19951066 Ver 1_Complete File_19951003

% ri r
STATE o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 27, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
61510 "
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
0
?p OC ;
? T-
Subject: Randolph County - Replacement of Bridge No. 148 on SR 2142 over
Bush Creek; State Project No. 8.2570901; T.I.P. No. B-3025
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report
for the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal
Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an Individual Permit
but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers.
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone],
Extension 306.
Sincerel
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Attachment
cc: Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh Field Office
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
F. E. Whitesell, P. E., Division 8 Engineer
Michele James, Planning & Environmental

4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
_B-3025
8.2570901
BRZ-2142(1)
A. Pro.iect Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN RANDOLPH
COUNTY OVER BUSH CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 148 ON SR 2142 WILL
BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING.LOCATION WITH A DOUBLE-BARREL
3.1-METER BY 2.1-METER (10 FT. BY 7 FT.) REINFORCED
CONCRETE BOX CULVERT WITH APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ROADWAY
GRADE. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ALONG SECONDARY ROADS
DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE LENGTH OF THE CULVERT WILL BE
ADEQUATE TO ACCOMMODATE A 6.6-METER (22-FOOT) PAVEMENT
-WITH 1.8-METER (6-FOOT) GRASSED SHOULDERS.
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 148 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 29.2 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 2
YEARS. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED FOR 16 TONS SV AND 20 TONS
TTST. BECAUSE OF THE DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO.
148 SHOULD BE REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
rt,. '

a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median.barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
2
J.y
S
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
atay be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WETLANDS WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY THE PROJECT.
SHPO RECOMMENDED NO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED FOR THIS
PROJECT.
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 200,000
RIGHT-OF-WAY - $ 28,000
TOTAL
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
$ 228,000
1995 - 600 VPD
2020 - 1300 VPD
3
r..

THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 60 KM/H (40 MPH).
A DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL BE REQUIRED.
SR 2142 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL LOCAL ROUTE.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
ONE AERIAL POWER LINE PARALLELS THE BRIDGE 18 METERS +/-
SW OF THE BRIDGE AND ANOTHER CROSSES THE ROAD 30 METERS
+/-NW OF THE BRIDGE. NO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WERE NOTED
IN THE VICINITY OF THE BRIDGE.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
YES NO
?x
F _x? -
F7 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third X ?
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
4
1
. a
I
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or D X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier F7 X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? X
any family or business?
5

f
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X F
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, -
economic, or environmental grounds X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, a
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
6

(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
RESPONSE TO QUESTION *2
AS OF MARCH 28, 1995 THE USFWS LISTS TWO FEDERALLY
PROTECTED SPECIES FOR RANDOLPH COUNTY: THE CAPE FEAR
SHINER (Notropis mekistocholas) AND THE SCHWEINITZ'S
SUNFLOWER (Helianthus schweinitzii).
THE PREFERRED HABITAT FOR THE CAPE FEAR SHINER DOES NOT
EXIST AT THE PROJECT SITE. NO INDIVIDUALS WERE COLLECTED
DURING THE OCTOBER 1984 SURVEY. CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THIS SPECIES.
SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE SCHWEINITZ'S SUNFLOWER EXISTS
THROUGHOUT THE MAINTAINED COMMUNITY. A PLANT-BY-PLANT
SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN MAY, 1995. NO SCHWEINITZ'S
SUNFLOWER WERE FOUND. NO EFFECTS TO THIS SPECIES WILL
RESULT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
l
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3025
State Project No. 8.2570901
Federal-Aid Project No. _BRZ-2142(1)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN RANDOLPH
COUNTY OVER BUSH CREEK. BRIDGE NO. 148 ON SR 2142
WILL BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A DOUBLE-
BARREL 3.1-METER BY 2.1-METER (10 FT. BY 7 FT.)
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX CULVERT. THE LENGTH OF THE
CULVERT WILL BE ADEQUATE TO ACCOMODATE A 6.6-METER (22-
FOOT) PAVEMENT WITH 1.8-METER (6-FOOT) GRASSED SHOULDERS.
DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ALONG
SECONDARY ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE I I (B)
Approved:
Date o? H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
7 -ss U/u V - Q cj7? o ?7I?"
Date Wayne/Elliott
Project Planning Unit Head
?r /
Date Mi ele Ja es
Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date // Nicho a L. Graf, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8

