20071181 Ver 1_Application_20070706

aS~ / ~!
~µ~~~
V
~,~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~~-~~
4 ~~
/(j~ ~ ~,~
AFT 0 ^ , ®('
r~ ~
.S),Q~~S"4:lJti,~ ,
DEPART~~NT OF TRANSPORTATION ~r,,q'~R p,,~~
H
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY

June 28, 2007
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
o~iisi
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 for the replacement of Bridge
No. 228 over Richland Creek on SR 2834 (Old Cox Road), Randolph County. Federal Aid
Project Number BRZ-2834(1), WBS No. 33589.1.1, State Project No. 8.2574301, Division 8,
T.I.P No. B-4246
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 228 over
Richland Creek. The existing bridge is currently in poor condition (bridge sufficiency rating of 28.1 out
of 100) and in need of replacement. The new bridge is intended to provide a safer bridge structure
consistent with federal and state bridge standards.
The proposed structure will be approximately 125 feet in length with three spans at 45 feet, 50 feet, and
30 feet, and will completely span Richland Creek. The superstructure will be composed of pre-stressed
3-foot (width) by 21-inch (depth) cored slab units. The proposed bridge has 33.5 feet of clear roadway
and will provide two travel lanes. The travel lanes will be 12 feet wide each with approximately 4.5-foot
shoulders. Traffic will be maintained through off-site detour during construction. Enclosed are the
Categorical Exclusion (CE) document, Pre-Construction Notification, permit drawings, and desigri plans
for the subject project.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin 03-06-09). This area is part of the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030003 of the South Atlantic-Gulf
Coast Region. Richland Creek [Division of Water Quality (DWQ) index # 17-22] and Tantraugh Branch
(DWQ index # 17-22-3) are the only jurisdictional streams within the project area. Both Richland Creek
and Tantraugh Branch have a best usage classification of Class C. No designated Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply (WS-In, waters
occur within 1.0 mile of the study corridor. Richland Creek and Tantraugh Branch are not listed on the
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone] or
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Fina12004 Cleari Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. No Section 303(d) listed
waterbodies are located within 1.0 mile of the project area.
One wetland (Site 1) is located within the project area, approximately 190 feet northeast of the bridge. It
is a forested wetland occurring in a depressional area of the Richland Creek floodplain. It is considered
riverine based upon its location within the Richland Creek floodplain and is classified as a palustrine,
seasonally flooded, forested wetland supporting broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1 C, Cowardin
classification).
Permanent Impacts
Construction for the new bridge will require additional fill along each side of the existing bridge,
resulting in less than 0.01 acre of fill placed in the wetland (Site 1). Overall it was determined that this
alternative resulting in minimal additional fill to jurisdictional areas is more cost effective than replacing
bridge at a new location.
Temporar~Impacts
There will be 0.01 acre of temporary surface water impacts resulting from the construction of a causeway
for the proposed bridge. The causeway will be placed along 48 feet of the east bank and channel. The
causeway will be removed upon completion of construction.
Utility Impacts
No utility impacts are anticipated from project construction.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge was constructed in 1951 and is 92 feet in length. It consists of three spans
approximately 31 feet each. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-Beams. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles for both end and interior bents. NCDOT
will make every effort to extract the pile bents in their entirety. If complete extraction is not possible,
then the piles will be cut at streambed levels as directed by the engineer. Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during'the demolition of this bridge.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. The impact area associated with the bridge is expected to recover naturally, since the natural
streambed and plant material will not be removed. NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in
this area. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-project elevations will
be restored.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal of and disposal of all
material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment for removal of any
earthen material. Heavy~uty trucks, dozers, cranes and various other pieces of mechanical equipment
necessary for construction of roadways and bridges will be used on site. All material placed in the
stream will be removed from the stream at that time. The contractor will have the option of reusing any
of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of project. After the erosion control
devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the property of the contractor.
B-4246 Permit Application
Page 2 of 4

MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance. Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream and wetland avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• The new bridge is longer than the original bridge and will completely span Richland Creek.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
• A preformed scour hole will be constructed on the northeast side of the bridge.
CompensatorYMitigation:
The proposed action includes all practicable methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional impacts that
may result from such use. It was determined that there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed
construction in jurisdictional waters of the US. Replacing the bridge 70 feet west of existing location
was considered, however it is not practical due to cost and right-of--way impacts.
The project will impact surface waters (temporary impacts only) and wetlands (less than 0.01 acres).
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for the minimal impacts to these resources.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 2 species for Randolph County. Table 1 lists the species and their federal status.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Randolph County, NC
Scientific Name Common
Name Status Habitat
Present Biological Conclusion
Helianthus Schweinitz's E Yes No Effect
schweinitzii sunflower
Notropis Cape Fear E Yes May Affect, Not Likely
mekistocholas shiner to Adversel Affect
A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for Schweinitz's sunflower in the CE. Marginal
habitat exists within the project area along roadside shoulders, utility corridors, and forest edges. The
most recent survey, conducted by NCDOT biologists on September 6, 2006, revealed no specimens.
NCDOT received concurrence on the "No Effect" determination for Schweinitz's sunflower from
USFWS on February 5, 2007.
B-4246 Permit Application
Page 3 of 4

A Biological Conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was issued for the Cape Fear
shiner. Fisheries surveys conducted on October 17, 2005 and October 14, 2004 by NCDOT biologists
revealed no specimens. NCDOT received concurrence on the "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" determination for the Cape Fear shiner from USFWS on February 5, 2007.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of February 19, 2008 (review date of January 1, 2008) with a date of
availability of April 1, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in April
2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002). We are also
requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for the temporary causeway associated with bridge
construction within Richland Creek.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3632 and 3634 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of the Water quality Certifications will be met. No written concurrence is
required. Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we
are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Greg Price at 715-5533.
Sincerely,
`~~
~, rego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Enviro ental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Maj ed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Wade Kirby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
B-4246 Permit Application
Page 4 of 4

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
20071 181
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no lazger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No.228 over Richland Creek on SR 2834
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4246
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Asheboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): see map in hermit
drawings
5. Site coordinates (For lineaz projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.6504 °N 79.7778 °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of neazest receiving body of water: Richland Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's .seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The land use in the surrounding azea consists primarily of
undeveloped forested land and fields.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bride No. 228 will be replaced at its current location. Traffic will be maintained through
offsite detour during construction. Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used such as
trucks, dozers, cranes and other various equipment necessary for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating_bridge
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USAGE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: see cover letter
Page 3 of 9

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 Fill Forested Yes 10 <0.01
Site 1 Mechanized clearing Forested Yes 10 <0.01

Total Wetland Impact (acres) <0.01
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.02
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 2 Richland Creek Causeway (Temp) Perennial 30 feet 48 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 48 0.01
Page 4 of 9

5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6: List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the roject:
Stream Impact (acres): Temporary 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): <0.01
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): Tem orary 48
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Page 5 of 9

VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Please refer to the attached
cover letter
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available. at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Page 6 of 9

Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed for the minimal impacts.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http:/11i2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does .the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
Page 7 of 9

X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify Neuse )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
* Impact Required
Zone , ~_____ r ~,~ Multiplier ,,,~;,;~_~;~~
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 8 of 9

N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most, recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
None

Ap~licant/Agent's Signature date ~
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

c
0
0
e
m
0
v
x
m
Na,~S
m~
.,^~
®~ ~L ~ ~~~®~~~~
D
~~
WAf.1rn ~ ~'>.' .. Mew. -[ /~)~ f~r ~ vm w,m$N't'
i
~ ~~ ~ ~
' Z~ J '~~
1
~ Midwoy ~ l
e
N
lccme
~ ~ i
~

~- ~
f
~2~ lttm.
e!i !1
timar
,S
-
T~9Q183t1l~f! [
~
^ . .
~ ~ _ ~
,_~ , ~ .
v
J SmW
..: _.
... = ~uuan
cam
~
e a
s i~
~
~ a ,
p
r.
~fe
~e.el
;, ~
J ~
~ G~n~wla
~ s ,
Crest i{7 li ~~f/
7
7'/R
c~
f:
"
` ~
3 i 1 ~ ~
0 ~
.. _ ~. ,_ _ _~
t
~1 ~
'
e
J 1
~ Raidieiroi~ `eras ccayxf ;~
`r°
o
/' io ~
'` soum ur.lrvif
z-;et
,,e
,]
~ s:i~
9~i1 Dlt o ~ ~ :~ fat +t11
~ ~ ~N ,; ~ ~
amaew
~ B ~
cf` ''' l ~ fe ~ , ~` ~'s..• ~ Si PROJECT
i
~i YL•1nIJa `~, ~ re~
"r"' ~~: raar .,~,,r
2~ ~ ppr~ourf, ,,,,. SITE
~
tCokridci Sor' c ~
1
tp ,
7
71e ,~~-i-yam! f
f prin~a 1` 5 ~ ./
1" ,
r ~ t~'~~• ~ .'~`
N. G. L~sakam! `~`1 7 ,1~, QEgr ~ ~
elr _
~~
fish Rock" km 6 ~ ~ °~~~nnetl p Owdsta
Padttrtwta+ lp ~1.

