, for the replacement of Bridge No. 434
on SR 2261 over the Deep River, Randolph County, North
Carolina, Federal-aid Project No. BRSTP-2261(1), TIP No. B-3505,
State Project No. 8.2572201.
Dear Mr. Klima:
As required by 36 CFR 800.6(b)(iv) and previous correspondence between our
offices, we are filing the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that was developed
in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer for the
subject project. It is our understanding that the filing of this MOA with the Council
completes our compliance responsibilities under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Questions concerning this submittal may be directed
to Felix Davila of this office at [phone], extension 106.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John C. Wadsworth
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Stacey Harris, NCDOT, PDEA
Renee Gledhill-Earley, NCSHPO
File: BRSTP-2'261(1)
Reading File: 1 b22op01.fd
`AFDavila :dkr:02/2.2/01
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 434
ON SR 2261 OVER THE DEEP RIVER,
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
replacement of Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 over the Deep River, Randolph County,
North Carolina (the undertaking) will have an effect upon Bridge No. 434, a property
determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and has
consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to
36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) participated in
the consultation and has been invited to concur in this Memorandum of Agreement; and:
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on the historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No.
434 and its surroundings in accordance with the attached Historic Structures and
Landscape Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
II. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT will use a "Texas Classic Rail" on the
replacement bridge. Prior to Right-of-Way acquisition, NCDOT shall provide the
North Carolina SHPO the opportunity to consult and comment upon the final
design plans for the replacement bridge.
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
agreement, FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the
objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the objection
cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the
dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). Within thirty
(30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.7(c)) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in
response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA in
accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all
the actions under this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
implementation of its terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity
to comment on the replacement of Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 over the Deep River in
and its effects on the Bridge No. 434, and that FHWA has taken into account the effects
of the undertaking on the historic property.
AGREE:
L3 - D
F 7L HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DATE
X90
t4l
NORTH CA *NA9STAhEH1?STORlC PRESERVATION OFFICER DATE
CONCUR:

FILED BY:
YZt1-1L x -1-t
LINA DEPARTMENT
SPORTATI

A'
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION DATE
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan
For the Replacement of Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261
Over the Deep River,
Randolph County, North Carolina
Landscape
Site plan sketch of the existing conditions of Bridge No. 434 and its surroundings.
Photographic Requirements
Selected photographic views of Bridge No. 434 as a whole, and views of the
structure and its settings, including:
? Overall views of the structure (elevations and oblique views)
? Overall views of the project area, showing the relationship of the structure to
its setting
Photographic Format
? Color slides (all views)
? 35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
? Two (2) sets of the black and white contact sheets (all views)
? All processing to be done to archival standards
? All photographs and negatives to be labeled according to Division of Archives
and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
One (1) copy of the black and white contact sheets will be placed in NCDOT's
files for the project in the Historic Architecture Section of the Project
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch.

/_r E
1 /r
2128
21 49 2148
y? rural Falls
E p 1 I 2215 .?
1 F 221
ASN•EBdR
POP. 18J6 ;
A i.• r
r
2183 r
3 81
i --
228 f ti
215 , 221
Grays
R A N D
1
r f6 64 /
? II
I FsEme (io

LEGEND
-*--*--*-Studied Detour Route
on
N
Part
r
B-3505
2219
2215
Cedar
I
1
,
2215
2222
or
I
' 4
tour I. 18
1
MountI V
2144
2143
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 434 ON SR 2261
OVER THE DEEP RIVER
B-3505
0 kilometers 0.8 kilometers 1.6
-4 1
0 miles 0.5 wll- LO
FIGURE 1

G
LL
LL
W
g ;•
Z
0
is
0

a
m
9
r
•o
N
N
aL
i N
tA
fi
Q
W
N ?
?a a
O LL
a
g q o d
° V N a
0
p
y
u
w
=
of
g
y A
A
b tiA Q
14
v0
a 0 Z ?j

O 0 > 0

O
Ao
i
o
wq
•
r
a
Z6 ww m-
Z w
W J
a

a
CA U
V'
I'
4
rR jN
1
Q
OI
k, tj
V
v ?
e I
?
F r
v. ?
,
\ - rte
/
??
^IP ? t' 1'T??1 P! ? p
/

M
•? T

Wit t" ?r •' ???i r r A ??M ? i :Y / i
?
? 1 1 ! f
?
•r
aq
y?
1 0

7 „
Pte. ?: +t ??FI ?? k ? •y ? t{ ? I.?
S
a r r, ??
d

0
110
i
Ln
Z N
WV
J
w
w
a A
!A

RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO.434 ON
ON SR 2261 (OLD LIBERTY RD.)
OVER DEEP RIVER
B-3505
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING SOUTH
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3