hdare ) - ima uhan _
r
eTr it
i
c
NORTH CAROLINA _ , erel Cross , ,
G
lenola --
- it
e
11
s 311

r /
I
S• O a In lle Guys Ch Del
•
tole
' N 6
N D H-.-- -

"
5 1 fd Franklm 14

Falls
f
R seur F
' le 64
49
I a 1 Asheber '
A s II
Fa I
mer 220 59 mount t
u
Colendf
S b 4
on a R R I N. C. Z-109-1 2 1
r«t I
©
1 t \\\\ S I8
3 t`t Seagrove
AT. , whynot

.3 1.2 , l f 6
9 8 2449
5

Grays .
^ 2450
er 2132 ?
p Chapel 2
2132 2138

2240 ? 2453
9
r
` ;?'y h 2448

1
2141 2261
kP?
Qj o
N. ?
( u 4
FAS 1* (b 1 2454 1
3
Millboro 2 2288 .
F
RID N 2
NO. 14
N.2
138 2122 J
" 0
142 N

2142 2481
2144
2141 US
a
1.5
2245
N 143 2455 6
•6 a .8 v 1.3 <

art,
v 2143 2538
2495
5 t 2491
2233 ty ?, 1
\ 2500 IN

2144 i 2220 2141
l
1
1 22
I
2225
r' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
1 2499'
) TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 148
SR 2142, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BUSH CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY

B-3025
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

FIG. 1

y° rew
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, )R DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Chris A. Murray. Environmental Biologist CW
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: Michele James. Project Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 148
on SR 2142 over Bush Creek in Randolph
County: Federal ;id No. BRZ-3142(1); State
Project No. 8.2570901: TIP No. B-3025.
This Proeramatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) addresses
four issues: water resources, wetlands. biotic communities
and federally-protected species associated with the proposed
project.
The proposed project calls for replacement of Bridge No.
148 on SR 2142 over Bush Creek.in Randolph County. The
existing roadway cross section is 7.3 m (24.0 ft) wide and
the existing structure is a two lane, 5.5 m (18.0 ft) wide
bridge. The proposed roadway cross section is 8.5 m (28.0
ft) wide. The bridge will be replaced with a 2 C 3.1 m x
3.1 m (3 C° 10.0 ft x 7.0 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert
at the same location. Proposed temporary drain easements are
located upstream and downstream of the replacement structure.
Bush Creek will be widened in the proposed culvert area and
erosion control activities will be undertaken in the upstream
temporary drainage easement. SR 2142 will be closed during
project construction and traffic detoured to secondary roads.
The proposed project length is approximately 150 m (49' ft).
Water Resources
Bush Creek. located in the Cape Fear River Basin.
originates to the north of Grays Chapel and flows in an
southerly direction approximately S.7 km (5.4 mi) where it
empties into the Deep River. Streams have been assigned a
best usage classification by the Division of Environmental
`yianaeement (DEM). The best usage classification of Bush
Creek is C (1993. DEM). Class C is defined as suitabie for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing. wildlife.
secondary recreation. ana agriculture.
%
1,
Neither High Qualit, Seaters (HQW). Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II). nor Outstanding Resource Waters (OR,C) occur within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
The Benth=ic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (Bjt?N) is
managed by DEAt and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program.which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality: thus. the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN surveys were conducted in the vicinity of
the project area.
Bush Creek is approximately 6 m (20 ft) wide and 0.2 to
0.6 m (0.5 to 2.0 ft) deep. The stream bottom is comprised
of sand, silt. and cobblestone. Water clarity and flow rate
were moderate during the site visit.
Potential impacts to water resources include increased
sedimentation. decreased dissolved oxygen. and temperature
instability. The latter two impacts are attributed to
removal of the stream-side canopy. Sedimentation and
substrate disturbance occurring during culvert construction
can significantly reduce water clarity.
If stream channel relocation is required for the above-
mentioned crossing. and if the stream relocation is greater
than 30 m (100 ftI or >15 m (>50 ft) on one side,
consuitation with the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC)
will be required. per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination. Act.
as amended (16 USC 661-661d). Relocated streams will be
designed to have similar characteristics (depth, width,
meanders. and substrate) as the original stream. This also
includes re-establishment of streamside vegetation.
Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States." as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register Part 3228.3.
Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life
in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place
fill into these areas fails under the Jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE) under section 404 of the
Clean Water act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
A'though?no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are
anticipated. impacts to s se waters will result from this
project. The project will impact surface waters of Bush
r
Creek when box cuiver:s are constructer at the prcect site.
Apprc._imateIy 15 m (60 ft) of Bush Creek: will be a?:acted by
the placement of the box culverts. The teIInorary drainage
easements impact approximately 95 m (320 ft) of Bush Creek.
Since the project is classified as a Programatic
Categorical Exclusion, a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.fI(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for proposed
construction. This permit authorizes activities undertaken.
assisted, authorized. regulated. funded. or financed in
whole. or in part, by another federal agency or department.
That agency or department has determined that the activity is
cateeorically excluded from environmental documentation,
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
sisnificant environmental effect.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required.
Note: A wetland is located outside of the proposed project
area. Specifically, this wetland is located to the south of
the upstream temporary drainage easement. Habitat
disturbance and sedimentation that may inadvertently impact
this community must be restricted as these activities. are
detrimental to wetlands. Best Management Practices (.BMPs)
for the protection of this wetland must be strictly adhered
to. to ensure that the biological integrity is not impacted
by this project.
Biotic Resources
A field investigation was conducted on 12 January 199.5
by NCDOT biologists Chris Murray and Tim Savidge to determine
natural resources conditions. Three distinct terrestrial
communities (Maintained Community, Mixed Pine-Hardwood
Forest. and Piedmont Alluvial Forest) and one aquatic
community (Bush Creek) were identified in the project study
area.
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing. non- to early-
successional state. This community: is located in roadside
shoulder. fallow field, commercial lawn, and utility
corridor. Roadside shoulder is located along SR 2142.
Fallow field and commercial lawn are located throughout the
southern portion of the project area. Utility corridor is
located to the immediate north of Bridge No. 145. This
community is dominated by fescue (Fescue sp.) and low-growing
herbaceous and shrub species including red clover (Trifolium
oratense). nightshade (Soianum sp.), plantain (Plantabo sp.).
broomstraw (Andronogon sp.), beggar's ticks (Desmodium sp.).
goldenrod (Solidago sp.). dog fennel'(Eupatorium
• I
4
capillifolium). panic grass (.Microsteeium sp.). and
blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Few animals reside along maintained communities because
of limited size and complexity of the habitat: however.