,
~
S
L
h F
1 , 1 E'ocl ~ ~.
f Se we ~ ~ ~~
i
Y
s
` ~
~~
«:
; `~, y tf e~noi,t
Whyrot
~i
_
.~.- w.~ .
„
31m.• e ..iyr f~l
-1k
f + ~ t>
; e
Oee
1
'~ ~ .
h`ltf 7 1. ..6
t
d /
~ ,.
°$U-Ar ~ pp ~6
1fta6t:ma ~ 'a
Mouu
rr
.on
cn
lop rya: A . Ei r ,
~~ Sf1ie5 }%.. ,~
N V ~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~° ~ RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT:33S8911 (B-~2~6)
BRIDGE 228 OVER
RICHLAND CRESS
ON SR 283
SHEET 1 OF 8 3/27/07

LO
}
O
E
L
T
E
a
a
s ~
~ a a
~ m i
:~~
~~~~ ~~~
a~P - •~ rs
', ~ ~.~.
' / , A ~ OROO ~ , ~ ~ ~ \ `~ ; 2604 r' -----
f .L _, ,~ 9 I S ~
-~ a ~ ! - '\ 1 ~ v
rl \ /
rr ,~ ° ~ r ,tr eus 1~ 2826 I ~~ \ _ ~ _- 2 '5 2607
1 ~ xxo `I• \• 2827 ~ c' ~ ~~~e t
~ ~~ 1 J,r :~ -,1--- \',' 282 r ~-~ a ~~\~r 2606
~ 1 JS J ,cJ -T I ~ , \ \ -
•r / f `\ ~s
_- 1 1f - j 2820 i r ~ o~ ~r~ ~--C ~ X2660
'•, '- i ^-~-\ ~ °... ~. ~' ~ 2830 ~ ~__ ~"' ~ -.. \J\ l,,
j ~ ~, /' •~l 2 4 - `'^°` f' 2832 '
~ ~L' 2839 i"' '~",' '~ ~ 1~ E 1 -~_,•\r.
\ -tip ~e .% ~ .__ ~ \ ( •\ ~ /
.•\ 11145 yam' ~ BEGIN__ ~~ ~--' `~ ~ `~ (`° ~ 't!~
j ° ~~'~ ~~ PROJECT %~ ~,.~•- J- i ,x
1 )-~' i „a 2sao i~ PRO,~ECT ~2aaa • N.c. ~ r' -"~ =~-'~
~~, ••-~, _~- zoo~ocicn~ 2831
~ '°~-~ 1114 1•'2839 ~ i - ~- f rnaK f /'J',
-"1140 ` ~ i'f ~ r ,so ~ y._4 ~ .\ _..}~ ~ ~
1138 xx j~ ~ ~ 1_I •~ 2834 1'\ ~ J ~•-_-~ i,
A %• /"~ ~ ~
O~./
i , ~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 335891.1 tB-~2~6)
BRIDGB 428 OVBR
G ~ I RICHLAND CREEg
ON SR 283
SHEBT 2 OF 8 3/27/07

3
E
D
T
m
E
l
0
~ao
N T
- S
.,^~

-~JL@--~- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
® DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
• * * * DENOTES MECHANIZED
******* CLEARING
'~ ~ FLOW DIRECTION
~~ TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
-- ~-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
--P~--- PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
~"~~'~ PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. .. .. .. WOODS LINE

~~

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE ~ GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
- EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB-• EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-- -~------- WATER SURFACE
X XX X X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
-~-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: bb58911 tB-~R~6)
BRIDGE 228 OVER
RICHLAND CREEg
ON SR 283
SHEET 3 OF 8
3/27/

s
`E
G
T
2
m
E
l
a
U
N n o
0
rv i
n ~
~_~
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS

TRACT N0. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITE N0.
OI DENNIS GARNER 1839 OLD COX RD.
ASHEBORO,NC 27205 I
IMPACTS CONTAINED WITHIN
THE EXISTING R/W
2

NC~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: bbS8911 (B-~f2~f6)
BRIDGE 428 OVER
G ~' RICHLAND CREEg
ON SR 283
SHBET ~ OF 8 b/27/07

~ rn
~
w o
w ~
Z~~

cn 41
c c '~ a ^
ao
'
U xL E--
Q WU-
a

c
C
C
W C
U
F- ::. C l0 c6 ,~ O
Q
3 .N L O.
wU Ea
w
U
LL a
~ ~ ~ f0 U
m O O
~ ~~nE o 0

~ c
N w
~ € ~ a ~
E °
~
a
~
~
V N
~ m c
m
a ~~~
~
~ o
c
~ a~
m
= U ~
H

~ ~ ~ -o

W N C C
'c .` ~ ~
0
0
d taf°i~m
~ o
v 0
v
Z ~ ~ U
U ~
g a
o ~
W ~ (0 U p

a X 3
J W
~"'
W ~
O' C f0 V
- f0 O
~ LL > O

C N
C C C
~ _ ~ U O O
f4
O
O
~ LL ~
a
0
c~

. 0
~
m °- ii v
~~ ; ~

~ "' o d
c
co

c%>
~
o
~ n
_ ~ +
~
c ~
o
C ~
_
'~ ~
~ LL CO ~
~ ~
J
J '

a' O J

(~ 2 •- N F-
0
H

~~ ~L ~l~ ®~ ~~ ~lJ ~~ YV ~ 1l

~o~
OD C
C~
~ J'

CLASS "I" RIP RAP
RIVER BED
~~
~~~
~1
NWS= 1
564.8 1
~ 1.5
1 tNP)
1 1 L
~ 12" CLASS "A" STONE
VOLUME AND AREA OF TEMPORARY FILL
(CLASS "i" RIP RAP) BELOW NWS
AREA = .009 Ac
VOLUME = 29 CY
0
3
U
d
E
m
E
0
V
E
0
~d~
Qe
~~
~~~
GLI

1/'l~'V~JI
R:\'N crroullcs
\dgn\Permits\8424E_hyJ_prm_wzt_04.dgn
,..
o ;~_..~.... .
~~\ ~
~

N .
~
C'7 (n
D p
r
m
~i ~
O
O
2
O

N
_
O
O
Yid
•` t
~~' r
••
•' r
~o No =o : m
rm cm mm m G7
mz zz -az -~ fTl
ao -no ro r
s1 a-i a-~ a Z
m cam zm z
~~n m yr a v~ v ~
m a m '~
2 m~ r
z ~~
z
N 3 ,ay
O aj
f'1
1
y
x
t~
`~ ro ~ d
'o x7d~ ~ ~ C
o~ r I-i r„ z
b ~
~~~'~ x°
m
~°~~ o~®
~ z ~ ~ ~ ~
~a ~ ~ k
y
1
Z
0
8:17%'1y
i ~ f~> ~ ~ ~
i~
/~ ~ }~ ~ ~

d~H4a~
6424E_hyd_prm_wet_04.dgn
O
O
(7 (.)'~
D p
r
m
0
0
0
0
~_
N _
O
O
~'
_~'
..'
«~• r
•~ W
i • I 11-
C70 (!!O LO ~ ~ ~
rm cm mm m G7
mz zz -az -r
z° a° °
~ a a Z ~
m cam zm z
in m vi o ~n o ~
am ~ ~
m
r y
a ~ a r rn
n
z .
N 3 D ~
j
O D ~
1
~
A
b
7
li7
l=1
~ ~ ~ d
O .~.~ ~
~~~~ ~ ~
8z°~
~
«
~ m°~~
~°~~
~ o~®
°z ~
~ ~; ~
~
~
V
V

/27/d?007
~:\H .uLcs\dgn\Far mits\84246_hyd_prm_pfl_05.dgn
k~, Fy G«...., .~e. p f ~r

3/27/2007
R:\Roadwoy\ProJ\84246_Rdy_tsh.dgn
Kn A. Assnr.intes_ P_C_ ao iaa iaa

C011tTRACT: ~ TIP PROJECT: 8-4246

o
~
~ ,
~ _.._ _ ;, r ,
~ _
.

~v
-I N n
y ~
~ Y1 ''
O~ ~ ` `~
1 M ~
'1! ~
W
/ G 0 C C
~o
~ C N K
`-
° ~ . /~~ /
/~~
/
~
1 ~ ~ IN '~ ~ ®i~ Wn
C ~ ~ `O ~ ~
`~ -~ r ti~`. .

II
~ ~ b
N N O
H ~ I
1 X11
~'I
~

~ ~
/ . I.c'~ -I
-~~
1 ~ ~ _
~ ,
1
~
~ rn
h
p y ~, ~ y ~ ~._
~ ~
u ~
II II II II
O II II x m m A,
N ~ m ~ ( ~~
'N ~~
, ~ ~ • . ~• ~
~ N

D ~. W ~ W
N W a
YI
pp IVV
m
b ~_~~'I',
1~
N (~
`', _
!/
c ~ __~ (I.
`
1 _

,` 1V
i' , I 1 _C N ~ N
!V ~ ~ L ^ #
~ ~ ~ 90% PLANS
~ a~
~ °z
y
M ~
~
r ~ ~yO

~° c ,~° ~
` ` `' , /~a~
~ h
0 Cllr
y ~
~ y ~ W F~
p, ~ x
~ ~' H
Z O
0
0
~
~
~ ~
D ao

u ,

u n 1 ~
CJI p
+ G)
o r^ ~~~
o~N
~~a~' ate..-~
/~ ~

0 x

~
~ b

O
(~
I~
o ~,// ~ b ®`~9

~,

~
//
/

~

O
` /
~ IN
m
T R1 r

~ ~
.~
C
~'' u~ ~
o ~ b
a ~ o +3 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
a
~~ ~~ „h'1 n
`~ ; ~
~~, c '
~ ~ ~ z ~ /~ C9~ ~

~ m
z ~
~ ~Crf ~
~p
~ ~ ' p I
~ y~ ~ ~

~
-< M~n~
~ n :b p
+ m a~
N
'" ~
~2
~AC
'

Z
n

O
N o
~ ~'
+~
$O
~ [Z
J
~''
~ ~ O
a o
~ y
~" n
I ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~' `
~ ~ ~
~
~~ ~ ~ ~
y
b
y ((
~~
x

G1
x
~
W n ~
~1
~~

~ ti

ab

8~

~
m
~

~

N

~x ~~
~~ ~
~~ -d ~
~ m

~~ r

~~ ~ O

Z ~

~

~ I••' if

9
y
~ ~ ~ ~F

-n -o ~n to p ~ m m ~- to p A H m A ~ H v; ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -0 7o A c f1 ~^ ~!
m a ~ ~. ~~ f ~. ~ 3 S o n: 3 ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a o a ~ ° o a ~ a o 8'
m T ~ N "' ° g~ W W ~ ° D ~° ~ 0 g ~ m C 3 m r
G ~ 3 m .oi. ~ ~ ~ ~ °' W ! m Z rt
d ' C ~ O• C ~ 7 ~ 7 ,
p ~. Q $° o~ m m ,b
~ ~ o ~
~ ~ b
C
~~ ii ~ ~
II~~~ I. ! ~ I~
°a~t~ s~o~'o~'~aaa~~~, aaaa~'a~' o aa~'~'~~ ~~f~~
o °a `° o W~ m °- ~~~~~ 0 0 0> Q ~ o~ o~ o~ c 0 c 0 0> o ~~ T v! 'a
N m ~ _y N ~ ~ A N N ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ !1r N ~ O
O °~ m 0 a. ~~$ m m o~ c o 0 o m o* °~ o, » 3 $. ~. a v ico
O ~. ~, ~ ~ o m c7
a - ~ ~ T G rt .~ ~' 7' N ~ ~ ~ 7 ° ~ 7 m
A .o ~+ rn e° -• o m ~ m m
m
~' 3 o e~ ' T z
~o m
3 ~ ~ 3 3 N
~ ~ ~ ' 3
~; ,~ i i ~
~Q. III, I
° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of I 2 ~ ~ m m ., De } a~O
n Q I
I I I I I I } '~
I
tG t0 i0 'O 'O 'C 'L p ~ _ ~p a m m m 'g ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ID IG O
~ 3. ~ a. ~ a -a s s s ~- m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N > 70 ~ ~ °- 7o m ~ 70
~~~ ~ m o 0 0 0~ O ~ a o o -~ ~ ~
o > > > c Z r° r° ~° ny. c °
O. m m m m m m m m a' S `- ~ to v~ p m m ° -1
O A ~ g o m ~ ~ ~ C1 ~, ~ S C ~' O ~ ~ ~ S ~ m ~ rn ~ ~
~ m 'fl O -+
m a o ~ ~ S ~ c ~ o ~ ~. C ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ x 'a ~° Q
„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n o ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ m ~ H ~ o o ~ A ~ c °
~ W ~ m ~ Q' ~ ~ m W m p f ~ m y 0 O S~ n p
S' m ,. ~ S ~ ~ m o ~ o m o T _
O v u~ c~= o a o? o, m m ~ g ~ A C
.~ G m m~ m~ ~ ; m = N a c ~
n n m o ?' ~ ~
A° o~ o °' = in m p o~
°c ~ a c c m o c o c
~ c ~ to m ~ ~
m ~, a ~
~ V ~
N N ~ ~
m m ;' I a
'~ ~ I °-
, ~
l i l i l I ~ v
i ~
! ~ ~ I i I ~ I ~
~„ a ~ -~ -~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a m H o ~ ~ m m' ° t ~o' ~ m' a c -o cn < ~~ o m ~ ~ m m
~' ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ m m ~ N ~ o ~y ~ ~ a ~ m m ~. ~ ~. ~ o ~ ~ a ~ a W ~ T
o H ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 9' ~
m _~ to m v ~• m m m o m
' C~ H n A m
m
~ 7 m ^ C ~ Q' C N
~ m m ~_ m m C
^ N m • T
a C y'
N m C
~~ T
Z ~ I I
D I n I
I I I
~ g I 4 ~ I Y I I ~ I
-1 e 0 O • + ~ I
~ I ( ~ ~ i R
n
0
z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
5
z
rn
rn
N
W
r
to
II ;~
~• O
~'
~~
c~
®®
7-e
®~
CPS ~