United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
4405 Bland Rd.
Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
USDA
Mr. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27511-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
November 10, 1998
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Group XV Bridge Replacement Projects,
B-3157 and B-3447, Davidson County, B-3174, Guilford County, B-3422 and B-3424, Cabarrus
County, B-3505, Randolph County and B-3509, Rockingham County.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
001-
ri 1. V E p
Marya??
111stedt ki
State Conservationist '
9199
-o NQ? SON Of ?
C. ?
t'?
ENV1F??
The Natural Recn-- r-- ,- 40...1- ..,n ti-,..
V
r
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Pose Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 2, 1998
~ 1 w.
of
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-520
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
5? DFD
` 1996
.? Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
B-3157, Davidson County, Replace Bridge Nos. 74 and 76 on US 29, 64, 70 and I-85 Bus.
over SR 1242 and Michael Creek,
2. B-3174, Guilford County, Replace Bridge No. 306 on US 29, 70, 220 and 421 over NC 6;
3. B-3422, Cabarrus County, Replace Bridge No. 47 on SR 1002 (Cabarrus Ave.) over Three
Mile Branch;
4. B-3424, Cabarrus County, Replace Bridge No. 264 on SR 1745 (Oakwood Ave.) over
Branch Irish Buffalo Creek;
5. B-3447, Davidson County, Replace Bridge No. 420 on SR 2031 over Southern Railroad;
6: B-3505, Randolph County, Replace Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Road) over
Deep River; and,
7. B-3509, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 on NC 700 over Smith River.
This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) ( I6 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 11)7), as amended ( 16 U.S C 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scopin, comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects. The following is applicable only to
items 2, 6, and 7. Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are in areas of the state under the jurisdiction of the
Service's Asheville Office. They should be contacted for resource information pertinent to these
projects.
The mission of the Service is to.provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with detailed site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In recrard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques Wherever appropriate, -construction -insensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;

2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing bridges, new bridges on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative,
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected,
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps),
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects-,
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective Counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. A listed species, the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laeviRata), is
known to occur in the vicinity B-3509 at the City of Eden, Rockingham County.
Habitat for smooth conetlower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
gabbro or diabase in North Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and
little competition in the herbaceous layer.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected .
species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections,
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of,
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation,
4. A description of the mann r in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mort ality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation-of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long,-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity, and.
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
(/John M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/1/98:919/S5b-4520 extension -2.\7-bridc,e.rpl
cc:
Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, DNR, Creedmoor, NC
Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Ted Bisterfield, EPA, Atlanta, GA
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In RANDOLPH County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
3 5'45'
35'3(
p 1 2 4 5 MILES
---------------
8o' 79'45'
UP I IUNA1 ?t 04M 4V 10 YVr
.Ad-visoi-y.
Council On
Historic
Preservation
Che Old post ()frice building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. #809
Washington, DC 20004
i 11' 1 3 ?.N .O
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
3.10 New Ham Avenue, Sntite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
FAX TRANSNHTTAL 1,.I-
10
D801JAOmcy., V
NSN7510_01 717 7:V,N ,D99-101
iron ,,,feted ul
" -G D L ^ S,So S
OtNtsw SERVICES .A0MINI57MAII()N
REF:. pmposed_Raplacernmit of.Bridge No. 434 (SR 2261 over Deep River)
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
On September 21., 2000;.. we-raceived_ynur noufication. and supporting,do?umentation regarding the
adverse effects of the proposed undertaldng on this property which is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Hiswnc Rlasos Based upon, ormafionyoutr_provided. we have concluded that Appendix A,
C'ritcria for Council lnvolvemenr in Reviewing Inchwdual Secnon 106 hoses, of our regulations,
..Protection offlistoncprnperties" (36 CFI Pa#-8W does noLBPP*to-thisamde!L"kmg.. Accordingly, we
do not believe that our participation in the consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(iv), you will need to file the final Memorandwn of Agreement (MOA),
developed in consukatm with he North Carolina Stati Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and related
documentation at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of this MOA with the Council is
required i rvrder fer Vw4ederal i- ghway-Admud`rratinn to..complete its c.ompbance.responsibilities under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will retain a copy of the MOA for our files as
requirements ofthe completion-ofthe Sectio }06-process.
If yowhave-an) quesdonsor- rega re_tha further assistance of the Council, please contact Ralston Cox at
202-606-8505 or via eMail at [e-mail]
Ict ly ,
Klima
or
OPfi4e of Plannuig and Review
STwrr
r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State N Preservation Officer
RE: Revised report of archaeological investigations Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 over
Deep River TIP No. B-3505, Federal Project No. BRSTP-2261(1) Randolph
County, ER 99-7716 & ER 00-8316
Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2000 transmitting the revised archaeological survey
report by New South Associates for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
During the course of the survey no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located within
the project area. No evidence of archaeological site 31RD830 was found within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE). Due to the absence of cultural resources, New South Associates has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant
archaeological resources.
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.
cc: Nicholas Graf, FHwA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Lawrence Abbott, New South Associates
Ic Iv 1) 1%., 11 1-.1
VI)AW111I k ISIS iini
?l i 'I`
\k( 11 VI M M1 Ill,uui . !I. ,.( :n l'? \h,l li,i')
? r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Da,: id L. S. Brook..-kdmmiscracor
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretzr,•-
December 20. 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway- Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
r'y
Division of krcaices and Kscon
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Replacement Bridge No. 434 of SR 2261 over Deep River, TIP No. B-3505,
Randolph County, ER 99-7716
Dear iv(r. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of October 12. 1999. transmitting the survey report by Mattson,
Alexander &: Associates., Inc. concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under the criterion cited:
Bridge No. 434 is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion C for engineering as it clearly illustrates the distinctive
characteristics of Warren deck truss design and is a rare surviving highway bridge
for its size and type from the pre-World War II era in North Carolina. We concur
with the boundaries noted on page 24 of the report.
'vlill Supervisor's House No. I (York House) is eligible for listing in the National
Register under Criterion A for industry as it illustrates the dwellings of mill
supervisors and overseers that arose when textile mill villa17es were planned and
constructed across the Piedmont in the late nineteenth and earl- tyyentieth
centuries. %Ve concur with the boundaries noted on page 10 of the report.
dill Supervisor's House No. (Peeler House) is eli?Tible for listing in the
,ational Rq_,ister under Criterion A t•or industr, as it illustrates the dwelhn`s of
mill super isors and overseers that arose %i hen textile mill villages were planned
and constructed across the Piedmont in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
I n.iii,u \I.ilnC \JJr,, rclrlih,nI?.i?
VI1vIl?l?llf vIli?? iti..,.n G.ii ?.., ?i , .. u, I; • ??.,,i_.il,,i ,-„ .., ,
r
P1g e
The Peeler House is also eligible for listinv in the National Register under
Criterion C for architecture as one of the most intact of the mill houses
constructed at Central Falls. %Ve concur with the boundaries noted on page 10 of
the report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preser,-ation's Regulations For Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 300.
Thank you for vour cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:scb
cc: B. Church
W. Gilmore