several opportunistic animals use this habitat as a foraging
zone or a corridor between forested habitats. A common crow
(Corvus brachvrhvnchos) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo
iamaicensis) were faunal species observed in this community.
Other avian species that may reside in adjacent wooded
habitats and utilize this community include American robin
(Turdus miaratorius), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and
indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea). Several mammalian species
may occupy this habitat and typically include Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virp-iniana), raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomes humulis), and hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Snakes such as the black
racer snake (Columber constrictor) and eastern carter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this community to feed
on small mammals and insects.
The Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest is located in the
northern-most portion of the project area. The canopy is
dominated by short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata) and Eastern
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). The subcanopy is comprised
of American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) is observed
throughout this community.
Mammalian species inhabiting these upland forests
typically include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Virginia opossum, gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
Eastern chipmunk (Tamis striatus), Eastern cottontail
(Svlvilagus florid anus), and white-footed mouse (Peromvscus
leucopus). Avian speices inhabiting this community may
include red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes cardinus),
Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Resulus calendula), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis). and blue jay (Cvanocitta cristata). American
toad (Bufo americanus), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina). and
black racer (Coluber constricts) may exist in this community.
Piedmont alluvial forest is located along the Bush Creek
banks. This community has been previously disturbed by
adjacent land clearing activities (i.e. utility corridor,
fallow field, and adjacent electric substation). The canopy
is dominated by shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). Eastern
sycamore, sweet gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua). ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), poplar (Populus sp.). tag alder
(Alnus serrulata). black willow (Salix ni ra). and mimosa
(Albizia iulibrissin). Blackberry, panic grass, Japanese
honeysuckle, and wild onion (Alium sp.) are observed
e . . .
throughout this habitat. This area max, be innunda'ted during
flood events.
This habitat '_enerally experiences periodical loodins.
Ephemeral pools formed in fioodplain depressions are commonly
utilized by spotted salamander (Ambvstoma maculata), Northern
cricket frog (Acris crepitans), and spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer). White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia leucovhrvs)
and Northern cardinal were avian species observed in the
alluvial forest during the site visit. Additional bird
species inhabiting this community may include downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). yellow-bellied sapsucker
(Sphvrapicus varius), pileated woodpecker (Drvocopus
pileatus), and Northern parula (Parula americana).
Characteristic mammalian species occupying this habitat
typically include gray squirrel, raccoon. gray fox (Urocvon
cinereoarAenteus), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali). and
hispid cotton rat.
Bush Creek is located approximately 6 m (20 ft) below
existing roadway grade. The creek exhibited moderate flow
rate during the site visit. Aquatic invertebrates are a
major component of stream ecosystems. Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea) and variable spike (Eliiptio icterina) were
collected in the creek. Larval forms of insects including
mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflys (Plecoptera), and
dragonrays (Odonata) provide a significant food source for
amphibians, reptiles, and fish of this community. Several
species inhabiting the creek may include Northern cricket
frog, spring creeper, green frog (Rana clamitans), bullfrog
(R. catesbeiana). painted turtle (Chrysemys pictata). and
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina). Tracks of Virginia
opossum. raccoon, and an unidentified rodent (Family
Cricetidae) were observed in substrate underneath the bridge.
Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of the biotic communities observed in
the project area. The estimated loss to these communities is
listed in Table 1. Estimated impacts were derived using the
entire proposed right-of-way. Project construction often
does not require the entire right-of-was- and actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Maintained Community 0.4 (1.0)
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest <0.1 (0.1)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.2 (0.4)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.6 (1.5)
6
Note: Estimated impacts in hectares (acres) are baser, on a
proposed S.: m (28.0 ft) wide roadway. an estimated project
length of 150 m (492 ft). and temporary drain easement
impacts of 98 m (1,320 ft) along Bush Creek.
The terrestrial communities fount': along the project
alignment serve as shelter, nesting, and foraging habitat for
numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to
reduce the number of faunal organisms and concentrate them
into a smaller area. which causes some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation. and starvation.
Individual mortalities during construction are likely to
occur to animals closely associated with the ground. Mobile
species will be displaced during construction activity.
These organisms may return to the area following
construction: however, the amount of forested habitat will be
reduced even further.
Anticipated impacts to the stream community can be
attributed to construction-related habitat disturbance and
sedimentation. Although disturbance, reduced water quality.
and sedimentation may be temporary processes during the
construction phase of this project, environmental impacts
from these processes may be long-lived or irreversible.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are detrimental to
aquatic ecosystems. BMPs for protection of surface waters
must be strictly adhered to for this proposed project.
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. As of November 17, 1994, the F«S lists the
following federally-protected species for Randolph County
(Table 2).
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species
for Randolph County,
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) E
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/26/87