dy_typ.dgn
H
~ m
~ ~_
U
o m
OZ
V
t
pN W
O
~~ m
~~
V W
+ + (~
H
Vp
88
~p z
ON Z
S pap N
N p
~~
O 7O
O
D
+_
N N
O
$~
A
Z~
0
v
i
N
N
w
0
O
o ~
~ N O N
I o ~
~i

m ~ O D N
n ~ c
~
1
~ P-k
0 ~ O ~ N
z ~ w

`" o a ~'
z °
-~ o
~
~
O rn
s N
O
o
w
O
O

O V P
0
N
~ ~
m o
s
O
v
~s
opO
_ ~.,~ 11
m

N ~ W N
-+ --
-
-
m
?
?
3
oa<v
am<a
7°s
mis
~-Dia
~a
°s

O _
~~
N O mvao
i=m9 vo
mrn o
~=v < 0
a=v 0
j
v 0
v
C [y~ 2
p -~w
> ov m<> <v <v o
T
p A ~ G~ N 8 ~ a
-~oo 9 oma m~ m9 ~
Q ~ ~ ~mm O
mx z~ ~x ~x
" ~ O 8 ; m m
O
N O O Z ~ es
i >n~ m< 1n~ -~~ m

~ Z
~ mz>
V
° z amD
7
w m m m
=
~
Z N
W N O
>
m
<x >D
<w 0
zT O>
mw Of
mw 1
+ ~ ~
O
+ ~. Z r.
vzm> my o ~ v v
-~ +
N V ~ N
O ~ i ~-ri ~~ -i :ri mf m>
8 c p
$ p ~Omo mri o°0 01~ ° i n
a
o g asoz an mm°z mt~ me m

1 wDe
mm >o
z
m xwo
m• m wo
n wo
n -~
rn
8 z c
i
Z r~m mm a am am m
O ro
w
'n atom Nz °~ °c •°c z
m z
> ~ r <
-rrs r
s <c
i
°m
° <
o~ <
o~
two
z• .. m
m m•
v n m m

n~am a1 am me c
n
wo
z~s m
w
°o ~m
. >a
caw
xm a
w
m
o-a
°mom ow 1m' "i i
m x m m
~8 iv T ~
Z~ 9 a ° w m b
C~ ~ ~
. w
D w
D ;

m
2
-i

~ C ~ r ~
o N m
v
m C
•• r

< H w 1 ~9>9 ~9
m ~ 1 x rz•

m om+a my

4 ~ <
~ =200 OX

o = `
r G m9 m.
m
>
z
v<>i
~ v i s
m m

rn
o
x a
>
w w >
w

O
~
a ~
y r z+i9 ex
1 O ~~ p r

w ~^ ^~ m wro ro
e G m w
o n m n
m m H
e raM
-OR HLLS z t
i • m m
~ .. l Dv-1
z
m 9-1
m
rt p = a a
r

rn

~O '
'm
O

a
~ m m
~ w
x m•°g •°c
w + e a a
v ~
s ~ imm
a- m
A J ~ a :i <
s
^~ amm m
i
~„~
~ 7 m
m
C O m xN N
1 ~ s N 9
., m s
H rn I ~~
~O _~ ~
w ~ ~ ~
~' W Z ~
~. ~ ~ o
0

v
A~
L
r
z N
I 4
o ~ N
~

- n
O N
N

~ N
C
W

0 ~ m
v

~
~ g
i
m -

r
P
a

$
~

~~
z o~
~-
o~ o~
~-
~~
~
v

boo
°p li"
r
~~~ 0
~~~
H
n
c
~
~
b
n

b
$G
~r
~~
~K
~

~

~~
~~
y w~ lb

i i
- 8/ 7/9
Aq
1
~,
s
a
Y
n
n
N
Y
n
v
°~ ~
z y m

Randolph County
SR 2834
Bridge No. 228 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2834(1)
State Project No. 33589.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4246
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIlVISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
7 t~•e5 ~t
-~~~
DATE Gregory J. Tho ,Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
7 // ~~ ~
E John F. Sullivan
~?/ Division Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
SR 2834
Bridge No. 228 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2834(1)
State Project No. 33589.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4246
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May 2005
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
~!~`
L. J ard, P.E.
Project Manager
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
J~~ ~~
Karen B. Tayl , P.E.
Project Development Engineer
e~[~l~~c ~+efs.~~ oA,~
~~~~~ r
~~~i
OeC~~^~r~ ~`~~~qa~a
~F `n./ESrearc`ac~' 0
C~8 ,~lr ~. b~d~'`~o

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Randolph County
SR 2834
Bridge No. 228 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2834(1)
State Project No. 33589.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4246
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 Protection of Surface Waters,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division 8•
Randolph County Emergency Services has requested NCDOT give 2-3 weeks notice prior to
beginning construction of Bridge No. 228.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch (PD&EAI:
Richland Creek is designated as a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat; Richland
Creek contains potential Cape Fear shiner habit (WRC 1998). Consequently, "in water" work is
restricted to an absolute minimum due to the presence of Endangered Species, and all.work
potentially affecting the resource is required to be coordinated with the appropriate resource
agency.
Highway Design Branch, Proiect Services, and Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems:
Bridge replacement project B-4246, located on SR 2834, is in the general vicinity of B-4245.
The construction of these two projects should be grouped (i.e. same contractor), and the
construction schedules should be accelerated to minimize travel inconveniences for local
residents. Since the posted weight limits for B-4245 are less than those for B-4246, construction
of B-4245 should be completed prior to road closure for the construction of B-4246.
The B-4246 project section of SR 2834 is designated as a Randolph County bike route. Final
design of the bridge replacement should include ASSHTO standard bicycle-safe bridge railing
height of 54 inches and 4-foot paved shoulders on the approaches as well as across the bridge.
Spanning the stream should be investigated during final design of the bridge to protect the
endangered species habitat.
Categorical Exclusion
May 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1

Randolph County
SR 2834
Bridge No. 228 over Richland Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2834(1)
State Project No. 33589.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4246
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 228 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure lA. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 28.1 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2834 (Old Cox Road) crosses over Richland Creek in Randolph County approximately 0.4
mile south of its junction with NC 159. Bridge No. 228 is located southeast of the City of
Asheboro. Land in the proximity of the bridge consists of mainly undeveloped woodlands and
fields and is generally flat. SR 2834 is classified as a Rural Local Road in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
SR 2834 has a current pavement width of 18 feet with 5-foot grass shoulders in the area of the
bridge. The roadway approaches are on tangents; however, the sight distance is poor
approaching the bridge from the north due to a curve in the horizontal alignment. From the north
end of the bridge, SR 2834 curves to the east approximately 150 feet from the end of the bridge.
From the south end of the bridge, the roadway again curves to the east approximately 500 feet
from the end of the bridge.
The estimated annual daily traffic (ADT) for 2005 on SR 2834 at Richland Creek is 3,100
vehicles per day (vpd), and for the design year 2025, the estimated ADT is 6,000 vpd. The
volumes include an estimated 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired
(DT) vehicles. The posted speed limit could not be determined during the field visit and is
assumed to be 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
1

Bridge No. 228, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 92 feet, a clear deck
width of 19.5 feet, and abed-to-crown distance of approximately 16 feet. The existing two-lane
bridge was constructed in 1951 and has a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams supported by a
substructure of reinforced concrete caps on timber piles. The current posted weight limit is 21
tons for single unit vehicles (SV) and 27 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailer vehicles (TTST). A
sufficiency rating of 28.1 (out of a possible 100 for a new structure and approaches) is given in
the bridge inspection report (dated March, 2002) for Bridge No. 228.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from May 1, 1999 to
April 30, 2002. The accident rate for the period is 168.96 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (MVM) of travel as compared to the statewide average. of 347.58 accidents per 100 MVM
for rural secondary routes (two lanes undivided) for the three-year period 2000-2002.
Randolph County Bicycle Route No. 1 utilizes SR 2834 and Bridge No. 228. It is a 31-mile
north-south route over lightly traveled roads and connects the municipalities of Level Cross,
Randleman, Asheboro, and Seagrove.
Utility conflicts should be considered light. Progress Energy aerial power transmission lines
cross the south roadway approach diagonally at approximately 350 feet from the bridge. On the
north roadway approach, Randolph Electric Membership Corporation aerial power lines also
cross the road diagonally at approximately 400 feet from the bridge. The two utilities intersect in
the southeast quadrant of the bridge, approximately 150 feet from the roadway. A US Sprint
underground telephone cable is located along the east side of SR 2834. It emerges from
underground for an aerial crossing over Richland Creek and returns underground continuing
along the roadway. A 16-inch waterline is located approximately 30 feet from the centerline of
the roadway on the west side. No utilities are attached to the bridge.
There are eight school bus crossings daily over the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 228 with a new bridge approximately 115 feet long with
a clear bridge deck width of 32 feet. The final bridge length and width will be determined during
final bridge design. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes in each
direction with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved). The proposed cross sections are shown in Figures
3A and 3B. The design speed will be 60 mph.
2

