19990009 Ver 1_Complete File_19990107

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 • •
4A If 2
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 19, 1999
Randolph County
WQC 401 Project # 990009
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 52 over
Uwharrie River on SR 1406, as you described in your application dated January 7, 1999. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid,'you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its-conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
i y,
re on Howard, r. P.E.
990009.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
J
'na 5??4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
December 28, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 over
Uwharrie River. TIP No. B-3022, State Project No. 8.2571401, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1406(1).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form for the
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 52 on existing location with a bridge. The replacement
bridge will be 53.6 meters (176.0 feet) long and 8.6 meters (28.0 feet) wide. This will
accommodate two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.0 meter (3.0 feet) shoulders on each
side. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of about
170 meters (560 feet) west and 120 meters (400 feet) east of the structure. The approach
roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22.0 foot) pavement width and 1.8 meter (6.0) foot)
shoulders on each side. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction and surface water
impacts will be restricted to the removal of existing bents of which one is situated within
the river channel. Bents for the rep ement structure will be situated outside of the river
channel. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a'
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
JAN 71999
(9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 • •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 19, 1999
Randolph County
WQC 401 Project # 990009
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 52 over
Uwharrie River on SR 1406, as you described in your application dated January 7, 1999. After reviewing your
application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This
Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you
should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid,'you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its. conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
preeoward, r. P.E.
990009.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. MORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 28, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers JAN "'
l
Raleigh Field Office ?ggg
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 f? W-TC;;lupt
"iTEP
s
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 over
Uwharrie River. TIP No. B-3022, State Project No. 8.2571401, Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1406(1).
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form for the
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 52 on existing location with a bridge. The replacement
bridge will be 53.6 meters (176.0 feet) long and 8.6 meters (28.0 feet) wide. This will
accommodate two 3.3 meter (11 foot) lanes with 1.0 meter (3.0 feet) shoulders on each
side. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of about
170 meters (560 feet) west and 120 meters (400 feet) east of the structure. The approach
roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22.0 foot) pavement width and 1.8 meter (6.0) foot)
shoulders on each side. Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during
construction.
No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed construction and surface water
impacts will be restricted to the removal of existing bents of which one is situated within
the river channel. Bents for the replacement structure will be situated outside of the river
channel. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
0
c
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) 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 13 December 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 of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Bruce O. Ellis at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P. E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. Bill Rosser, P. E., Division 8 Engineer
x
Randolph County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 (Covered Bridge Road)
over Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1406(1)
State Project 8.2571401
T.I.P. No. B-3022
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
I
DAT H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
h
17
DATE cholas L. Graf, P.E.
givision Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 (Covered Bridge Road)
over Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1406(1)
State Project 8.2571401
T.I.P. No. B-3022
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 1997
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
•o••'?H CA
R01' "''•..
r is x-'?ESSIpN??9
SEAL
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date i 14509
Project Manager
'?. ?y oNCI NE?Q;• o
•,???? ?l??S'S' NOS
,1'111111111111•••
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Z.).
4.-A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
e-3? 4. A
Stacy Y.6alAvi4
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Randolph County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 (Covered Bridge Road)
over Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project BRZ 1406(1)
State Project 8.2571401
T.I.P. No. B-3022
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Randolph County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 (Covered Bridge Road)
over Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1406(1)
State Project 8.2571401
T.I.P. No. B-3022
Bridge No. 52 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 53.6 meters (176
feet) long and 8.6 meters (28 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.3-meter (11-
foot) lanes with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width, to
provide two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side
throughout the project limits. In locations where guardrail is warranted, the shoulder
width will be 2.8 meters (9 feet). _
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 1) will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $834,700. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $515,000 ($475,000 -