Federal.4id 4 B RSTP-226 1( 1) TIP 4 B-3505 County: Randolph
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSLMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 over Deep River
On December 16, 1999, representatives of the
' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
?. there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
`reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
/ pproject's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed: '

ve, NCDOT
A, Wthe Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
ReUEesentative, SHPO
Date
Z
Date
211,1`Lq
Date
Z/z?,/
te?T-tstoric Preservation Officer
Federal. Iic(T BRSTP =61l, I) TIP = B-3505 County: Randolph
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
-b r C C- O.d,V R?l.S 2 e ?? cc?
(?`l i l l sup e-r f ? Sor s 1-0u? ?o .
i T i rni ? es ?b `?.
IrYI i I I Sv C v i nor s' 6use- Imo. 2 ? no C d& use- J?C?
i F ?T 1-a r? rti rv1 ? -fie. C eS I-a ?'h ?
? U-???.SCC?.?-
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT ??P FHWA SHPO

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 3, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge #434 on SR 2261 (Old
Liberty Road) over Deep River, Randolph County, B-
3505, ER 99-7716
Division of Archives and History
?Jefjt,J. r w, Director
%
- ,.. ?= 198 a
'Thank you for your memorandum of November 2, 1998, concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Bridge #434. This 1929 Warren deck truss bridge was determined to be
eligible for lilsting in the National Register of Historic Places in 1997.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project
area so we can make our survey recommendation.
Archaeological site 31 RD830 is located north of SR 2261 and west of the Deep
River. This Middle Archaic site is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. Its National Register eligibility is unknown. We recommend
that an archaeological survey be undertaken of the area of potential effect for the
project and that site 31 RD830 be relocated and site boundaries established. If the
site is to be affected by the proposed replacement, testing sufficient to determine
the site's National Register eligibility should be undertaken.
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.
William D. Gilmore
December 3, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw

cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
t? STP- ZZ(I II = (? = SC5 C.: -.
CONCURRENCE FORNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brier Prcjccc Dcsc:-"pcion
T?Pprn Ri4Pr IT,
Nov. 13
On