B. Detailed Study Alternatives
The studied alternatives were: (1) replace Bridge No. 228 at its existing location while
maintaining traffic with a temporary structure and detour on the west side; (2) replace Bridge No.
228 on new alignment to the west of the existing location while maintaining traffic on the
existing structure as an on-site detour; and, (3) replace Bridge No. 228 at its existing location
with. anoff--site detour (preferred alternative). These alternatives are shown in Figures 4, 5 and
6.
Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 were not selected as the preferred alternative for similar reasons.
The estimated costs are 81 % and 91 % (respectively) higher than that for the preferred alternative
due to the temporary detour and structure for Alternate 1 and the length/realignment of the
approaches for Alternate 2. In addition, both involve impacts to wetlands, a tributary of
Richland Creek, and the existing water utility.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but, this alternative would
eventually necessitate closure of Bridge No. 228. The No-Build alternative was therefore
eliminated due to the traffic service provided by SR 2834.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of Bridge No. 228 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 3, replacing the existing bridge at its existing location with anoff-site detour is the
preferred alternative. Alternate 3 was selected because it is the most economical and will impact
wetlands and existing utilities less than the other two alternatives. By replacing the structure in
the existing location, the length of improvements to the roadway approaches will be shorter,
there will be no interference to the tributary, and the existing water utility line to the west will
not be impacted. Spanning the stream should be investigated during final design of the bridge to
protect the endangered species habitat.
The design speed for the replacement bridge will be 60 mph; however, design exceptions for
both the horizontal and vertical alignments will be necessary. A design exception for the.
horizontal alignment with 46 and 47 mph design speeds will be necessary because the proposed
3

alignment will be tying into an existing horizontal curve. The design exception for the vertical
curve with a design speed of 55 mph is required because maintaining a 60 mph design speed will
necessitate a longer vertical curve and lower grade.
In accordance with the NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Off-site Detours for Bridge
Replacement Projects (Apri12004), the average delay per motorist using the proposed detour for
Alternate 3 is estimated to range from 5-10 minutes for a construction period of 12 months,
which falls under the Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines (see Figure 7 for the proposed
detour route). The Evaluation (E) range suggests an on-site detour is justifiable from a traffic
operations standpoint but must be weighed with other project factors to determine if it is
appropriate.
Coordination with the local NCDOT Resident Engineer and emergency services officials
indicates anoff--site detour would not cause undue hardship to the local community. School
officials indicated a closure would not create an unworkable situation.
The recommended detour utilizes SR 2824, SR 2827, NC 42, SR 2830, and SR 2834. TIP B-
4245, the replacement of Bridge No. 257 over Richland Creek, is located on SR 2824 of the
detour route and is scheduled for construction during the same year as TIP B-4246. The posted
weight limit of Bridge No. 257 (SV 10, TTST 17) is lower than that posted for Bridge No. 228
(SV 21, TTST 27); therefore, these two projects should be coordinated such that TIP B-4245 is
constructed prior to closing SR 2834 for construction of TIP B-4246. Ot17er structures along the
detour route have posted weight limits equal to or greater than the posted limits for Bridge No.
228.
The estimated cost of Alternate 3 is $732,975. The current estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the NCDOT 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program, is $50,000 for right-of-
way and $525,000 for construction.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
4

IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2004 prices, are shown in the following
table:
Alternate 1
On-site Detour Alternate 2
New Location Alternate 3
Off-site Detour
Structure Removal $ 15,840 $ 15,840 $ 15,840
Structure $ 370,875 $ 387,000 $370,875
Roadway A proaches $ 113,100 $ 480,160 $102,800
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 110,185 $ 277,000 $104,485
Engineering and Contingencies $ 90,000 $ 190,000 $106,000
Tem or Detour $ 575,000 N/A N/A
SUBTOTAL $1,275,000 $1,350,000 $700,000
Right-of-Way/Const. Ease./Util. $ 56,500 $ 49,500 $ 32,975
TOTAL $1,331,500 $1,399,500 $732,975
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Climax, NC (1982)
7.5-minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) mapping (Climax, NC (1982) 7.5-minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (NRCS 2002), N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats, and recent aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (LTSACE} delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas
were characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979)
and/or the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field Guide to North Carolina
5

Wetlands (1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were
determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985,
Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information
for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2000, 2002, 2004a-b).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into
Randolph County (February 25, 2003 USFWS list) is considered in this report. In addition, NHP
records documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations. Furthermore, Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats proposed by the WRC (December 11, 1998 listing) were consulted to determine the
presence of Proposed Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
The project area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. The project area was
determined to be approximately 300 feet in width (centered on the existing roadway) and
approximately 2,300 feet in length, encompassing approximately 15.8 acres. Potential impacts
of construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternative. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include: 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water
quality protection of Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh Branch.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by lower elevations
and wider valleys relative to other Piedmont ecoregions: although, in some areas of North
Carolina the Carolina Slate Belt is rugged and hilly (Griffith et al. 2002). The project study area
is situated within a gently sloping floodplain valley. Elevations within the project study area
range from a high of approximately 620 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), in the
southeastern corner of the project study area, to a low of approximately 570 feet NGVD within
the channel of Richland Creek (Climax, NC (1982) 7.5-minute quadrangle). Land uses within
and adjacent to the project study area consist of pastures, woodlands, residential lots, and
roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Randolph County (MRCS 2002), the project study area is underlain by
three soil series including Chewacla loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts), Georgeville silt loam
(Typic Kanhapludults), and Georgeville silty clay loam (Typic Kanhapludults). Within the
project study area, Chewacla loam occurs adjacent to the stream, while Georgeville silt loam and
Georgeville silty clay loam loam are found on slopes. None of the above soil series are
considered hydric by the NRCS (1996); although depressions within the Chewacla series may
contain inclusions of Wehadkee silt loam (Typic Fluvaquents), a hydric soil.
6

The Chewacca series, with 0 to 2 percent slopes, consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable, nearly level soils found on floodplains. Within the project study area, the
Chewalca series occurs in floodplains adjacent to Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh
Branch. The Chewalca series underlies approximately 5.4 acres (34 percent) of the project study
area. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a
depth of 0.5 to 1.5 feet. This soil is subject to frequent flooding.
Georgeville silt loam, with 4 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained, moderately permeable soil
found on convex summits of narrow ridges. This series underlies an approximately 4.8-acre (31
percent) area in the southeast corner of the project study area. Depth to bedrock is greater than
60 inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth greater than 6 feet.
Georgeville silty clay loam, with 2 to 8 percent slopes, is a well drained, moderately permeable
soil found on convex summits of broad ridges. This series underlies an approximately 1.9-acre
(12 percent) azea in the northwest corner of the project study area. Depth to bedrock is greater
than 60 inches and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of greater than 6 feet.
Georgeville silty clay loam, with 8 to 15 percent slopes, is a well drained, moderately permeable
soil found on convex side slopes. This series underlies an approximately 3.7-acre (23 percent)
area extending on anortheast-southwest axis from the northeast corner to the western boundary
of the project study area. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches and the seasonal high water
table occurs at a depth of greater than 6 feet.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ
2000). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030003 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region
(Seaber et al. 1987). The structure targeted for replacement spans Richland Creek and the
adjacent floodplain. The portion of Richland Creek traversing the project study area has been
assigned Stream Index Number 17-22 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
(2004b).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The project study area contains three streams: Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh
Branch. Richland Creek flows from southwest to northeast, bisecting the project study azea
(Figure 8). North Prong flows from southwest to northeast through the southwestern quadrant
7

formed by the intersection of Old Cox Road and Richland Creek (Figure 8). Tantraugh Branch
flows from northwest to southeast through the northwestern quadrant (Figure 8). Both North
Prong and Tantraugh Branch terminate at the formation of Richland Creek.
Richland Creek originates within the project study area at the confluence of North Prong and
Tantraugh Branch, approximately 70 feet southwest of the existing bridge. At its formation,
Richland Creek is awell-defined, 35-foot wide, third-order, perennial stream. Richland Creek
flows northeastward, narrowing to 20 feet wide near the bridge and expanding again to 35 feet
wide downstream of the bridge. Throughout the project study azea, Richland Creek has a sand,
gravel, and cobble substrate. The banks aze 4 feet high and heavily vegetated. Trees form a
canopy over the stream channel. During field investigations, the water level appeared low,
ranging from 2 inches deep over ripples to 1-foot deep in pools. Flow was moderate and water
clarity was poor. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream.
Opportunities for habitat within Richland Creek include overhanging trees, undercut banks,
fallen logs, and leaf packs.
North Prong enters the project study azea as awell-defined, third-order, perennial stream with a
sand, gravel, and cobble substrate. North Prong flows northeastwazd through the project study
area for approximately 90 feet before converging with Tantraugh Branch to form Richland
Creek. In general, North Prong resembles Richland Creek. North Prong is 35 feet wide with 4-
foot high, heavily vegetated banks. The tree canopy extends over the stream channel. During
field investigations, the water level appeared low, about 1-foot deep. Flow was moderate and
water clarity was poor. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the
stream. Opportunities for habitat within North Prong include overhanging trees, undercut banks,
fallen logs, and leaf packs.
Tantraugh Branch is awell-defined, second-order, perennial stream with 4-foot banks and a
sand, gravel, and cobble substrate. Tantraugh Branch flows southwestward through the project
study azea for approximately 90 feet, at which point it converges with North Prong to form
Richland Creek. Similaz to Richland Creek and North Prong, the banks of Tantraugh Branch aze
heavily vegetated and a canopy extends over the stream channel. During field investigations, the
water level appeared low, about 6 inches deep. Flow was moderate, as was water clarity. No
persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream. Opportunities for habitat
within Tantraugh Branch include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
The NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. The
list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is
one that does not meet water quality standazds including designated uses, numeric and narrative
8

criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric
deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology
is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in Section 305(b) guidelines
(EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining -only Partially Supporting (PS) or
Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list. Streams are further
categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list, according to source of
impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support aquatic
life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority ranking
scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those waterbodies
provide to the State. Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh Branch are not listed on any
section of the N.C. 2002 Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2002).
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of C has been assigned to the entire lengths of Richland Creek, North Prong, and
Tantraugh Branch. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection,
agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other
uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. No
designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I
(WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile
of the project study area (NCDWQ 2000).
The NCDWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000). Richland Creek is currently listed
by NCDWQ as Supporting its designated uses. North Prong and Tantraugh Branch have not
been assigned a Use Support Rating. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur
within 1.0 mile of the project study azea (NCDWQ 2000). The nearest benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring station is approximately 9.4 miles east of the project study azea
(13 miles downstream in Richland Creek). In 1998, sampling at this station returned a
bioclassification of Good (NCDWQ 2000).
Sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin supports 14 permitted, point source dischazges
with a total dischazge of 9.9 million gallons per day. One of the permitted dischargers is
classified as a major discharger, discharging 9 million gallons per day. The 13 remaining
permitted dischazgers aze minor (NCDWQ 2004a). Major non-point sources of pollution within
the Cape Fear River Basin include runoff from construction activities, agriculture, timber
9