Distribution in N.C.: Chatham. Harnett. gee, Moore.
Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small. moderately stocky
minnow. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow. and
a black band runs along its sides (Snelson 19-1). The fins
are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black
and the lower lip has a black bar along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in large streams and
small- to medium-sized rivers with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools,
riffles. and slow runs associated with water willow beds.
Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among large
rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The
Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus,
diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive specimens feed
readily on plant and animal material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in
North Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear
shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam
upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population
is located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham
County. The third population is found in the Deep River
system in Randolph and Moore counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bush Creek was surveyed for Cape Fear Shiner in October
1984; however, no individuals were collected during the
survey (Pottern and Huish. 1985). The preferred habitat of
the Cape Fear Shiner does not exist in the project area. The
creek substrate at the project area is composed of sand.
silt. and cobblestone and no water willow populations were
observed in Bush Creek during the site visit. The project
area is not located within the FWS Critical Habitat. or the
WRC Proposed Critical Habitat. It can be concluded that
construction of this project will have no impact on this
species.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6. 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus. Davidson, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes.
Onion.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb
that grows 1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tubrous
roots. The stems are deep red. solitary and only branch
above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling above and
resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves of

S
the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of.the stem and
usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad
flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers
are yellow in color and arranged in an open system of
upwardly arching heads.- The fruit is a smooth. gray-black
achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South
Carolina. This species is currently known from roadsides.
power line clearings. old pastures, edges of open stands of
oak-pine-hickory upland woods, woodland openings, and other
sunny to semi-sunny situations. It is generally located on
poor, clayey (montmorillonitic). and/or rocky soils.
especially- those derived from mafic rocks. Natural fires and
large herbivores are considered to be historically- important
in maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower exists
throughout the maintained community. A plant-by-plant survey
will need to be conducted in May 1995 when the species can be
identified vegetatively or in September-October 1995 when the
plant is in flower.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner. Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3025
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
_ I
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
Will the project have a substantial impact a
(1)
on any unique or important natural resource.
(2) Does1the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources-be adversely impacted by ?
proposed construction activities.
(7) Does the project involve waters classified ?
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
• V
{8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated 1
L
mountain trout counties.. r
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP. DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ERIC CALAmR -1Y--HAJR
FROM:
REP.. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FY
ACTION
-.?..NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
?NOTE-AND.RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS- ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE ANDSEE ME ABOUT THIS - ?. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
.'? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE El SIGNATURE
.? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION - - :? INVESTIGATEAND REPORT
COMMENTS:
A
REC????
eo R?? 6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 13, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 148 on SR 2142 over Bush Creek,
Randolph County, State Project 8.2570901, F. A. Project
BRZ-2142(1); B-3025
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on September 13, 1994
at 10:00 AM in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following people were in attendance:
Brian Williford
Kenney McDowell
Jay Bennett
Debbie Barbour
Robin Stancil
Ray Moore
John Taylor
Danny Rogers
Eric Galamb
Don Sellers
Joel Howerton
Jeff Picklesimer
Michele James
Hydraulics Unit
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
SHPO
Structure Design
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEM
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Division 8
Planning & Environmental
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Eric Galamb of DEM commented that Bush Creek is classified as Class C.
Implementation of standard erosion control measures was suggested.
Robin Stancil of the SHPO commented that no archaeological or
architectural survey would be necessary.
John Taylor of Location and Surveys reported that there were no
underground utilities in the vicinity of the bridge. One aerial power line
parallels the bridge 18m +/- SW of the bridge and another crosses the road
30m +/- NW of the bridge.
is
? -December 13, 1994
Page 2
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that if the bridge is replaced in its
existing location it will require a 2 @ 10'x 7' reinforced concrete box
culvert.
The Division Office recommends existing location replacement with road
closure.
A list of alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge on existing location with a reinforced
concrete box culvert. Traffic will be detoured along existing
secondary roads during construction.
Alternate lA - Replace the bridge on existing location with a precast
culvert. Traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads
during construction.
Based on available information, it appears that Alternate 1 is the
preferred alternate. A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended
replacement is $220,000.
MJ/plr
Attachment

ERIIX3E
PROJECT SC;OPING SHEEN'
DATE -.B=?-7-9..4--
REVISION D.P.LTE -12=12-79-4-
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
?PROGRAMMING --- -
PLANNING
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT 11-3025
STATE PROJECT Fj?570a01
F-A- PROJECT
DIVISION
COUNTY ROUTE
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Dl-]SCRIPT-.ION OF PROJECT: SF' 214-2. BRIDGE NO- 148.
RAiyDC)LPSi COUNTY, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BUSr
CR'EEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE _
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3_ RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR (.ETHERS? YES NO x
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: M , M

PROD I
TRAFFIC : CURRJI?NT _ 60Q VPD ;
TTST I ?o
TYPICAL ROADWAY SFCTION:
EXISTING STRUC'.l'URK: l&*NGTH
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE
?CT SCOPING SHEET
DESIGN YEAR VPD
DT --2-
_ l =5 METER"
1 5 METERS ; WIDTH
4.- FEET
BRIDGE - T,F.NGTH METERS ; 3;+I .DITH METERS
_ FEET FEEET
OR
CULVER-l' - i,_1 X ?w METERS
FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
FELT FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- s 200,000
RIGHT OF WAY COS'. (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ------------------- s 20,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS----------------------------------
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 220.000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 20.000
SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 220,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- s 220,000
-44 .. .
fi.R I:DG.E
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD SHEET: GRAYS CHAPEL - #805
SR 2142 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL FOUTE.
PREPA.RYM BY: Miche!e fames:
DATE: 12-12-94
J. C. LEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
(g 3
TO: 'REF. NO. O ROOM, BLDG.
E ric ?alavl,b ITEM-17 . NIZ
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
"
' '
la e GtMc? ?
E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND.RETURN TO ME ?: PER YOURREQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ?. FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? :SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

a 05

!Q
j

1
I, ? r
1

j j

i
t
-yyy M.swto
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 148 on
SR 2142 over Bush Creek, Randolph County, B-3025
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 13, 1994 at 10:00 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/plr
Attachment