construction; $40,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the western portion of Randolph County, approximately 14.5
kilometers (9 miles) west of the Town of Asheboro, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
Development in the area is rural agricultural in nature.
SR 1406 (Covered Bridge 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 1406 has a 5.5-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.8-
meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively steep
through the project area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent that extends
approximately 170 meters (560 feet) west and at the end of a horizontal curve east of the
structure. The radius of the eastern roadway approach is approximately 120 meters (400
feet). The roadway is situated about 9.7 meters (32 feet) above the river bed.
The current traffic volume of 400 vehicles per day VPD is expected to increase to 800
VPD by the year 2020. The projected'volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is not a posted speed limit through the
project area; therefore, the statutory speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per
hour).
Bridge No. 52 is a five-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. Bents 2 and 3 have concrete
sills. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1955.
The overall length of the structure is 53.6 meters (176 feet). The clear roadway width is
5.8 meters (19 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 13.6 metric tons (15 tons)
for single vehicles and 17.2 metric tons (19 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 52 has a sufficiency rating of 17.2, 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; however, there are overhead
power lines on the south side of the roadway through the project area. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
One accident, resulting in one injury has been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 52
during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. This accident did not occur on the
bridge.
Two school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 52 were studied. Each alternative consists of a
bridge 53.6 meters (176 feet) long and 8.6 meters (28 feet) wide. This structure width
will accommodate two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.0-meter (3-foot) shoulders on
each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width
and 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side. In locations where guardrail is warranted,
the shoulder width will be 2.8 meters (9 feet). 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 along the existing
roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a
distance of about 170 meters (560 feet) west and 120 meters (400 feet) east of the
structure. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the construction period.
The off-site detour will be approximately 9.3 kilometers (5.8 miles) in length (see Figure
1). The design speed for this alternative is 65 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour). A
design exception may be required for this design speed.
Alternative 1 is preferred because it is less expensive to construct and has less impact on
the ecosystem in the vicinity of the site than the additional roadway approach work
required for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor south (downstream) of the existing bridge. Approach roadways will be
required for a distance of about 177 meters (585 feet) to the west and 135 meters (445
feet) to the east of the proposed structure. The proposed'alignment consists of a 395
meter (1305 foot) radius curve. The existing structure and approaches will serve as an
on-site detour route during construction. The design speed for this alternative is 100
kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). This alternative is not recommended because it
is more expensive to construct and has a greater impact on the ecosystem than Alternative
1.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1406.
The NCDOT Division 8 Engineer concurs that an off-site detour will be the best
alternative during bridge replacement.
The Randolph County School Transportation Director indicates that the off-site detour
during 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 two alternatives are as follows:
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches
Structural Removal
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
$242,000.00 $717,000.00
NA NA
$26,000.00 $26,000.00
$100,000.00 $175,000.00
$34,700.00 $41,800.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2, with a bridge 53.6 meters (176 feet) long and 8.6 meters (28 feet) wide.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of about 170
meters (560 feet) west and 120 meters (400 feet) east of the structure. The Division
Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.3-meter (1 l -foot) lanes and
1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure
4). In locations where guardrail is warranted, the shoulder width will be 2.8 meters (9
feet). An 8.6-meter (28-foot) clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy.
SR 1406 is classified as a rural local; therefore, criteria for a rural local was used for the
bridge replacement. This will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot) travelway with 1.0-meter (3-
foot) shoulders across the structure (see Figure 5). The design speed is 65 kilometers per
hour (40 miles per hour). A design exception may be required for this design speed.
A temporary off site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period. The off-site detour will be approximately 9.3 kilometers (5.8 miles) in length (see
Figure 1).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 53.6 meters (176 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum
slope in order to facilitate drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge 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 3, 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 Levee Forest:
This forested community occurs in all quadrants of the bridge as well as along the river
banks throughout the project area. The dominant canopy trees include tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sugar maple (Acer
barbatum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and river birch (Betula nigra). The
understory consists of dogwood (Corpus jlorida), red maple (Acer rubrum) and green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The shrub layer includes blackberry (Rubus sp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The
herbaceous layer includes species found in the man-dominated community described
below.