harvesting, mining, hydrologic modification, failing septic systems, roads, parking lots, and roof
tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point source
discharges (NCDWQ 2000).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to .increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Richland Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the life of the project.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion
control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of
Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). -These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
10

seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The replacement of Bridge No. 228 warrants special concern due to Richland Creek's
designation as Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat; Richland Creek contains
potential Cape Fear shiner habit (WRC 1998). Consequently, "in water" work is restricted to an
absolute minimum due to the presence of Endangered Species, all work potentially affecting the
resource is required to be coordinated with the appropriate resource agency.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: agricultural land,
disturbed/maintained land, upland mixed hardwood forest, and bottomland hardwood forest.
Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each
(Figure 8). These communities are described below in order of their dominance within the
project study area.
a) Agricultural Land
The most prominent community, the agricultural land community composes approximately 7.7
acres (49 percent) of the project study area. This community is comprised of four open pastures
located in the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast quadrants of the project study area.
The four fields serve as grazing areas for cattle. One wetland area was found in the agricultural
land community.
Vegetation in the agricultural land community primarily consists of pasture and hayfield grasses
such as fescue (Festuca sp.). The otherwise grass monoculture is, however, invaded by
opportunistic herbs such as white clover (7'rifolium repens), buttercup (Ranunculus sp.),
blackberry (Rubes sp.), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and thistle (Carduus sp.).
Vegetation in the pastures is impacted by cattle grazing.
A single wetland occurs in the pasture in the northeast quadrant of the project study area,
approximately 530 feet north of the existing bridge (Figure 8). The wetland supports
hydrophytic vegetation, distinct from the rest of the pasture community, such as soft rush
(Juncos effuses), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), and ludwigia (Ludwigia sp.).
Cattle have access to the wetland and have likely influenced the composition of the plant species
here.
11

b) Disturbed/Maintained Land
The disturbed/maintained land community constitutes approximately 3.8 acres (24 percent) of
the project study area. This community includes residential lots, roadside shoulders, and a
powerline corridor, all of which are maintained by mowing. Residential lots occur in the
northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants of the project study area, while roadside shoulders
occur in all four quadrants, and the powerline corridor occurs in the northwest quadrant.
Grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation in this community. Representative species include
fescue, white clover, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), buttercup, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), blackberry,
and trumpet creeper (Gampsis radicans).
Trees and shrubs are present to a lesser extent in the disturbed/maintained community. Both
have a scattered distribution, occurring in small groups or as individuals. In general, trees are
confined to the residential lots and powerline corridor. Observed tree species include red maple
(Ater rulirum), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
Shrubs and saplings occur throughout the disturbed/maintained community, but are most
abundant along roadside shoulders and in the powerline corridor. Observed shrub species
include red maple, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), willow oak (Quercus phellos), redbud
(Cercis canadensis), and sycamore.
c) Upland Mixed Hardwood Forest
The upland mixed hardwood forest community occupies a total of 1.9 acres (12 percent) in the
northwest and northeast quadrants of the project study area. This community consists of two
stands of mid-successional, mature forest with well developed forest strata. The two stands of
upland forest are adjacent to pasture areas and accessible to cattle.
Canopy species observed in the upland mixed hardwood forest community include Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), tulip poplar, sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and white oak (Quercus alba). The shrub and sapling
layer consists of flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), post oak (Quercus stellata), wild cherry
(Prunus serotipa), eastern red cedar, and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
The herbaceous layer is sparse through much of this community. Observed herbs include
microstegium, poison ivy, trumpet creeper, greenbrier, and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana).
Cattle grazing likely contributes to the limited presence of herbs here.
12

d) Bottomland Forest
The bottomland forest community constitutes approximately 1.3 acres (8 percent) of the project
study area. This community occurs in the floodplain and floodplain slopes adjacent to Richland
Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh Branch. It consists of a mature, secondary growth forest
with well developed forest strata. A powerline corridor crosses through the bottomland forest in
the northeast quandrant of the project study area. Vegetation within the powerline comdor is
maintained at a relatively lower height than the rest of the community. One wetland area was
found within this community.
Canopy species observed in this community include sweetgum, red maple, green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), sycamore, and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Sapling and shrub layers include
canopy species as well as spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), wild
cherry, mockernut hickory (Carya alba), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
The herbaceous layer is dense, creating a carpet layer that extends throughout the bottomland
forest community; although, it is most pronounced in the maintained powerline corridor. The
herbaceous layer consists of Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quingefolia), microstegium, poison ivy, chickweed (Stellaria
sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), greenbrier, pokeweed, and wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia).
A single wetland, located approximately 190 feet northeast of the existing bridge, occurs in the
bottomland forest community (Figure 8). The interior of the wetland is not vegetated and
consists of exposed, mucky soil. Vegetation is, however, present along the periphery of the
wetland. The only tree and shrub species present in the wetland are red maple and spicebush.
Observed herbs include j ewelweed and ludwigia.
2. Wildlife
Agricultural Land
Birds that frequent agricultural land include eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), common
grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Mammals which are more
specialized to inhabit open fields in the project study area are eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). Reptile and
amphibian species that might find suitable habitat in agricultural areas include eastern kingsnake
(Lampropeltis getulus), black racer (Coluber constritor), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
13

Disturbed/Maintained Land
Birds observed within disturbed/maintained land include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common grackle, Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). Other
bird species expected to be found within the disturbed/maintained portion of the project study
area include American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), field sparrow, eastern meadowlark, and
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
No terrestrial mammals, reptiles, or amphibians were observed during the site visit. Mammal
species expected to occur within the disturbed/maintained land include eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern mole, hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), least shrew,
meadow vole, and whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians
which may occur within maintained/disturbed land include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
Carolina), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomorphorus sexlineatus), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), black racer, southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces inexpectatus), and
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans).
Upland Mixed Hardwood Forest
Birds observed during the site visit include, Carolina wren and Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis). Many bird species frequent the edges between wooded areas and open fields or
lawns. Other bird species that may utilize this habitat include ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), great crested flycatcher
(Myiarchus crinitus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), house wren
(Troglodytes aedon), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), northern cardinal, eastern
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina).
No dense, unfragmented forests occur in or near the project study area; however, the open woods
present may support little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris
noctivagans), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), which forage
along streams in fields, and sometimes among trees, and roost in wooded areas. Other mammals
which are more specialized to inhabit wooded areas are southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the forest include eastern box turtle, northern
fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), southern ringneck
snake (Diadophis punctatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), gray treefrog (Hyla
versicolor), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), American toad (Bufo americanus), and slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosus).
14

Bottomland Forest
A barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) was observed flying along the stream channel. Additional
birds which are likely to inhabit wooded interiors, especially in bottomlands along water courses,
are sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), American
woodcock (Scolopax minor), barred owl (Strix varia), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon),
northern parula (Parula americana), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), Louisiana
waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla), and hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina).
No mammals were observed during the site visit, but observed evidence of mammal activity
includes raccoon (Procyon lotor) and whitetail deer tracks. Mammal species expected to occur
within the forested portion of the project study area are gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and red bat.
Two species of amphibian, southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)
were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial reptiles and amphibians which may occur
within the forest include eastern box turtle, northern fence lizard, five-lined skink, southern
ringneck snake, copperhead, gray treefrog, spring peeper, American toad, and slimy salamander.
3. Aquatic Communities
The "Water Resources Characteristics" section details the physical characteristics of Richland
Creek, North Prong, Tantraugh Branch, the only aquatic habitats present in the project study
area. No support bents are expected to be placed within stream channels; therefore, no impacts
to these aquatic resources are anticipated as a result of project construction.
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic reptiles. Aquatic or semi-aquatic
reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project study area vicinity include green
frog (Rana clamitans), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), and two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata).
No sampling was undertaken in Richland Creek to determine fishery potential and no fish
species were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach of
Richland Creek include smaller fish species such as margined madtom (Noturus insignis),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has developed a Significant
Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance planning and impact analysis in areas
proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of Endangered or Threatened aquatic
species. All three streams in the project study area (Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh
Branch) are designated Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat (NCWRC 1998).
15

4. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project alternatives include both permanent and temporary impacts. Permanent impacts are
considered to be those impacts that occur within proposed cut-fill limits. Temporary impacts are
considered to be those impacts occurring within the cut-fill footprint of the temporary detour of
Alternate 1. Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to determine the
approximate area and location of each (Figure 8). A summary of plant community areas and the
potential impacts to each is presented in the table below.
Plant Communities Within Cut/Fill Areas of Respective Atternativecl

Plant Community
Permanent Alternate 1
Temporary
Total Alternate 2
Permanent Alternate 3
Permanent
Agricultural Land 0.12 0.90 1.02 1.53 0.12
Disturbed/Maintained Land 0.32 0.77 1.09 1.58 0.32
Upland Mixed Hardwood
Forest - <0.01 <0.01 0.02 -
Bottomland Forest 0.08 0.18 0.26 0.17 0.08
Total 0.52 1.85 2.37 3.30 0.52
rucas expresses in acres.
Projected permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements
are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. In terms of area, little of the natural plant community is expected to be permanently
impacted by the proposed project. Temporary impacts result in additional impact to natural
communities, and although these impacts are considered to be short-term, re-growth of this
community to pre-project stand age and ecological function may require several decades.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement patterns.
Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh Branch are designated as Significant Aquatic
Endangered Species Habitat. Consequently, "in water" work is restricted to an absolute
minimum due to the presence of Endangered Species, and all work potentially affecting the
resource is required to be coordinated with the appropriate resource agency.
16

