19970129 Ver 1_Complete File_19970214

T ,a s^w STATf'
s t? , S
9?®129
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleit7h. NC 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief. Northern Section
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
VEB 1419911.
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 359 over Richland Creek
on SR 2911. TIP No. B-2859, State Project No. 8.2571301. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-2911(2).
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 33 )0 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project. As stated in the CE as an
environmental commitment. NCDOT will conduct an archaelogical survey to determine
if a historic mill site is present in the proposed project area prior to project
implementation. V U) Z6;
j'
We anticipate that 401 beneral Water Quality 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 Water Quality, for their review.
i
ENVIRON NTAISCIENCES

t 2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
incerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric" Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, Planning & Environmental

Randolph County
SR 2911 (Kemp Mill Road)
Bridge No. 359 over Richland Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2911(2)
State Project 8.2571301
T.I.P. No. B-2859
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
5
c
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/Z(o?
ATE Nich L. Graf, P.E.
FodtDivision Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
SR 2911 (Kemp Mill Road)
Bridge No. 359 over Richland Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2911(2)
State Project 8.2571301
T.I.P. No. B-2859
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
?,-J U -'?T II&L /
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date
Project Manager
.? CAR""
9
m °???a ????a t4°e
o SE AL
14509
s• a ®?D
?v p ct 44?y? ?
®ep?°O p??D iV ??
sac°0p.a,
00
?etl '000' °" a j sscassae 9Wgo?®
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Uni H
Consultant Engineering Unit
aw 14
Stacy Y. ald in
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

Randolph County
SR 2911 (Kemp Mill Road)
Bridge No. 359 over Richland Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2911(2)
State Project 8.2571301
T.I.P. No. B-2859
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The topography and the fall of Richland Creek indicate that a historic period mill site is
likely to be present. The NCDOT and FHWA in consultation with the SHPO will
conduct an archaeological survey of the proposed project area.
Randolph County
SR 2911 (Kemp Mill Road)
Bridge No. 359 over Richland Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2911(2)
State Project 8.2571301
T.I.P. No. B-2859
Bridge No. 359 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. Nosubstantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 359 will be replaced on a new roadway alignment within the study corridor as
shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of
a bridge 22 meters (72 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. This structure will
provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 2 meters (6.6 feet) above
the existing grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width, to
provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side
throughout the project limits.
The existing structure and approaches will serve as a temporary on-site detour to maintain
traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $540,000. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $282,000 ($230,000 -
construction; $52,000 - right-of-way).

II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Randolph County, approximately 12
kilometers (7.5 miles) east of the Town of Asheboro (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is rural agricultural in nature.
SR 2911 (Kemp Mill Road) is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is not a Federal Aid Road. This route is not a designated
bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2911 has a 6-meter (20-foot) width soil and gravel
roadway (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively steep through the project
area. The existing bridge is located at the end of a sharp horizontal curve and at the end
of a short tangent 20 meters (65 feet) east from the structure. The roadway is situated
about 2 meters (6.6 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 200 vehicles per day is expected to increase to 400 vehicles
per day by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit on this section
of SR 2911. Based on the existing roadway alignment and existing gravel surface, using
the statewide statutory speed limit of 88 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) as a
design control would require major roadway reconstruction along a substantial length of
SR 2911. To more appropriately match the existing roadway conditions the design speed
is assumed to be 50 kilometers per hour (31 miles per hour). A design exception may be
required to allow use of this design speed.
Bridge No. 359 is a two-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams and
double channels. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and interior
bents (low water bridge). The existing bridge was originally constructed in 1959, but
major rehabilitation work was done in 1986 (see Figure 3).
The overall length of the structure is 18 meters (60 feet). The clear roadway width is 3.7
meters (12.2-feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 3.6 metric tons (4 tons) for
single vehicles.
Bridge No. 359 has a sufficiency rating of 24.8, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to
be low.
One accident resulting in one injury has been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 359
during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. This accident was a two car collision
that was caused by a driver traveling left of the center line. The accident occurred
approximately 90 meters (300 feet) from the bridge.
2
Four school buses cross the bridge daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 359 were studied. Each alternative consists of
a bridge 22 meters (72 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. This structure width will
accommodate two 3-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side.
The approach roadway will consist of a 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width, to provide
two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side. Typical
sections of the proposed structure and approach roadway are included as Figures 4 and 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure on new alignment
within the study corridor immediately south (downstream) of the existing structure and
north (upstream) of Alternative 3. Approach roadways will be required for a distance of
about 220 meters (720 feet) to the west and 90 meters (300 feet) to the east of the
proposed structure. The existing structure and approaches will serve as an on-site detour
route during construction. Alternative 1 is recommended because it provides a better
horizontal alignment than Alternative 2 and is less costly to construct than Alternatives 2
or 3.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new alignment within the study
corridor immediately south (downstream) of the existing structure and north of
Alternatives 1 and 3. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a
distance of about 100 meters (330 feet) to the west and 100 meters (330 feet) to the east
of the structure. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the construction
period. The off-site detour will be approximately 6.4 kilometers (4 miles) in length (see
Figure 1). Alternative 2 is not recommended because it does not provide a better
horizontal alignment than Alternatives 1 and 3 and is more costly to construct than
Alternative 1. Also, Alternative 2 requires the use of an off-site detour, while
Alternatives 1 and 3 maintain traffic on-site.
Alternative 3 involves replacement of the structure on new alignment within the study
corridor immediately south (downstream) of the existing structure. Approach roadways
will be required for a distance of about 200 meters (660 feet ) to the west and 120 meters
(400 feet) to the east of the proposed structure. The existing structure and approaches
will serve as an on-site detour route during construction. Alternative 3 is not
recommended because, while it does provide a better horizontal alignment than
Alternatives 1 and 2, the additional approach work required makes Alternative 3 more
costly to construct than Alternatives 1 or 2.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not .
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2911.