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders. Many plant species are
adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas
along the road shoulders, the field and 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).
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 the Uwharrie River 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 man-dominated 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 no animals were
observed in the field in these areas, the raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), American toad (Bufo americanus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),and the
American robin (Turdus migratorius) are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Animals previously listed are also typical to the forested communities along with the
whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis),
Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) and the prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria
citrea). On the day of the site visit a turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), an American crow,
and tracks of a raccoon were observed in the field.
Aquatic:
The Uwharrie River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for
recreational fishing. A speckled killifish (Fundulus rathburm) was observed in the river
during the site visit. Due to the depth and siltation in this river, the macroinvertebrate
community is restricted to the shallow, rocky areas along the river banks. Mayfly
(Ephemeroptera) and dragonfly (Odonata) larvae were observed during the site visit.
Fish found in the Uwharrie River include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum),
Bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus ), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), Redlip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus), sandbar shiner (Notropis scepticus), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), brown bullhead (Ictalurus
nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), margined madtom (Ictalurus brunneus),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), pumpkinseed
(Lepomis gibbosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass
(Micropterus dolomieui), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi), and Piedmont darter (Percina crassa).
6
The river and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
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 riverbed 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 river (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 subsoil 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 the Uwharrie River and lies within the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
The river is a perennial tributary within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. The river flows
south through the proposed project area with a width of 10.3 meters (34.0 feet). On the
day of the field investigation, the river was approximately 0.5 to 0.9 meter (1.5 to 3.0
feet) deep. The portion of the Uwharrie River within the study area has a Class WS-III
rating from the North Carolina Division of-Environmental Management (NCDEM),
indicating waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to moderately
developed watersheds and are suitable for all Class C uses. Class C indicates the river's
suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. This rating
changes to WS-III CA approximately 1.2 kilometers (0.8 mile) downstream from the
project area. The NCDEM Classification Index number for Uwharrie River is 13-2-(0.5).
The NCDEM does not maintain a sampling station within the project area. The closest
sampling station for which data are available is the Uwharrie River station located at NC
109, approximately 40 kilometers (25 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 (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different
ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from the
Uwharrie River at the NC 109 sampling station taken in July 1990 indicated an EPT taxa
richness value with bioclassification of "Excellent". Additional data taken in 1988,
1986, and 1984 also had a bioclassification of "Excellent".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. 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 was no NCIBI data available for
the Uwharrie River.
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within the
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 Randolph County
Watershed Map indicates that the portion of the Uwharrie River within the project area is
designated as WS-III.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of the Uwharrie River observed in the vicinity
of the proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, gravel, cobbles; some silt
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 10.3 meters (34.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.5 - 0.9 meters (1.5 to 3.0 feet)
Water Color Clear to slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation River birch, tag alder
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).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Uwharrie River has well
defined banks 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 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of jurisdictional surface water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 52.
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 Common Name N.C. Status
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Helianthus schweinitaii 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 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. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no
recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Since the project area is
located in the northern part of the county and because of the swift moving water in this
portion of the Uwharrie River, it is not expected that the Cape Fear shiner would occur
within the project area. 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
10
arching heads of yellow flowers. The fruit is a gray-black achene approximately 5
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 3, 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 fC2) or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient data to support listing. Table 3 includes listed FSC species for
Randolph County and their state classifications.
11
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
L
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Dactyloctythere peedeensis
(Pee Dee crayfish ostracod) T U
Fusconaia mason
(Atlantic pigtoe) T Yes
Alasmidonta varicosa
(brook floater) T Yes