i
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The
NWI system for classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats was used to determine the type
of each wetland present (Cowardin et al. 1979). Section 404 jurisdictional areas are depicted by
Figure 8.
Richland Creek and North Prong exhibit the characteristics of awell-defined, third-order,
perennial stream with moderate flow over a sand, gravel, and cobble substrate. Alternatively,
Tantraugh Branch is awell-defined, second-order, perennial stream with a sand, gravel, and
cobble substrate. All three streams can be classified as upper perennial, riverine systems with an
unconsolidated bottom composed of cobble and gravel (R3UB1).
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5
percent) of the growing season (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The project study area
contains two vegetated wetland areas (Figure 8).
A grass and herb dominated wet depression occurs in the northeast quadrant of the project study
area, approximately 530 feet north of the existing bridge (Figure 8, Wetland 1). The project
study area contains 0.15 acre of the wetland. The remainder of the wetland extends eastward out
of the project study area towards Richland Creek. The depression appears to accumulate
groundwater seepage from an adjacent hill. Located in a pasture, the soil and vegetation within
the wetland are frequently disturbed by cattle grazing. As a result, the vegetation is suspended in
an early successional stage. The wetland can be classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded
wetland supporting scrub-shrub vegetation (PSS 1 C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas and mottles.
Hydrology indicators include water-stained leaves, algal mats, and oxidized rhizospheres. This
system would be considered a "riverine" wetland by NCDWQ, based upon its location within the
Richland Creek floodplain.
17

v
A 0.02-acre forested wetland occurs within a depressional area of the Richland Creek floodplain.
The wetland is in the northeast quadrant of the project study area, approximately 190 feet
northeast of the existing bridge (Figure 8, Wetland 2). The depression containing the wetland is
shaped like a linear bowl with steep, 3-foot walls. The shape of the depression and the
surrounding topography suggest it may have been excavated, possibly to create the topographic
gradient necessary to drain a nearby ditch. The wetland can be classified as a palustrine,
seasonally flooded, forested wetland supporting broad-leaved deciduous vegetation (PFO1 C).
Soils exhibit hydric chromas and mottles. Hydrology indicators consist of saturated soils and
water stains. This system would be considered a "riverine" wetland by NCDWQ, based upon its
location within the Richland Creek floodplain.
Altemates 1 and 3 call for the replacement of Bridge No. 228 at its current location. Alternate 1
additionally calls for the construction of a temporary structure 70 feet west of the existing bridge.
In contrast, Alternate 2 calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 228 at a location approximately
70 feet west of the existing bridge. Permanent impacts associated with Alternates 1 and 3 will
occur to the agricultural land wetland in the northeast quadrant (Figure 8, Wetland 1). There are
no anticipated permanent impacts associated with Alternate 2. Information pertaining to
jurisdictional area impacts within the project study area is summarized in the following table.
Projected Impacts to Jurisdictional Areasl (Areas are depicted in Figure 8)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Jurisdictional Area Permanent Temporary Total Permanent Permanent
Tantraugh Branch - _ _ _ _
North Prong - _ _ _ _
Richland Creek - _ _ _ _
Tota I - _ _ _ _
Wetland 1 <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01
Wetland 2 - _ _ _ _
Tote I <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01
~~~~~~ uuYa~~~ aiG Gxpressea m unear reef. wetlana Impacts are expressed in acres.
Richland Creek, North Prong, and Tantraugh Branch are designated as Significant Aquatic
Endangered Species Habitat. Consequently, "in water" work is restricted to an absolute
minimum due to the presence of Endangered Species, and all work potentially affecting the
resource is required to be coordinated with the appropriate resource agency.
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities may require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
18

This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S.
expected with bridge construction. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction
activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15,
2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be
required. Impacts to vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078)
and the associated Genera1401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs
23, 33, and 3 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach
improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP
031 (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right-of--way widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
19

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), DWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 0.1 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and
value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of
appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
preservation, enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be
undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts, However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and NCDWQ.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species"
is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Two federally protected species are listed for Randolph County: Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) (February 25, 2003
USFWS list). Both species are listed as Endangered.
20

Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Endangered
Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small (to 2 inches), moderately stocky minnow. It is pale silvery
yellow with a black band along the sides and the moderate-sized eyes are located on the sides of
the head (USFWS 1988). This species is distinguished from all other Notropis by having a
coiled alimentary tract that is visible through the wall of the belly (Rohde et al. 1994). Plant
material constitutes the primary part of the shiner's diet. Habitat elements include clean streams
with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas
with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively
low silt loads (USFWS 2003). Little is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life history. The
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has designated Critical Habitat for this species in Bear
Creek in Chatham County, the Rocky River in Chatham County, the Deep River in Chatham and
Lee Counties, Fork Creek in Randolph County, and the Deep River in Randolph and Moore
Counties. Total numbers are unknown, but all populations appear to be small (LJSFWS 2003).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY AFFECT; NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT --
A survey for the Cape Fear shiner was conducted by NCDOT personnel on October 14, 2004 for
TIP B-4246. The results of this survey found the Cape Fear shiner is not present in the area of
the stream potentially affected by the replacement of Bridge No. 228. Given the results of the
survey and the distance to the nearest documented Cape Fear shiner population, completion of
this project is not likely to affect the Cape Fear shiner.
Helianthus scheinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Endangered
Family:
Date Listed: June 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to
approximately 6 feet in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but sometimes
nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape they
are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff,
with a few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually
pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from September to frost; the
yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch in diameter. The current range of this species is within
21

60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in
soils that are thin or clay in texture. The species needs open areas protected from shade or
excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance
or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (USFWS 1994).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project. study area provides habitat preferred by Schweintz's sunflower along roadsides,
powerline corridors, and upland forest edges. Additionally, NHP lists an occurrence of
Schweinitz's sunflower approximately 1.5 miles from the project study area. A systematic
survey for Schweinitz's sunflower conducted on August 18, 2004, however, revealed no
individuals within the project study area.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed
in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species listed for Randolph County are
presented in the table,below.
NHP files list an occurrence of Carolina creekshell approximately 0.5 mile Hof the project
study area (0.6 mile upstream in the Richland Creek). No FSC species were observed during
field investigations.
?.
,~-~_ -
','..
Federal Species of Concern
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status*
~;arotina darter Etheostoma Collis lepidinion Yes SC
"Carolina" redhorse Moxostoma sp. Yes SR-PE
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Yes E
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa Yes E
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana Yes E
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere peedeensis Yes -
*State Status: E =Endangered; SR-PE = Sigmficantly lZare-Proposed Endangered; (Amoroso
2002; LeGrand and Hall 2001).
22

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 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.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated: March 10, 2004, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) determined the project would not affect any historic structures. Accordingly, NCDOT
architectural historians did not initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of this memorandum
is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
A memorandum from the HPO dated March 10, 2004 states they are not aware of any historic
resources that would be affected by the project. Accordingly, NCDOT archaeologists did not
initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact ~by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
No residential or business relocatees are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
23

No adverse impacts on families or communities are anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project is excluded from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) since the
project is located within the Asheboro Extra Territory Jurisdiction (7 CFR Part 658).
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The 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. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. If vegetation or wood
debris is disposed of by burning, it 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 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental
Policy Act. The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes.
The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The results from apre-scoping geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation performed by
the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit showed no underground storage tank sites or
hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. The
geotechnical pre-scoping report is included in the Appendix.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A "start of study" letter was distributed to local officials and agencies requesting information and
concerns relative to the proposed study alternates. Their responses are included in the Appendix.
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement
program was initiated.
24

IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District*
US Fish and Wildlife Service*
State Clearinghouse
NCrDepartment of Cultural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Division of Water Quality*
NC Division of Water Quality*
Director, Randolph County Planning & Zoning Department
Manager, Randolph County
Chairman, Randolph County Board of Commissioners
Superintendent, Randolph County Public School System*
Director, Randolph County Emergency Services*
Sheriff, Randolph County
Mayor, City of Asheboro
Manager, City of Asheboro
Planning Director, City of Asheboro
Fire Chief, Asheboro Fire Department
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written/oral comments were received. Scoping
comments and corresponding responses are given below. Copies of the comments received are
in the Appendix.
1. United States Department of Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for [the Cape Fear
shiner], surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species".
Response: Richland Creek is designated as a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitat; Richland Creek contains potential Cape Fear shiner habitat. Consequently, "in
water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum due to the presence of Endangered
Species, and all work potentially affecting the resource is required to be coordinated with
the appropriate resource agency. NCDOT conducted a survey for the Cape Fear shiner
and determined the biological conclusion to be: "May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely
Affect."
Comment: "The Service recommends surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower at [the bridge
site]".
25

Response: A survey of the project area concluded this project will not affect the
Schweinitz's sunflower.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge".
Response: A new bridge will replace the existing bridge-at its current location utilizing
an off-site detour during construction.
3. North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Comment: "Richland Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a
303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for
all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the Water Supply Watershed and
303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to `Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds' (15A NCAC 04B .0124)".
Response: According to the natural resources technical report and the NCDWQ 2004
Draft 303(d) list, Richland Creek is not a 303(d)-listed water.
4. Randolph County Emergency Services
Comment: "We do request that we be given 2-3 weeks notice prior to the closing of [the]
bridge so that a more strategic and detailed survey can be taken of the immediate
residences and/or businesses in those areas. At that time we will also notify each Fire
Department, Rescue Service, EMS, and Law Enforcement".
Response: A recommendation to contact Randolph County Emergency Services prior to
closure of SR 2834 has been included in this document.
26

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100
PP•
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004a. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/BIMS 031604 xls [April 26, 2004]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2004b. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin
(online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims!r'enorts/basinsandwaterbodies/03-03-
06.pdf [May 18, 2004]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(online). Available: h_ttp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdUGeneral 303d.htm [April 26, 2004]
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Water Quality Management Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary table, and photographs).
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
27

LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles
of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
Pp•
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2002. Soil Survey of Randolph County,
North Carolina, USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Randolph County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325
Pp•
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 pp (online). Available: httn://www.water.us~s. ov/
GIS/huc name.txt [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Geological Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (iJSFWS). 2003. Randolph County Endangered Species,
Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: h ://nc-
es.fws.~ov/es/cntylist/randolph html [Apri129, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
28

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (online).
Available: http://www.nwi.fws.~ov [Apri129, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan.
Atlanta, GA. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp. .
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
29

J ~
~ ~ '
r 159
2
0
j „~I
'~~Maa r .
i
\ _ i `
T _ . / ! ~, ~
~~ R~
r a ,,.,,,
~__ ~-~
i x` ~
a ~ 42 ,
1,~1 ~ - ~ ~' ~ `~ 1 2830 '`
~ f `
`'' ~
2824
zu,
r \0
~^
~ ~
1 ~ ~~
,Q., ~ ~ ' 283
~ _ - J ` \
w i
t
2834 i '~'~nd
y, cn. ~
`~'~ j
9 ` 1 }I
''~`, , /~`` R.\~a~a~~ 2830 ~.~'.. ~~ Vi/
w ~ ~ ~
~ d ' - -.
"~ ` ~,4.,
ti .- -
~ ~ \ ~ J
~~.,_ _ ~'`,--' ~ BRIDGE NO. 228
i~
3 ~
1
15 ~~
I
~, J
N.C.
ZOOLOGICAL
PARK
r
C1~S O
1 + r
~ ~< - •` NETS CAROI.IIdA DBPARTIiBNT ~ TRANSPORTATION
~~ ~..~:
.~
Priseb A.s1.ra.E v1 Ba.;r~aaafal Aa.l~ria Br..ai
....
BRIDGE N0. 228
SR 2834 OVER RICHLAND CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4246
VICINITY MAP
~ ~~
A FIGURE IA
h r 4
A N D~` '0 P ' qz- s~iK ewa
} a riu,tx« + u1 B r
q Atd~6H~ ra vcn..w
ra~ -~ % t ~5 Si ~I
m t wunro r.on }I

~ -, _ ~,> t -

~ d e
F
{
~. ; _.
-
-. , ~
~~
`~ ,x ~ - ; ~

~
~ .` t
~,
~ ~ :<_
~,, ~.
~~ ~ t
;'
_
~-
~ , _~
~

¢
~

~ ~
< L^ :~
-~
- ~~~3~._ ~= ~ E
~ ~~

a
4
1
s 'IG
~
~ ,..w::
. ~"y~
i
~. 'yp:iLdl e
a
_ s
~
J
t
i

~
._ 1 ~
r e
- j
.~'

x
,..
..
n

"
F
~
~
~ 1~{

i _

k
k ~ ~
~j ~

t
1~ b ~_ - ~ _ _ ~4~
'f? ~ ~
~~Y:~

w
E ~.v* ~'~ r
~

..

a

- ...