22t-p1 oV
rc?rasa: cacivcs aFcrc
Nardi Carolina Dcoarcaicnc of Transz:arcacian (ivCDOT)
Fcdcral Hi&\\-av Adminisuracion (FH\vA)
?North Carolina Scacc Hiscaric Prescr-racicn OFcc (SrPO)
Od,cr
rcvlcwcd U,c Subic::, oroicc'. at
C{lsior?: :Caltc-:ur3l ,csourz::s Jllatcgmph rc':SCSSIOn'COILLlIC1i:On
n r",
'.II oartics crescnc asrccc
d,rc .rc no orccc tics avcr ?ccrs 01'4 "iti:ill me projcc: s c..._ ct occc::::ci e;:cc's.
thc:C arc na orcoc:lics ICSS :Ilan 1F,%.: acs olc which : rc ccnsicc:cd 'c lt:cc: C:iicrian
Cons idc:acicn G within utc projccc'S arcacroccc cial
chcrc arc orcoc-mcs ovcr nom. 'car aid (list accaccd) widtir, praicc:_s ar.` cr acccacia! c cc?,
buc brio- cn chc llisccrical infcm, ::E;cn available arc c:c ci:ccccraci:s c: ac:, :coca ;:, orcoc~:c.
i¢c ;ciFlc^ CS lpYOtDS I -IQ 3 I Z. -'`? ccnsidc:cd rac Cii?laic.
;r Vacicrai R=.scc. aria na rur-mc: cvaluatccn oF-.,"c:n l5 55cr.
?; R lSC ±lszc,4 Grcoc.zics 1t 61 n ChC `COICC: arC? OC ?CCCGC?! ACC'
-?hcr.. ar nc attcnai c, `- ?
St u'! Ic --4:
R orescncati,vc,1NC
Fri%v. ` r t,c Division .??nunlsi ?ccr, cr ocl,c: rr"ccc:?i A lcnc..
13 -c S

Rcorescnczuvc, SHPO D?cc
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comm.issiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator /
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 22, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Cabarrus, Davidson, and Randolph
counties. TIP Nos. B-3174, B-3422, B-3424, B-3447, and B-3505.
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 stream 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. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 ivlarch 19, 1999
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 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 steam undemeath 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.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
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 stream bed.
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
Bridge Replacement ivlemo 3 March 19, 1999
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-3174 - Guilford - Bridge No. 306 over NC 6. No comment.
2. B-3422 - Cabarrus - Bridge No. 47 over the Three Mile Branch. We concur that the
replacement is a Case3. Standard comments apply.
3. B-3424 - Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 264 over Branch of Irish Buffalo Creek. We
concur that the bridge replacement is a Case 3. Standard comments apply.
4. B-3447 - Davidson County - Bridge No. 420 over Southern Railroad. No comment.
5. B-3505 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 434 over Deep River. We concur that the
bridge replacement is a Case 3. Standard comments apply.
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.
If you need further 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.
1
21 Nor`t i Carolina W ldlife Resources Corr ?issior_'L
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r ator
Habitat Conservation Prograrr(
DATE: January 12, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Group XV Bridge Replacements in Cabarrus, Davidson,
Guilford, Randolph and Rockingham counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos.
B-3157, B-3174, B-3422, B-3424, B-3447, B-3505', and B-3509.
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 stream 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.
Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bride Replacement Memo 2 January 12, 1999
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 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 steam 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.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed.
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
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. R.iprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
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

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 January 12, 1999
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-3157 - Michael Creek is small and degraded at this site. NCDOT should
use Best Management Practices to protect downstream resources.
2. B-3174 - No comment.
_3B -No specific concerns. NCDOT should use Best Management
Practices to protect downstream resources.
4. B-3424 - No specific concerns. NCDOT should use Best Management
Practices to protect downstream resources.
5. B-3447 -No comment.
6. B-3505 - The bridge crossing is in the upper section of the Cox Lake
Hydroelectric impoundment. We have no specific fishery concerns at this
site.
7. B-3509 -This section of the Smith River supports a diverse fish population.
Due to the size of the river and the good population of fish, we request that no
in-water work be performed from April 1 to June 30.
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.
If you need further 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.
.o
? O
RANDOLPH COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT.
Randolph County Office Building • 725 McDowell Road • P. 0. Box 771
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-0771
November 5, 1998
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E.
N.C. Department of Transportation
P 0 Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
REFERENCE: Replacement of Bridge # 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Road)
over Deep River, Randolph County, TIP # B-3505
Dear Ms. Baldwin:
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
As per your request, this is to advise that I know of no adverse social, economic,
demographic, land use or environmental impacts that will develop as a result of the above
referenced project. Old Liberty Road is a well traveled but extremely curvy road. Any
improvements to transportation flow will be extremely beneficial.
If my office can be of assistance to you, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Hal Johnson, Director
Planning & Zoning
Enclosure
HJ/lpw
-TOLL FREE NUMBERS-
Greensboro- Liberty: 218-4555 / Archdale-Trinity Area: 819-3555