Indicates 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 mixed-hardwood community will
receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. 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 (ACRES)
Bridge No. 52
Replacement
Impacts Man-
Dominated
Community Mixed
Hardwood
Community Aquatic
Community Combined
Total
Alternative 1 0.38(0.95) 0.06(0.14) 0.02(0.04) 0.46(1.13)
Alternative 2 0.35(0.87) 0.13(0.32) 0.02(0.04) 0.5(1.23)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) RiLyht-of-Wav limits_
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Uwharrie River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.02 hectare (0.04
acre) of stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work
will likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of 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 aquatic community will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the river channel. In order to minimize these impacts and to
protect the water quality of the designated Critical area, 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. Poorly managed application of sedimentation control policies will
result in serious damage to the aquatic environment.
Permits
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
13
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N. C. Department of
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
14
comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
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 26, 1996 (see
Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project". Therefore no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
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. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local
importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct
conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications. .
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
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.
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.
15
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
1402
f
?O.
1.2
9
174
1364

,5
14 1339 .
r 8 •la,
J3
of
1 R N
1
r 16 64
.I
t
Fa mat /
1
1547 1548 .6
1547 `r 1547; ?
?a 3160 %o
.8 •p- 1405 1548 "l, g 1549
1539
77
1408
1404 L?
1550 14 0.
.8
.CP
61 1405' 1636
1• 7.3 ? a , ,? , .4
1400 ??•?f? 1406 ? ? 3119
b B_3022 5 CPP
3118 Pe,
3119
37 1637 3117
N
5' 1•8 1404 1407 ,0
CO• 3116 h SHEPHERD MTN.
1403 Co 1 140 3115
3 8 1408 Shepherd
,S f ?-
N 1344
1686 a
n 1403
BPS ?? 01
1735
b 1344
AqA CT c ,
100
1311 1410
1.8 64 7
O Fqp
1357
9
1I 1335 1332
- $me I
a 1 evel Cross , G
i 2203 2 L' rt 336 •G
220 Randlema Crays Chapel x? W
Stale V F
?- m
RRI 1 PP
ark
° S
Se
AT.
6 P 10 H ;V
Franklinvrll 14 ,' '-' 1331
Ramseur IS
49 1
A Mount
14 Colerid8
m9;ra 2 1 1
IB
ly nol FIGURE 1
ry
LEGEND
- 0"®' Studied Detour Route
1
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 52 ON SR 1406
OVER UWHARRIE RIVER
B-3022
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
Randolph County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406
Over Uwharrie River
B-3022
SIDE VIEW
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
IATST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
x
r
O c?

O

a z x
O z w

E

E

--
C c
.
, w
V O _
cQ

Ix
Q0c acQ dM

to
0
c Z z
I F
o
0
z E-- q a
d
W7
w
. C
fx A
9

®
fYl O
N M
N O l7
LU

O O
V
W a
LU
Ln to
N
f^?
= V Z ui J
V Z V to
0
N
QO
d-
O

CL X
W

CL
O
Q
Q
0-
Q v
0

Q
J w
W

VV
V =
~ zt?
M
$ cE
N o C.j = O

Q
E E s
? .o
X
o ?
»
? m CO
o LO
E c ?, ? w w
V ?
W d 0 W
E x? ` o z w
V O 04 ? w
s= q o W

L. O
a C\2 <
M
V L.
3 A
O
A ., a A z A
r
?Qb z
d W
Z
- a
E
.
A
9
a O
05

3

g
w
tie
D
H
V

H
N
z
O

O
F-
V
w
N
J
V

CL
U

F O

M
. $?
C
) U,

_
= U
g
Z LL
O
U
U- 0
N 0 00
U LU p II

i
t L o
LU p, N
z Q N
O
D Z
c
ch O
?_
N

1 wharrie River ,yb O p J
r
?sso
y„ f
i?
ZONE C

Bridge • •?:
BRIDGE NO. 52 =
=,s? vaa= a
n
b
./:

1w U1tIL,1RR11-.* RIVER
ZONE A
4y;
M
u ZONE C
M ?
• b
, b
s
Ha?
UWHARRIE
RIVER iws
1 ZONE A
Y h
n 'tys
n
n
0
'a=

l
J?
.I
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning Q Environmental Branch
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 52 ON SR 1406
OVER UWHARRIE RIVER
B-3022
FIGURE 6
i1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 26, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
?t?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement
Bridge 52 on SR 1406 over Uwharrie
River, Randolph County, B-3022, ER 96-
9094
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
CE
O
JUN 2 7 1996
T
Zz 04VISICpq OF U
Cc p HIGHWAYS
FN???P
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 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 known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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
Federal Aid 9'z 1400 1 _ TIP # County 1zAaom-PN
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
tZtJE¢. ? 62t17(rE GtoUP X?
On J uuf- 1* , I'M (o , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A seeping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
all parties present agreed
? there arc 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 effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
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:
RenresEE iv ' _DnT Date

tl?c Division Adanistrator, or other Federal Agency
'Q= ? i?yfo
Date
u15i,9 r.,
Rcprescntativc,'SHPO Date
N
)PAD 4?4 1
Statc Historic Preservation Officer to
If a survey report is prepared, 3 tinal copy of this lonn and the attached list will t-.-- included.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
3-2,05q
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP-
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
April 1, 1996
Mr. Worth Hatley
Superintendent
Randolph County Schools
2222-C S. Fayetteville Street
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203-7397
i?
-4P,Q I S
??s ^ I996
/Gyl OF cy ,
GARLAND B. GAE
SECRETARY
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. 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 Uwharrie 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 with 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 structu course of the
day? SR X91) ?'? ?us?s) SR J`?06
2. Provided travel service is maintained Burin c construction, would
there be any other /cause for concern regarding disruptionB to school bus
serviced ?, /emu( 4t6
AL$
ii
3. Are you aware of any other issues or do you have other school related
concerns that m y b relativ to the oject tannin proce s
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 /n,

y Z' /s A„o' N0% ayBhe Yscy
ore' /96?SS 3?e6 2120 e,
10) B2 723 3
"ate
tee,.
A?p?q+? shake,
8/R
ac???r?es

?z8

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SEC
Mr. William F. Willis
County Administrator
Randolph County
Post Office Box 4728
Asheboro, North Carolina 27204-4728
'APR u ? 1996
y
DdVISfC?; Cr= a ;
HICi-iVVAVS IQ"
April 1, 1996
h
COUNTY OF RANDOLPH
N" OF ?t..ald} M a oeimmpmENT
P. Q ear m, courm OMM su)a
i23 MCDO VEU RD.. ASHERM. N.C. 27264
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 (f.1.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 alignments.
These projects will be constructed with 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. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals?
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project? /v2?
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project? Ali
M
4. Are there any sensitive properties (parks, public lands, playgrounds, etc.)
in close proximity to the proposed bridge crossing??
5. Are there any proposed commercial or residential developments within
the project area? ?- v 4 ?
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?
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency
routes such as fire, rescue, etc.?? ' /2-
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? J
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project
planning process? `-
COMY OF RANDOLPH
Your comments will be used in the preparation IrAReLmiltsa$rwmopmeM
environmental impacts of the projects. It is requested *,rr" a 99L?sm=lmSU)&
by April 25, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this "?'?0''
document. G,Z - 5-
Your comments should be mailed to the following address: ?-IlC 3 ?- G SS's
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,

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr.; P.E., Director
LT."'
C) F= F1
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb f
H-e-sao
$- zSr)a
?-z?o9
F?-28 ? 8
Z.
? - 2-170
?-z-g 89t
g -'? 003
13-3azZ
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, Rdeigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper S! ,?r?

?"?-tea
lsi?... 1JL;:./s'. +?I ! i of SS.. ..11 E. -n_ i
o ?a1 1 5sq
?I J : ISH -AuND WILDLIFE SERVICE
^aieigh Field Office
Posr Offic^ Box 33726 Zc/ 4 -L
RCH 3 +0' Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 1 D
In Reply Refer Tc: C, L f v
FWS/AES/RANC`
April 10, 1996
1
[fir,
73-2-I)S-
-?, <,c

Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611 r'`^'t • -`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.
_SWe 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 Dlannina Drocess 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):