-

i
_
++/ .
~ i
{ i
+ .~
~~
A
` 5
r-, t
~ ; .` ~ i~ ~ ~1"' 1 f i._ L.. ~ ~~ ~. t~,~ ~. Y 3. 'l.. ~". t . ~'~~ ' S7 x
~ ~ ) 4 f ~ ,
~.

~ -

~
,~
~. ., ~r~
d

,.
w.,

~
~,
~
'°~...~

-

f
~ - -
~ s
~ _.
~
~

~ 3 -._
`
yy t'4'

~
-
". .. Y
r .
.

~ ~
r

.!
w
L

..
e

_ .

_ . , ., _ __ _._
Quad. Map: !:S11CF3~rc~

-_ _ -- ,
. ~ ~, _
,. `,
r
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
al,~~ ;. ~ .,~,C'~ ~,~,M,j.,.r {.,.gym -E:~%~Y F.M1_ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ r
i, ~{ ~l<
._ ..._T,
.L4A. . €,. :..~1~~ d9.d d.l. 1'E L.Eiil~.7 ~3 ~ 1.~~TFJ
4 .
~..a Lkii117 ~71.i ~~~Vt3t3 ~ 3JZ.FL'

_~. ,.
..
~~ ~. ~.
~~~~~ - ° *. '.r r e. ~ ya - . t r F ° - r ' r' ~ r
~3, ~ .' ~.. r h,,.r r ~` `..~ ~ Welt ~ ~ ~:
` x t,
uc ~ ~~~~~ xt~ti
3 ~,
' ~~ f .t ~ ~'~ i L
- ~ ~a ~
r
€t~ ~_. ~ r
`~` t -
r k - ,~ >
~,. "ti._.. S ~ .fin ~
;' w.. r.. - Y. ~ v:f ! .ms's $~ '~~,;,
~~{ , ~ v {~„xv ~ tat~~~~~~' ~ia t=~7 7 ~ ,w~ ~G71YSfr~~
.. t'r ' ~ ~i~ .li.. `:.. ~i bEtk~.i. ;-b:+.~f Z., :rt.."Y'~ 1'.. `G'.ir ~. T,f

~~sc~g. ~+~' .ty~'~j_~^+~'~+~.y.~y~ g]yy7~(~- y...' -. _ .(^~(.~ ~.s'7.(w}.~jf`.~. ~.~.j a~!,a~'+ ~+, gxe~`xeti. ~'.~-g_'pT1'~~7('(ry} ....~... _, q, _~~g•3
•9 9 R8..1't,.. B ~.l ~3.I=e $ JE4.LlF.[~~ ~ ~ll @.A~i'ffi.9.1~113 'Y4 ?'s't3I L R1 YYT_~si\A.l~ $J .! ~~.LLiul$.1'Yl
Il1 a
£~t'~ Sl.$ 2~~4 dJ +1~ C ~I3 E~+
I:P~-I ~;E)~ITY
~3-~
~~~a~ . .

. PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.228 ON SR 2834
OVER RICHLAND CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4246
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL, DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTE
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH (ASSUMED
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT
2025 ADT
TTST
DUAL
DHV
DIR
3.100
6,000
I%
2%
13%
60%
DESIGN SPEED: 60 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: 4°I5'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 6%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 136 Kcrest = 151
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 2.0 fit FDPS 8.0 ft TOTAL (II.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 fit
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 32.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 115.0 ft
10' 6' 12' MIN. 8' i 2' ~- 12' ~ 8' 30'
VAR. SLOPE
FIGURE 3A
4~ ~ POINT 4' VAR. SLOPE
s .oz_ .oz _ .oe
6;~
~ I I' WITH GUARDRAIL
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
3~2'
BICYCLE SAFETY RAILS
4' 12' ~ 12' 4'
GRADE
~ POINT
.02 A2
BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
NOTE: KO & ASSOC. 02-24-04
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL DESIGN REVISED BY: DATE:
EXCEPTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:

PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA FIGURE . 3B
• REPLACE BRIDGE N0. 228 ON SR 2834
OVER RICHLAND CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4246
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH (ASSUMED )
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 3,100
2025 ADT = 6,000
TTST = i%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 13%
DIR = 60%
DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE: 8°50'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 9%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 79 Kcrest = 61
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 6.0 ft TOTAL (9.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 10.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 26.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 115.0 fit
4~ 6' 10' ~ 10' ~ 6'
( GRADE
~ f POINT
.02 Il .02
~ 9' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~~-
DETOl1R BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
3' 10' i 10' 3'
i
i
.02
~
POANT
.02
~ i
PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
APPROVED BY: DATE:

q:~6icvE ,~~5=rrx.;uXLV~' 9?•YGy,IX,Ffu ryt. ~; ,Mesh
~31f/7~';r'5

t

q:~tduma ~ ... ,'. Y>.t.N?Mi3 ;NJxs,^.

gyvmsx+~~)v,r„~;et.uv3- wv.N;NiE ~ 4Y ~..„tx'~x,b
t~i0~~'FX:!~+'

~,Mtn~~o;nay(;rn.~Xi41H°424ti~L~MB•V2A6..,4?L.P._si1'yah
~/!i$Cko

r s \` ` ~.
6 .. Ifl .~ i
f * \~ 2826 ~ ~ a mm.r r l
m, ~ ~ m spnplu
au ~ i ~ f ~
• • ~ ~, , elD»DO 2824 - ~` ~ ~
~` ` >m 1 - ~ J en. 2827 ae `t ~
VJ ' r
ar r _ 7 I
t ~ ~ ~~ r- - ~.._. ,~ p dam` d ~.
~\~ a i~ ~ 2830
159 ,~
me .~
~~
• ~ B IDGE NCB. 257 ,o P' 24 ~~ ~ ~~'
,~ (B-4245)
¢kwlwcn. ~, ~ ~ , 2632
i au
'BRIDGE NQ.; 228, 2634 ~_-4/c 1 .- ~ (/
t ~ (B-4246) ~ / ~a ~.
~ ~
~ ~ `---..
1 ~„ I :
f ~ I ~~ ~ ~
,, -
a
~ ~
,1>, ~ NN 1
,~
a I 4 N.L.
! 15 I ZA< >~ ~ ~.
b ~~ `
1 ~ s
1 ,~ ~ ! I e34
C 2831
r
,1 ~_ `i_'.:'~ S cl. _.. .n.. w _. .. e~•- cry fry
' M '~:. ..:.,d.l 19
will *; a ' ,1i nr p ~ sn~„
'.. 4~ " 6 `~, Crpx E'
Y t` ~i~~ 10 ~°•. ~c.
,1: `h ~ - -
;A N D~; ~ `01 L ~ P ° Hs:: ~ ..a ~+,.Is~ls w.l.,
Or ;N ~ <,d' AShEhlf~ . ~r'Da{ .' :ni~.p.n:.., u 1 sn ~ ~~^++.~
e
e 1 ~ t. I
y
I, Oct
~ -i
. 1
~
i 1 I
Nnm pr 1
~ f.vrc:~ Iff ' 4a.M
f~ ~
De:n~n
M
h
1. Cae:~:pt Sp
!1 1
b
n 1
pn:x. .~ ~ Ty.

~ ~' tkN
M:
e
S H
p
mn t
M
'
t
Slaeei
•
¢
n
p.e.~
..> ~
.
+ .: ? ,:,•n soul
Er.#.
.:. "1 it ,
~~ _ ~a
NORTH CAROI.IIdA D6PARTMBNT ~ TaANBPOHTATIOQd
ParisoE D..s1.r.a~E ul 8a~ir~eaEa1 Aa.lyd~ BruaL
... .
BRIDGE N0. 228
SR 2834 OVER RICHLANO CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4246
DETOUR MAP
0 0.5 I
FIGURE 7

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
~' ` WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY~TO
nTr~T~oN oF: April 2, 2004
Regulatory Division
~ !
1
Subj,,ect: Action ID No. 200400429 (B-4243)
200400431(8-4244)
200400432 (B-4246)
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
I am responding to your letter dated February 10, 2004 requesting scoping comments on
TIP Projects B-4243, Bridge number 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek; TIP Projects B-4244,
Bridge number 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek; and TIP Projects B-4246, Bridge number
228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek; Randolph County, NCDOT Division 8. ~ • Based on the
information provided and GIS, it appears that jurisdictional areas as defined at 33 CFR 328.3(a)
are located within the proposed project scoping area. In accordance with Section 404 of the -
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, Department of the Army (DA) authorization will be
required for the discharge of dredged, excavated or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands that are identified in association with this project.
Your letter specifies that Categorical Exclusion would be prepared for this project.
However, to qualify for nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23 or any ~,
other form of general permit, the application and/or project planning report should contain
sufficient information to document that all proposed activities associated with the project do not
have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment. All
activities,. including temporary construction, demolition, access, and dewatering activities, should
be included in the application and/or project planning report. A copy of the project planning
report should be included with the application submittal. The report slZOUld contain an adequate
description of all proposed activities, both permanent and temporary. The amount of permanent
and temporary impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that
will be affected by the proposed project should also be included in the report. In addition, the
report should provide a reasonable estimate of the linear feet of adverse impacts to streams and
acreage impacts to verified wetlands. The type of DA authorization and any specific permit
requirements will depend on the crossing design, extent of the fill work tivithin jurisdictional
areas, construction methods and other public interest and environmental factors.
Our experience has shotivn that replacing bridges with culverts often results in more than
minimal impacts on the aquatic environment and the proposed project would therefore not be

completion of the project. If restoration involves revegatation of the disturbed area, the plan
should include a planting scheme using only endemic vegetation. Bridge piers and footers
should be located outside of the waterway whenever possible and where not practicable should
be keep to a minimum.
I/ -
Based on the information provided for the referenced project site, the apparent level of
wetland, impacts, and scope of the project, the referenced project does not appear to warrant
coorcli~ation pursuant to the integrat'~d Section 404/NEPA-merger agreement.
'~ We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our scoping comments. Should you
have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call me at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Sincerely,
Richard K. Spencer
NCDOT Project Manager
CF:
Ms. Karen Taylor, P.E.
Project Development Engineer .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Mr. John Dorney
NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Mr. Travis Wilson
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1141 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Gary Jordan
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-3-