The NCDOT Division 8 Engineer concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of
closing the road during construction (see Figure 1).
The Randolph County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of
traffic on-site during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the three alternatives are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches
Structural Removal
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction
Easements/Utilities
Alternative 1 I Alternative 2
$122,709.00 $122,709.00 $133,380.00
$283,730.00 $305,730.00 $382,059.00
NA NA NA
$6,561.00 $6,561.00 $6,561.00
$62,000.00 $65,000.00 $78,000.00
$65,000.00 $56,000.00 $60,000.00
TOTAL $540,000.00 $556,000.00 $660,000.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 359 will be replaced on a new roadway alignment within the study corridor,
as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a bridge 22 meters (72 feet) long and 7.2
meters (24 feet) wide. Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a
distance of about 220 meters (720 feet) to the west and 90 meters (300 feet) to the east of
the structure. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 6.0-meter (20-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-
meter (2-foot) shoulders on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4).
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy.
SR 2911 is classified as a rural local; therefore, criteria for a rural local was used for the
bridge replacement. This will provide a 6.0-meter (20-foot) travelway with 0.6-meter (2-
foot) shoulders across the structure (see Figure 5). The design speed is 50 kilometers per
hour (31 miles per hour). A design exception may be required to allow use of this design
speed.
l
The existing structure and approaches will serve as a temporary on-site detour during the
construction period.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 22 meters (72 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope
in order to facilitate drainage. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately 2 meters (6.6 feet) above the existing grade at this location so that there
will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 2, 1996 to verify documented information and
gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by
a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to
1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats;
4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and
physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are
described below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
This forested community occurs along the creek bank in the northeast quadrant as well as
along the stream adjacent to the man-dominated communities throughout the project area.
The vegetation in these areas include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciua) in the
canopy with little or no shrub or herbaceous layer.
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes residential lawn in the southeast quadrant, and
disturbed areas in the southwest and northwest quadrants. Many plant species are

adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas
along the residential lawn are dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.),
white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum offcinale), wild onion (Allium
cernuum), buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosis), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia), and
small flowered cranesbill (Geranium pusillum). The southwest quadrant may have been
previously maintained but is now grown over with various shrubs. Vegetation in these
quadrants include box elder (Ater negundo), privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), bedstraw
(Galium spp.) as well as other species listed above.
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside man-dominated and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby
the project area. The forested areas adjacent to Richland Creek and associated ecotones
serve as valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective
cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in the disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although only an American robin
(Turdus migratorius) was observed in the field, the raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.), garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and the Northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Animals previously listed may also be found in the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community,
along with the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina carolina), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic:
Richland Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. A tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), was observed in the creek, and fishes
such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubs, and other darters likely inhabit
the creek. Due to the depth and siltation in this creek, the macroinvertebrate community
may be restricted to the shallow, rocky areas along the creek banks. No aquatic insects
were observed in the creek. Fish sampling data reported for Richland Creek includes
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), Piedmont darter (Percina crassa), tessellated
darter, highfin shiner (Notropis altipinnis), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus) satinfin
shiner (Notropis analostana), whitefin shiner (Notropis niveus), and redlip shiner
(Notropis chiliticus).
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
Physical Resources
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes
along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 152 meters (500 feet).
According to the General Soil Map for Randolph County (NRCS,1972), the area within
the creek contains soils from the Chewacla-Wehadkee soil association which are
characterized as being nearly level, somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soils with
loamy surface layers and a moderately permeable loamy subsoil. This map association is
found on bottomlands. The areas adjacent to the creek (along the banks) are mapped as
the Georgeville-Hernodon soil association which are characterized as well drained to
somewhat poorly drained soils on nearly level to hilly uplands. These soils have a
moderately permeable silty clay loam to clay subsoils on long, broad gently sloping to
sloping ridges and short, sloping to moderately steep side slopes. These soil map
associations were verified in the field. The soils in the project area are mapped as
Chewacla loam and Wehadkee loam. Both these soils are nearly level, very deep,
somewhat poorly drained soils found on flood plains.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses Richland Creek and lies within the Cape
Fear River drainage basin.
The creek is a perennial tributary to the Deep River within the Cape Fear River basin.
The creek flows west through the proposed project area with a width of 16.8 meters (55.0
feet). On the day of the field investigation, the creek was approximately 0.2 to 0.3 meter
(0.5 to 1.0 foot) deep. Richland Creek has a Class C rating from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the creek's suitability for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture
and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Randolph County (1988) indicates the
project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood elevations have been determined. The
NCDEM Classification Index number for Richland Creek is 17-7.
The NCDEM does not maintain a macroinvertebrate sampling station within the project
area. There is a sampling station on Richland Creek at SR 2873 approximately 9.6
1
kilometers (6.0 miles) downstream from the project area. Benthic macroinvertebrates, or
benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers and streams.
The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been developed to assign
bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample based on the
number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera. Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from Richland Creek at the SR 2873
station taken in February 1993 and July 1993 indicated that Richland Creek has a
bioclassification of "Good".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The NCIBI is a modification of the Index of
Biotic Integrity. The method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity
by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The scores derived from the
index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody and may not necessarily
directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable to high elevation trout
streams, lakes or estuaries. There is no NCIBI data from Richland Creek.
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within
project vicinity.
The Randolph County Watershed Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit the
exposure of watersheds in Randolph County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than in the remaining portions of the watershed. The watershed map indicates
that the project area is not within a Critical Area.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Richland Creek observed in the vicinity of
the proposed bridge replacement project
.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, boulder
Current Flow -------------
Channel Width 16.8 meters (55.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.2 to 0.3 meters (0.5 to 1.0 foot)
Water Color Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Boxelder, sweetgum
Wetlands None

Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
o tlands will be impacted by the subject project as Richland Creek has well defined
(!'b! within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Approximately 0.04 hectare (0.09 acre) of jurisdictional surface waters will
be impacted due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 359.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists two federally protected species for Randolph County as of August 23, 1996. These
species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Notropis mekistocholas
(Cape Fear Shiner) E
Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship
to the proposed project are discussed below.

Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas)
Status: E
Family: Cyprinidae
Listed: 9/25/87
The Cape Fear shiner is a small fish rarely exceeding 5 centimeters (2 inches) in length.
The body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The
fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a
thin black bar along its margin. This shiner feeds extensively on plant material and its
digestive tract is modified for this diet by having an elongated, convoluted intestine.
The species is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates and has
been observed to inhabit slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. In these habitats, the Cape
Fear shiner is typically associated with schools of other related species, but it is never the
numerically dominant species. Juveniles are often found in slackwater, among large rock
outcrops in midstream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Constituent elements
include clean streams with gravel, cobble, boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow
runs, and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and. side channels and pools with
good quality water with relatively low silt loads. Critical habitat in Randolph County
includes 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of Fork Creek from just upstream of SR 2873 to the
Deep River and then downstream into Moore County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The only populations documented in Randolph County as well as the only critical habitat
in the county are located in the extreme southern portion of the county and into Moore
County. Since the project area is not located in the part of the county designated as
critical habitat, it is not expected that the Cape Fear shiner would occur within the project
area. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact the Cape Fear shiner.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 6/6/91
Flowers Present: September - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 1.0 to
2.0 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually
solitary, branching only at or above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color.
The leaves are opposite on the lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate,
pubescent, and have a rough and thick texture. They are 18 centimeters (7 inches) long
and 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) wide. The 5.5-centimeter (2-inch) broad flowers are borne
from September until frost. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small, upwardly
arching heads of yellow flowers. The fruit is a gray-black achene approximately 5
in
millimeters (0.2 inch) long and are glabrous with rounded tips. Based on its similar
morphology to H. laevigatus and H. microcephalus it is difficult to positively identify
this species prior to flowering.
Schweinitz's sunflower is found only in the piedmont of North and South Carolina with
13 known populations occurring in North Carolina. Growing best in full sunlight or light
shade, it occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay
loams, or sandy clay loams with a high gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in
open habitats such as the edge of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and
pastures. Natural fires and large herbivores are considered to be historically important in
maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing,
controlled burning, and logging help maintain its open habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat exists in the project area for this species. Following inspection of
herbarium specimens and field guide photographs of Schweinitz's sunflower, all roadside
margins and woodland fringes were searched visually for plants with sunflower
characteristics. No individuals of the genus Helianthus were observed during the search
performed on May 2, 1996. NCDOT staff biologists performed a survey of all suitable
habitat during this species' flowering time on October 22-24, 1996. No individuals were
observed in the study area as a result of this survey. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this species
within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of the proposed project
will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 species (C2) or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient data to support. Table 3 includes listed FSC species for Randolph
County and their state classifications.
I1

TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Dactyloctythere peedeensis* T U
(Pee Dee crayfish ostracod)
Fusconaia masoni " T Yes
(Atlantic pigtoe)
Alasmidonta varicosa T Yes
(Brook floater)
" incticates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
NC Status: T denotes Threatened.
Suitable Habitat: U denotes habitat is unknown for this species.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) or
the project site.
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs.
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated community will
receive the greatest impact from construction. Table 4 details the anticipated impacts to
terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
12

TABLE 4
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACR ES)
Bridge No. 359
Replacement
Impacts Man-
Dominated
Community Mixed
Hardwood
Community Aquatic
Community Combined
Total
Alternative 1 0.41(l.01) 0.15(0.38) 0.04(0.09) 0.60(1.48)
Alternative 2 0.21(0.52) 0.1(0.25) 0.02 (0.05) 0.33(0.82)
Alternative 3 0.41(1.01) 0.16(0.41) 0.04 (0.09) 0.61(1.51)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Richland Creek. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.04 hectare (0.09
acre) of stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work
will likely increase sediment loads in the creek in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the creek channel. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N. C. Department of
13

Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project
has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
14

To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), stated that there are no recorded archaeological sites in the immediate project
area, but the topography and the fall of Richland Creek indicate that a historic period mill
site is likely to be present. The NCDOT and FHWA in consultation with the SHPO will
conduct an archaeological survey of the proposed project area.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmlands within the study area were identified by the
Natural Resources Conservation service (MRCS). An area may be designated as prime or
important farmland based on soil type, potential crop yield, necessary energy expended,
and other factors. Undeveloped land not currently used for agriculture may qualify as
prime or important farmland.
The impact each alternative has on these farmlands is presented in the Appendix. CFR
658.4(c)(2) states, "...sites receiving a total score of less than 160 be given a minimal
level of consideration for protection and no additional sites be evaluated". As the
preferred Alternative 1 scores only 103.2, no additional consideration is necessary for the
minimal impacts anticipated.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
15
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and
the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section
revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Randolph County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.

16

s .5
a
1.7 I
16 2664
\
tt Holly Spring
N
'
8 \ 2606 2614
1003
a
Ramseur -0, 2658
2830 l6 b• o? 7 .3

-y- 2.5 t 660 ( 2656
tr
2832 a 2674 b
2614
Ric
and
2611
Grantville
4
2659
16 265
'?„"^_ ?r;......• ?ti•, A 265

2845 2908 q•C 2655
-
;:.:...:; 2832
N.C. .... --
bcb B-2859 /
OOLOGICAL
PARK 291 15 ? 1003 26:
2911
1 2831 "8 2832 /\ 1.3 t'' 1p
284 2903 Y
' w
:.. u 42
283
2834 .2 .. 8 4 3
i A C14 N
•U 0 2833 2895
2845

1 2909 2905
2903
.
2834
2849 9 9 Creek o 2895 Q

2904 2900 _
'

a
7
V` 2957
N
i 2903 .
r
N 2896
b 2906 X 2899
.2 10
^ '
2909 3145
.? vd
?2 0
1
3
2903 2907 2900 1003
-- ? 289(70
`
hM
- -
' a 1q 2907
ITr e
rc
ima
nit I 1 ^^- 2890
7 t
Grays
i R A N D O L Fr Iinvr a I.
It Fplls Ramseur P
r ? 16 64 'F r
t I w_ I She a 8
>? I Farmer 220 s a mount N
8 42 14 Coleridg
ings RRI I «
Pa.4 I
a 3? 5 B
.r I ttt Seagrove
? J3 I AT. t1j1 WhYnot 1,
LEGEND
Studied Detour Route
y? a
r; i• h 11.0 2896 M
1002
1003
Erect
1002 2929
FIGURE 1
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SR 2911
BRIDGE NO. 359 OVER RICHLAND CREEK
B-2859
0 kilometers 1 i6 kllonsetera 312
6 "ttta' 1.0 mtl.. 2.0
Randolph County
SR 2911
Bridge No. 359
Over Richland Creek
B-2859
SIDE VIEW
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3
?
a w
4
q

?
a
A ? Z
? x
? ?
G4
03
o w N w
E 10 x CO
o n
c
V
1.
am
00
C4
a
„a
to
>
O
CQ
0
.C so 0
A to
z M
IF IF ZE-1. d
a x

w
a
a
as
E o $
M M G ci
W
F-

-0 O

W CC
N N y
_U .?
?
Q Q Q ?
OH O
a Q
ILX
w CLO
? D
C
7
a Q
V
{
?
w
4J J t
V
CL CL
M
E 4 E 4 E
M G M G r

Q
•
O .C E $

C
N *Iq
C
EL

4 ? W
V w
0 ?
., W
U
0
n b A W

n ?
E
a
V
TE ?
04
0
M o w
W
a
U13
H 0? aN o cil
o W

q
A C

a

z co
z°Fa.
z
w
im
A
® a
as

E

M

V
m
oC
N

Z
O

O

W
N
J
V
_
? J
0
G
O

u C

O

0
N
N

U
er c

Q p
.
- N
Z N
O

E W
Z
O {L
h

s
ao
BRIDGE NO. 359
it .