-' 171OW ?
( 1-2-15
S Cc47'a/
V n4 S?
-4t
Y
..
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE _ 3-3-94
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING ?
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B_3025
STATE PROJECT _$0901
F _ A _ PROJECT .-BR-7
DIVISION 8
COUNTY _ ___ar?c(Ql.p
ROUTE _SR__1I<-4.2?
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACE BRIDGE NO. #148 OVER BUSH CREEK
ON SR 2142, RANDOLPH COUNTY
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
i_ EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2_ EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3_ RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 7 (%)
. ,,max .-Lc-?
BRIDGE
t ?0 PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR 1300 VPD
TTST 1 % DT 2 %
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 12.5 METERS; WIDTH 7.5 METERS
-41-- FEET FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH B-5 METERS
FEET -28- FEET
OR y
CULVERT - METERS _ FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH _ METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) --------------------- $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) -------------------?
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS---------------------------------- $
METERS
FEET
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- s
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST-------------------------------- $ 200,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- 20,000
SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- s 220,000
TIP TOTAL COST ----------------------------------- $ 220,000
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: USGS QUAD GRAYS CHAPEL #805
SR 2142 IS CLASSIFIED AS A RURAL ROUTE_
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 8-3-94

rot. - C?;M.'?f `H? ... .. _ ? .. ... ?. ? - _. ., uc. .-
rchdaTe 3 ulian ,
a

rt
1T
4 rm
i

NORTH CAROLINA j
6
' Glenola 1 evel Cross

d
of 311 5

r
S a lema
hville Grays Ch Pei ^
O
1 cy
N tale

6
r N D --H- ---
S ?.=fd franklmv 14 '
r
Falls R mseur I,
r ie 64 49
I. z 1 Ashehor '
,p 8 ll
1
1 Fa mer 220 59 I4 Mount 1
l
42 C
d

- t
5 en
o
i
la 1
© on
mgs U R R l `
N. C. zodos al 2 1
Pork ) .

° g \\ 5 B
1 r ?x
Seagrove
Wh
not 1
y
_• •3 12 6
2449 8 .5 - rays 2450
G
v 2132 , D; -%, Chapel 2
2132 2138
2240 i 9 2453
y h 2448
2141 2261` kCO o- 1
•4
FAS 2288 2454 1.3
Millboro 2
31 BRIDGE NO. 148 N 2
138 2122 v ?•2 P
142.6 N
q
.w 20
h
2142 2481
2144 2141 a 1.5
i
h
?+. 2245 2143 1.3 2455 •6
•6 ia.8 ?? <
ta+ r
2143 ' 2538 11 2495
5 t 2491
2233 ty ?, 1
\ 2500
i 22 n
2144 2220 _ 2141 •11,
-
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
`A h '?? 2225 2499
TRANSPORTATION
14 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 148
SR 2142; REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BUSH CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B - 3025
FIG. 1
-22
I. f? r r'? ? - I[? '.? . - -- ???? ? ; ? ?? ? ? v
r
(p ?? ?i/ ?\ L 79.5 j / , ti
U?i
------------- ------
7178
it
ui? i
Faith''Le IDp, 708,:
?M 76£
J n\ r• \ \i 1 I
J 1
I-? • W hive,
Memotiai
40
7'2 ?..
N 5p
f
07
651
I it
r3 M
f - iyx to
a96f? - ?L \ vim; - 1 ?°
a?
s?i, r > y -
I? I ?? f i 7 I i?
3959
?/?? ? ?, •; i? ?"i ? ? ? S? l?j ? ? it ? I I ? ]yy" ? _ / i ? r? ?_L, l / 7 I - 0 -i
ly,
58
Cem.
39581
c r%