F zn se and .:E- f?r -'-e
discu-s;_oa Of the ?-onQ': -OE EP.': L i? J_Ly;
2. ?fin analysis of the alternatives to tie proposed protect that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. .? description of the fishary 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, that
are to be 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
Cor-os of En ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would b.e 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):
?1. A specific description of the proposed action,to- be considered;
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,
rjec; and c-imu_'*_ive eff=_cr_s
sta?e_ °za ?a_F a,t
a:
lnterralaLed actions are those t:•.:c are pair- of a 1_rger act?•on and
c.
dep?:nn on the larger action for .. their j•;stification;
d. Cumulat;.ve impacts of -future State and private activities (not
requiring rederal agency involvement, that will ba_ considered as
part of future Section 7 consultation);
Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
A description of the manner in which the action may affect any l fisted
species or associated habitat including project
reduce/eliminate adverse effects;
5.
6.
7 , Based ikelevaluation adversely affect or determination laffect threatened and endangered
not likely to
species.
Candidate biological animal status and threats to Service has
sufficient survival
sufficiencient information on their
to propose them as endangered or threatened under the r t ct on under the ESA,
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutowith the Service on actions
Federal-agencies are required to informally confer s or that likely to hero proposed continued existence of
Species ofeconcerniinclude those species
or modify p
for which the service does not have which do enough
not warrant listing oat a thenpresentptime.
listing proposal or species protection under the ESA, but could
Species of concern receive no statutory p
Formal listi gbplaces
become lenindicating they areuendangered or threatened scientific
the available
species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
if its status in the project corridor is un aCt • toTherefore, i spin sb o prude their
for the project to avoid any adverse imp candidate spec
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Sincerely yours,
eohn Hefne
ield d Supervisor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP
3 0rz1z
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Randolph County
Fishes
Cape Fear shiner (Notroois 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
9 WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
A7MNTONOF 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
Dear Mr. Vick:
Tj- 2?0
3 - -?gsg
P rZP7 4-2
p)-2-9?a
Z
C',
0 E I
MAY 1 6 1996
z DWISIGN OF
HIGHWAYS
r? -
50'
16
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,
^p A _
``E. 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 OfficQ Box 118
Nortnside, North Carolina 27564-Oi IS
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.
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)] 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 Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date Of Lana E awai?on Request
08/22/96
Name Of Project Fed ncv invotvee
SR 1406, Randolph County, TIP B-3022 I?
Proposed Land Use County An S to
Highway, Two Lanes Ranc?o`?ph County, TIP B-3022, NC
PART II (To be completed by SCS) I Da27? 7e-e By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? Acres Irrigated
M15616 Average Farm Size
/ n_7
Major Crop(s)
C ov-^ Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: A-2 5 7 g % ?. 3 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA t?
Acres: ` 3 q %
Name Off!-and Evaluation System Used
l?0.%A6b? \'A CD. 1.L Name Of Local ite Assessment System
NO 4 Date Land Eval atio Returned By SCS
? C7 3 6

PART II I (To be completed b
Feder
l A
)

tin
t- R
A ernatk a Site
y
a
gency Site A Site 8 B i
Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 ,
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 0 1.0
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. :Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V' (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of0 to 100 Points)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 558.5(b) Maximum
Points I I I
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services !
W. On-Farm Investments I
1 1. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use I I j
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I
PART V11 (To becompleted by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
i
Total Site Asse5sment (From Par- VI above or a local
I
site assessmenrl
160 f,
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
was A Locai S.r .sses,:rent Used?
Site Selected: I Date Of Seiec- on I Yes No ?
Reason For Select.on
1; ? e
3- 3oz-?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
A14 E S R. TJT'NIT JF OFFICE OF BICYCLE ? GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
May 30,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
PI and Environmental Branch
FROM: Cates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 52 on SR 1406 over Uwharrie River,
Randolph County, TIP No. B-3022
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments on the above project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this 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. Please feel free to contact us
regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/pp
/C. E!..
JUN 0 Q 1996
NiGu:
???AOf?MENi
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]