0
I
zo;
.I
496
n
Aw, I North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SR 2911
BRIDGE NO.359 OVER RICHLAND CREEK
B-2859
FIGURE 6

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tra ? portation /
FROM: David Brook ` / ? (?--
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 359 on SR 2911 over Richland Creek,
Randolph County, B-2859, ER 96-9088
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
/E I V
40
-? ,UN 2 1996
U OF 4z,
NY S Qy
?`? eNVihGt???'" -•
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, it appears that there are no
structures over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect. We,
therefore, recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites in the immediate project area, but the
topography and the fall of Richland Creek indicate that a historic period mill site is
likely to be present. We recommend that the project area be surveyed by an
experienced archaeologist prior to project implementation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # {7tZ-7- - ?_t I I (. 2 L TIP # Y" 28ei? County tZAtJ Po t.P A
CONCURRENCE FOR1ti1 FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description l -EPtAGE SSZtl7f ,do.
( veiocp. ?uP x)
On J k4r_ C`7, IT14, , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Hish«•av Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
there are propcrtics over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential cffccts,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
e = '--) S I t ?l°t L
Date
wAlfor 1 is Division Admini
opt SK- 2°Itl evr-cZ
r, or ocher t•eQCral Agency
Date
Rcprescntativc, SHPO 'Date
J J\
'State Historic Preservation Officer atc
If a survey report is prepared, a tidal copy of this Corns and die attached list %%ill he included-
e va 5U7F o
-tO2Z2-10000
t_.. 0) /
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMEs B. HUNT )R- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GA
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 1, 1996
Mr. Worth Hatley
Superintendent
Randolph County Schools
2222-C S. Fayetteville Street
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203-7397
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2911 over Richland
Creek (T.I.P. No B-2859), and Bridge on SR 1406 over Uwharne River (T.I.P. No B-
3022), Randolph- County.
Subject: Environmental Evaluation
Dear Mr. Hatley:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to replace
the SR 2911 bridge over Richland Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2859), and the SR 1406
bridge over Uwharne River (T.I.P No. B-3022) in Randolph County. Attached are
location maps for your information and reference.
These replacements will result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of
the existing structures do not currently appear to be a feasible option due to
their age and deteriorating conditions. It is anticipated that the structures will
either be replaced at their existing locations or with facilities on new locations.
These projects will be constructed Muth Federal-Aid Funds.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with the bridge replacement projects. We would appreciate your
• input giving us any information you have on the issues listed below, as well as
any additional information you might have relative to the project planning
process:
1. How many school buses cross these structures during the course of the
day? 3K - 911 ( 1A iREL5 s) SR 1'ID?- C.z
2. Provided travel service is maintained during project construction, would
there be any other cause for concern regarding disruptionO
?, to school bus
serviced / u jt)o /? 4te9yow
n?'1 S
5

3. . Are you aware of any other issues or do you have other school related
concerns that m y b relativ to the roject plannin proce s ?
" J ?
Your com nts will be use ' the preparation of a docu ent evaluating
environmental impacts of the projects. It is requested that your agency respond
by April 25, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
Your comments should be mailed to the following address:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact the Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Baldwin, at [phone] or Bill Hood,
P.E. at Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, [phone].
Sincerely,

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
1112 19,4,

E RANDOLPH COUCOLWN
NTY SCHOOLS
2222-C South Fayetteville Street
Asheboro. North Carolina 27203
Office Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Home Phone: [phone]
Jerry Shackelford
Executive Director
Pupil Accounting/Facilities
' E
e.. svh
-o\
" "" 'AI=R R 1996 r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIVlSICy OF
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?CP HIGHWAYS \Qe`
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETA
April 1, 1996
Mr. William F. Willis
County Administrator COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Randolph County OVI of Pt.; a DEVELOPMENT
Post Office Box 4728 P. D. 9= m, COUNTY OFFICE BLDG.
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-4728 M McDOWFU PD" ASHEBORO. N.C. ZrAK
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2911 over Richland
Creek (T.I.P. No B-2859), and Bridge on SR 1406 over Uwharrie River (T.I.P. No B-
3022), Randolph County.
Subject: Environmental Evaluation
Dear Mr. Willis:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to replace
the SR 2911 bridge over Richland Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2859), and the SR 1406
bridge over Uwharrie River (T.I.P No. B-3022) in Randolph County. Attached are
location maps for your information and reference.
These replacements Wil result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of
the existing structures do not currently appear to be a feasible option due to
their age and deteriorating conditions. It is anticipated that the structures will
either be replaced at their existing locations or with facilities on new alignments.
These projects will be constructed with Federal-Aid Funds.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts
associated oath the bridge replacement projects. We would appreciate your
input giving us any information you have on the issues listed below, as well as
any additional information you might have relative to the project planning
process:
1. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals? Ylg?
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project? /v&17--
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project? ,/I/

4. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands, playgrounds, etc.)
in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing? 1v0 -
5. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments within
the project area? v - ,-1
6. Are tax maps available for the area surrounding the proposed project?
Also, are County topographic maps available in the vicinity of the project?
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for the
project area? ylz-a
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency
routes such as fire, rescue, etc.? ?U
9. Is there a Land Use Plan or Master Plan available for Randolph County?
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the area
surrounding the proposed project?
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project
planning process? "I" -,
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
Your comments will be used in the preparation rAFve?.tdr?
environmental impacts of the projects. It is requested th
by April 25, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of4his
document. G/ - 3- 96
Your comments should be mailed to the following address: cllo -3J9- &';, S- 61?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact the NCDOT Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Baldwin, at [phone] or Mr.
Bill Hood, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., at [phone].
Sincerely,
/ 11? je?-;?Z
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
State of North Carolina uz09
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
AdAMMKINIMMOk M 1K
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary [? E H N F=j 13 2-170
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
g - 3 003
April 19, 1996 -30 Z-2-
MEMORANDUM -30e
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb G?
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper S!?'
L
AT
a
CH 7
L or ..,1 ,nr-;f-% r
ISH .AND '?VILDLIFF' SERVICE
".aieigh Fiela Office
Pos, Ofic^ Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3-126
In Reply Refer --c:
FWS/AES/RANC
April 10, 1996
J " Zg
Pj - Z(oOcl
?-5-
? - ? fad

4 ?j
Z?Z
i
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided 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 of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following' recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):
J 1 .
tee anGt . r= .._r _-e roJcC:C a
C iSCti»;_oI. OL =n 7-0;e- '-,5/ ^uP` E U Li!_Lyi
2. Nn anaJ.vsis of the alternatives to the pr--)nosed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, t`:ac
are to to impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the G.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding 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. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental impacts): ,
A specific description of the proposed action to-be considered;
w
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
' 3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
^a _cjec: 3n . ,:•imu-rive e?f_c's
arza;
Znterrelaced actions are those c are part of a 1_rger act:.on and
?.,
.depenn on the larger action for their j';s'tification;
Cumulat-ve impacts of future State and private act w ities (nor-
d, involvement, that will be considered as
part 1ofnfuture eSection n7 Yconsultation);
5, Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effecz.?;
description of the manner in which the action may affect any lis?e
6 A proposals to
species or associated habitat including project
reduce/eliminate adverse effects; of whether
the 7. Based evaluation
ersel criteria affect ortmaylaffect threatened and endangered
not likely to adv y
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has threats to sufficient information on ror1 threat ned undernthe Endangered eSpecieslAct
to propose them as endangered rotection under the ESA,
(ESA)- Although candidate species receive no statutoryth the Service on actions
Federal-agencies are required to informally ecies or that may destroy
likely to jeopardize the continued existence
Species these seen include those species
a
or modify proposed critical habitat. Spec
fic isting at the information to su present ppor time.
for which the Service does not have enough which do not warrant ll
listing proposal or species protection under the ESA, but could
Species of Concern receive no statutory p laces ional become candidates in the a=euendangeredtor threatened scientific Formal listingbpeomes
available indicating they rotection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
prudent
the species under the ful ll p
ereforer andidatel spould ecies be or their
if its status in the project corridor is unknown.
to hc
for the project to avoid any adverse impact
age Program should be contacted for
habitat. The North Carolina State Natural Her protection.
information on species and Please
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. including
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Sincerely yours,
rohn Hefne
ield Supervisor
Attachments
CC: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
0

FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wpsBAPR96:SCP

REVISED APRIL 19, 1995

Randolph County
,_ b - 2-?; s1
Fishes
Cape Fear shiner (Notrogis mekistocholas) - E
Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance-notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Clams
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) - C2
Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) - C2
Crustaceans
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactylothere peedeensis) - C2

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
?r G ? i a
- Z? 50'
p>-Z97c
rC1VF
O
MAY 1 6 1996
DIVISION OF
¢ HIGHWfiYS
?ORONNSE???
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely, 'UJ -
n0 A
TTE.. Shuford, Jr., P.E.-
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Nortnside, North Carolina 2764-01 13

! r .
May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Tvpe Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9179
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No FI Haz - 2/82
52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34,- SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
* within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
.,k within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways°. In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
I'.
May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)J as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain 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.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.

c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.