United States Department of the Interior E ! ~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ~Q~ ; ~ i~lu4
March 4, 2004 ~``y ~s Djy~~ ~ ~
~TA~ ~l~ P~
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
three bridges in Randolph County:.
B-4243, Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek
B-4244, Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek (W. Branch)
B-4246, Bridge No: 228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek .
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U:S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimise environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest.and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and min;m;~ed
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should 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 via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, .the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
z

s
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that maybe 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, 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;
S. 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 construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimi~e.impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. 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 our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~~-
~jl Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~
Charles R Fulla•ood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Taylor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator - ~ ~/~._._.-
Habitat Conservation Program ~/
DATE: March 19, 2004
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Rockingham, Randolph, and Guilford counties.
TIP Nos. B-4252, B-4254, B-4243, B-4244, B-4246, B-4129, B-4130, and B-
4131.
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 aze 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. 661-667dj.
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope 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 allowsfor 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 Memo
3 March 19, 2004
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
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 along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with rflad closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-yeaz floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The azea should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the azea reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4252, Rockingham County, Bridge No. 67 over Little Beaver Creek and Bridge No. 95
over Big Beaver Creek on US 311. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge.
A significant fishery for sunfish exists at the Big Beaver Creek site, therefore we request
an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
2. B-4254, Rockingham County, Bridge No. 89 over Little Troublesome Creek on SR 2627.
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish

i f.

O~OF vv H - F,QQG
~_ ~
fl ~
L ~ /.,(~(J t `~ Michael F. Easley, Governor
,~---~"' William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
04~.~` "` ~ ` ~~ "~
March 24,
MEMORANDUM
rAPR ~ ~ca4
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ~~~ .Z~;
,. O LilVl&ION OF v. ~
r ~ /~i> . ~ '1'Q rC HI(sM+!'AYS l~~ ~,.
FROM: Robert Ridings, Env. Tech., DWQ 401 Unit r~~~ /,,~2~ ~~ENr~~ AN a~~ ~ ~~
THROUGH: John Hennessy, Supervisor, DWQ 401 Transportation Uni/t~J~~
d~
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects:-~B-4281,x-4112'-4252,
~B-4254;~B-4100,'$~101,'~-4243;'x-4244,'$-424 .,~B-4104,'B-4129 ~`B-4130~B-4131.
~ ~ ~ K (U rya ~ rlluJ
In reply to your con espondence dated February 10, 2004 (received February 18, 2004) to Cynthia Van der Wiele,
in which you requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
I. General Comments Re~ardin~ Brid;De Replacement Proiects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers 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. .
4, .Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. Concrete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7. 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 re-vegetate naturally acid minimizes disturbed soil.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
] 650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), Lt~:/lh2n.enrstate.ne.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
ra~=

4'
IIL Project-Specific Comments
B-4281, Bridge 60, Dan River, Stokes County
'J Dan River is classified as C Trout and is in the Roanoke River Basin. A moratorium prohibiting in-strean
r
and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protec
egg and fry stages of trout. DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMI
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-4112, Bridge 30, Muddy Creek, Forsyth County
Muddy Creek is classified as C and is in the Yadkin River Basin. DWQ has no special concerns with this
Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4252, Bridges 67 and 95, Little Beaver and Bid Beaver Creeks Rockingham County
Little Beaver and Big Beaver Creeks are both classified as C and are in the Roanoke River Basin. DWQ 1
special concerns with this project.
B-4254, Bride 89, Little Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County
Little Troublesome Creek is listed as C NSW and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed wa
NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Cr
Area of the Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere 1
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4100 and B-4101, Brides l42 and I41 Abbotts Creek Davidson County
Abbotts Creek is listed as WS-III water supply stream and is in the Yadkin River Basin.' There are 30-foc
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runc
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).
B-4243, Bride 7I, Hasketts Creek, Randolph County
Hasketts Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT sh;
maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of ~
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4244, Bride 140, Gabriels Creek, Randolph County
Gabriels Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ has rio special concerns for this
~B-4246, Bride 228. Richland Creek Randolph County
Richland Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT sl
maximize the use of Best. Management Practices for-all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed wafers. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4104, Bride 2l, Carter Creek, Davie County
Carter Creek is listed as WS-IV and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer
requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and max;m;z~
BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B :0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). .

w
•
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
d~..SWFo
~~. r~A
~• it ~
- 9tPw.~ _ _ _.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
. State Historic Preservation Office
Division ~
David L S.
~~~G~ r C~
~~~,A 16 2404
r
._. _
. _... .
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director ~~ ~-
. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways .
FROM: David Brook ~ ~~~ { ~-l,t~'-x-
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek, B-4243; Bridge No. 140 on
SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek, B-4244; Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over
Richland Creek, B-4246; Randolph County, ER04-0471, ER04-0472 and
ER04-0473
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2004, concerning the above project
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and aze awaze of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Councal on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhdl-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. Tn all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson
www.hpodcrstate.nc.ns
Lontion - MaiGngAddress Tdep6onelFax
._______._-__ ______ -.___ _ ...__. ..- _ _ ___ ____ .-~.. ..•.e nlee

if.' .
.. 03
a~
~~,
Q'`~ ~ ~'~
~~ ~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
Gov>1tNOR
..~. C71 r~ Ca X ~~
A
.~ ~ s
Jt
STATE OF NORTH CARD
DEPARTMENT OF TR.ANSF
-f t
~a ~v
August 21, 2002
MEMOR.ANDijM
TO: Leslie Cox
School Transportation Director
Randolph County Schools
2234-A Enterprise St.
Asheboro, NC 27203
FROM: William T. Goodwin, Jr. PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek, Randolph
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2834(1), State Project No.
8.2574301, TIP No. B-4246 '
The N. C. Department of Transportation has begun the planning process to replace the
above bridge, which is nearing the end of its useful life. Construction is planned for year 2006.
Alternative methods of replacing the bridge will be studied. Some alternatives may require
road closure at the bridge site. In that case, all traffic would be detoured onto other local roads.
The type of bridge or structure that we select will determine how long the road would have
to remain closed. However, the time of closure would not be longer than 8-12 months.
We would like to know the specific number of bus crossings per day and if road closure
could be handled by re-routing or other changes, or if it would create an unworkable situation for
your school bus operations. Of course, closure is not a realistic option for dead end roads. In such
cases traffic will be maintained.
We ask that you let us know your opinion in writing by using the enclosed addressed
envelope. We need your reply by December 2, 2002.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Davis Moore at (919) 733-
7844, ext. 258.
Attachment ''pyer' ~ ~ ~
~`"- ~L°
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] ~ TRnNSPORT~noN Ball~N~
PROJECTDEVEWPMBJTANDENVIRONM~NTALANALYSIS 1 SOtrrrIWILMINGTONSTREET

Jack Ward
From: Davis, Donovan L. [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:27 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Randolph County, NC Bridge replacement projects
Mr. Ward,
In reference to the bridge closing projects; B-4243, B-4244, and B-4246. I do not see any
immediate concerns regarding the detours. We do request that we be given 2-3 weeks notice
prior to the closing of each bridge so that a more strategic and detailed survey can be
taken of the immediate residences and/or businesses in those areas. At that time we will
also notify each Fire Department, Rescue Service, EMS, and Law Enforcement.
It is difficult to make exact determinations with the provided maps. I did look on our
GIS but could not determine the specific area when comparing the two maps.
The most problematic area will be the project on Old Cox Rd (SR 2834) because of NC Zoo
traffic in the area. Again, with 2-3 weeks notice prior to the closing, this should not
be a major problem.
Please give me a call if you have any other questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Donovan Davis,
Deputy Director - EM
Randolph County Emergency Services
336-318-6943 Office
336-318-6951 Fax
www.co.randolph.nc.us/
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email
in error please notify the originator of the message.
1

r
{
~YS.+ SV17F n~
,Y ,w,.
,+..
~~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLII~TA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. Easley Lyndo Tippett
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ATTENTION: Karen B. Taylor, PE
Project Development Engineer
FROM: Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE ~1~,~ C~uL~-.~-~
State Geotechnical Engineer
TIP NO. B-4246
WBS 33589.1.1
FEDERAL PROJECT: BRZ-2834 (1)
COUNTY: Randolph
DESCRIPTION: Bridge # 228 over Richland Creek on SR 2834
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report
The Geotechnical Engineering Unit performed a limited pre-scoping investigation of the above
reference project to provide an early identification of any Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental
issues that nught impact the project's planning, design or construction. The following
information summarizes our findings.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Purpose
This report presents the results of a GeoEnvironmental impact evaluation conducted along the
above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify properties within
the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT
1569 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1589
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS/TE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NE.US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ENTRANCES-2
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRNE
RALEIGH NC

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
B-4246 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 3
GEOTECHI~TICAL ISSUES
Techniques and Methodologies
A site reconnaissance was conducted on May 11, 2004. A single Standard Penetration Test
boring was conducted on June 2, 2004. The boring was located on the shoulder of the existing
roadway, in the southeast quadrant.
Findings
The proposed corridor lies within the Carolina Slate Belt province in an area mapped as felsiir
meta-volcanic rock. There are some soft and wet surface soils within the floodplain in the
northeast quadrant. There is a considerable amount of large rip-rap material in the stream,
particularly around the existing piers. It appears to be fairly recent and is likely a scour
protection measure. The single test boring found hard residual soil at the streambed elevation
and weathered rock within five feet.
Anticipated Impacts
A drilled shaft foundation appears most likely based on geologic conditions and apparent scour
potential. No geotechnical impacts are foreseen for a west side relocation or temporary stricture.
If there are any questions regarding these Geotechnical comments, please contact Clinton B.
Little, L.G or John L. Pilipchuk, L.G., P.E. at (704)-455-8902
NWW/ET/CBL/JLP/dbm