May 9, 1996
Page 3of3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth..County

Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for lredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
a ? ? K
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) i Date Ot Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Proiect no 1211
6
SR 2911, Randolph County, TIP B-2859 IFedeg A AencvInvolved
Proposed Land Use County t'
Highway, Two Lanes . IAndstate
Randolph County, TIP B-2859, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCSJ Date Reques ceive By SCS ?
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes is
Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
No ??
(lf no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). Q Owe. , O
'Major Crops Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Amount Of Farmland AS Defined in FPPA
X- Acres: -4•Z J 8ia % D T, 3 Acres: 1 3 q q % 81.6c
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local ite Assessment System
. 0.1A? ` ,\ ? Date nd valu tion Returned By SCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Ratin +
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site A Site B Sit; ,n
site o
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 • 0 . 3 ?1 .0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 0 0
PART IV (To be compleied'by SCS) Land Evaluation Information 0.7 0.3 1 .0
. • A: `.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland .
C. Percentage OfFatmiandin County Or Local Govt. UnitTo Be Converted D • 6
. D' Percent Of --6-6-v-
©? 0 f7 Q
V. Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher
PART V (To bb completed b
SCS) L Relative Value
y
and Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to
PART VI
100 Points)
41. Z
? ,

_T
(To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) MPointsm
1. Area In Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter in Nonurban U 5 S
?S
se
-
3. Percent Of Site Bein
Farm
d --4
f 16
/O
g
e
4. Protection Provided B
S /
y
tate And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Built
A O
up
rea
6. Distance To Urban Su
o
t S
i I _
pp
r
erv
ces
7
Size Of Pres
t F
.
en
arm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmabl
F ?c I S
e
armland
9. Availability Of Farm S S 5 e) Al
upport Services
10 On Farm Investments 1 cj
71l 1 S S
12. Compatibility With Existing Agrict
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
'ART V11- (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local
site assessment!
(Z
I 160
i
I
100
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
Site Selected
1 260
Date Of Selection
1-lull r-or Selection:
Services
use
?u/ ! 5)
T
/03,Z i M
was A Local Sit.! Assessment Used?
Yes L No

W
•
1J ???? 1 r Frank Viclc, Manager
Planning & Environmental
7
Room 464
Highway Building
- 285-7
STATE OF N,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. OFFICE OF BICYCLE & GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 1, 1996
X?4i?O
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pla{?t?in and Environmental Branch M Ay 0 Q 1996
1.
FROM: C s B.-Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation `, OF
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 359 on SR 2911
over Richland Creek, Randolph County, TIP No. B-2859
In your memorandum of April 1, 1996, you requested our comments regarding the proposed
improvements to the above mentioned project.
This section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated
bicycle route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists on this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If there is a need for further
information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/ to
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 22, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
?-70Zz
-?? C, o V V l p'?
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 359, On SR 1107, Over Richland Creek, Randolph
County, TIP No. B-2859; USACE ID No. 199700408.
The construction of this project was authorized under Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP
23), Action ID. 199700408, on March 6, 1997, signed by John Thomas, Jr.. The Nationwide
authorization for this project has expired as of March 6, 1999. This project is now scheduled to
be let in August 1999.
Enclosed you will find a copy of the NWP 23 dated March 6, 1997, and a NCDOT
Project Environmental Consultation form. Since the submission of the original permit
application, project design has been slightly modified. It was determined that traffic could not be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Consequently, an off site detour was
deemed to be more practicable. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project.
As of 15 January 1999, the US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS) lists two federally
protected species for Randolph County: the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). The FWS has not listed any additional species
for Randolph County since submission of the Categorical Exclusion for the project. Both
federally protected species received biological conclusions of No Effect in the Categorical
Exclusion and in a NCDOT Right of Way consultation (July 20, 1999). These biological
conclusions remain valid.
0
The NCDOT requests the renewal of this permit in accordance with the issued NWP 23.
A copy of this letter is being provided to the NCDWQ for their review. If you have any
questions, please contact Mr. Bruce Ellis at [phone].
Sincerely,
yC-
-?
William D. Gilmore, PE, Branch Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin: COF
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
4-
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. 199700408 County Randolph
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent NC DOT / Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Address Post Office Box 25201, Raleis-h North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone No. 919-733-3141 ext. 314
Size and Location of project (waterway, road name/number, town, etc.) NC bridge replacement
of bridge #359 located on S.R. 2911, adjacent to Richland Creek, near Asheboro, in Randolph
County North Carolina (State Project No. 8.2571301, T.I.P. No. B-2859)
Description of Activity
Replacement of referenced bridge on new alignment south of the its present location with a new
bridge that will result in approximately 0.04 acres of impacts to the jurisdictional waters of
Richland Creek The existing bridge will be used as a detour while new bridge is constructed.
XX Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
Section 404 and Section 10.
NWP 23 Regional General Permit or Nationwide Permit Number,
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above
may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal
action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve
the undersigned permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or
local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies
before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and
conditions of this permit. i / /
Regulatory Project Manager Signature atlg
Date March 6, 1997 Expira on Date.
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Charles Bruton, Ph.D
Planning and Environmental
4'h Floor
Highway Building
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
T.I.P. No. B-2859
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase:
b. Project Description:
Construction
Replace Bridge No. 359 on SR 2911 over
Richland Creek in Randolph County
State Project:
Federal Aid No.
d. Document Type
II. CONCLUSIONS
8.2571301
BRZ-2911(2)
Categorical Exclusion .
11/96
Date
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR
771. It was determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the
original proposed action. Proposed changes, if any are noted below in Section III. It has
been determined that anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were
accurately described in the above referenced document unless noted otherwise herein.
Therefore, the original Administrative Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES.
During final design it was determined that traffic could not be maintained on the
existing structures and approaches during construction. Due to the low traffic volumes (200
vpd), an off-site detour was considered to be more practical and less environmentally
damaging than an on-site detour. The off-site detour will be approximately 6.4 kilometers (4
miles) in length routing traffic SR 2845, NC 42 and SR 2908.
There have been no changes in potential environmental effects from those presented
in the Categorical Exclusion.
IV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The topography and the fall of Richland Creek indicate that a historic period mill site
is likely to be present. The NCDOT and FHWA in consultation with the SHPO will conduct
an archaeological survey of the proposed project area. ACTION: In a letter dated June 12,
1998, the SHPO concluded the site was not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
V. COORDINATION
Planning and Environmental Branch personnel have discussed current project
proposals with others as follows:
Design Engineer: Tony Houser. PE Date 08/17/98
FHWA Engineer: Felix Davila. PE Date 08/17/9P
VI. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
?-
Stacy Y. Bal wi .. P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
n \\
illiam D. Gilmore, P.E., ManagXr
annins and Environmental Branch
Date
L ? 4
Date ?I t G? Qt??

LTy ?.??ry a
R L
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
3. Hunt Jr., Governor
ay McCain, Secretary
June 12, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601-1442
Re: Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-291 1(2), Archaeological
Study for the Replacement of Bridge 359 on SR 2911 1,
Randolph County, TIP #8-28.59-, State Project No.
8.2571301, ER 96-9088 and-ER 98-910
Dear Mr. Grp::
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of May 13, 1998, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Megan O'Connell of the NC Department of Transportation concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, We
concur that the following properties are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under criterion E.-
31 RD1 193**, 31RD1194&1194**, 31RD1195** and 31RD1196&1196**
None of these archaeological sites retain sufficient integrity to yield information important to
prehistory or history.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
We do not recommend additional archaeological investigation in connection with this bridge
replacement project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook ?J
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
rT.'11,
'. ?,e : suer ; 's
STATE OF NOKTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS ToLsoN
SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
July 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: Gail Grimes, P.E. Unit Heac
Consultant Engineering Unit
ATTENTION: Ron Elmore, P.E., Project Engineer
Concultant Engineering Unit
FRO W Josh Witherspoon, Environmental Biologist
Natural Resources, Permits, and Mitigation Uni
SUBJECT: Water resources and protected species review for a Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Right-of-Way Consultation
for the proposed bridge replacement for Bridge No. 359
over Richland Creek in Randolph County. Federal-Aid
Project No. BRZ-2711(2), State Project No. 8.2571301,
TIP No. B-2859.
REFERENCES: 1. Categorical Exclusion prepared by Barbara H. Mulkey
Engineering, Inc., November 1996.
The following memorandum provides information to assist in the preparation of
pthe proposed project. It
an updated FHWA Right-Of-Way (ROW) consultation for
otentially impacted by the
addresses water resources and federally protected species p
project, and serves to update the previously submitted Categorical Exclusion (CE).
WATER RESOURCES
Water resource classifications have not changed since the Categorical Exclusion
(CE) was completed. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) best usage classification for
AT%
Hydrologic characteristics and existing aquatic communities for Richland Creek have
been described in the referenced CE.
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 14 May 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two
federally protected species for Randolph County. These species are listed in Table 1.
Table 1:"Feder y-protected species for Randolph County
Notes: "E" - denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
No species have been added since the completion of the referrenced CE. The
biological conclusion of "No Effect" remains valid.
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also designates a category for Federal
Species of Concern (FSC). Twenty-two species in Randolph County are listed as FSC
(Table 2). Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal
Species of Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be listed in the
future.

Table 2. Federal Species of concer n Tor Kanuoyn I.UU1iLy.
Scsten fii+ l+ a e
mmon...Name
Su[fak

;.:

.
.
LA
M

bit
Alasmidonta varicosa .
.::.
Brook floater U
Dactyloctythere peedeensis" Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Yes
Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell Yes

* Indicates not specimens nave peen wuiiu ... aR LV y----.
Suitable Habitat: U denotes habitat is unknown for this species.
Plant and animal species which are listed by the North Carolina Natural Her.'
Program (NCNHP) as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare k' ., o
Special Concern (SC) are afforded state protection under the State E e
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation t o 197Q
,
However, the level of protection given to these species does not apply a
?rFR
conducted by _ NCDC-.
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records on July 16.
1998 revealed no record of North Carolina rare and/or protected species within 1.6 kr.,
(1.0 mi) of the proposed project. As stated in the CE, no impacts of state-listed species
are anticipated as a result of project construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: B-2859