20010277 Ver 1_Complete File_20010226

'A
?Tyd.,a 5LA4
qaN ?
V W--. n
F D
s?PUw?•
010277
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 2, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 59 on SR 1404
over the Little Uwharrie River. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(1),
State Project No. 8.257080 1, TIP No. B-3021:
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 59 on SR 1404 over the Little Uwharrie River in Randolph County. Bridge No. 59
will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 250.0 ft west (upstream) of the existing
bridge. The new structure will be approximately 210.0 ft in length and 28.0 ft wide. The
new structure will provide for a two-lane, 22-foot travelway with 3-foot offsets. A
22-foot roadway width with 6-foot turf shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
The total project length is approximately 0.436 mile. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during the construction period; however, an off-site detour will be
required in order to connect the northbound roadway approach with the existing roadway.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Bridge No. 59 has four spans totaling approximately 130 ft in length. Its superstructure is
composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams and it has a concrete substructure. There is
potential for components of the existing bridge to be dropped during construction,
resulting in approximately 21.87 yd3 of temporary fill. All measures will be taken to
avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United States.
A temporary work bridge, 70.0 feet in length and 25.0 feet wide, will be use to facilitate
the construction of the new bridge. No surface water fill is proposed in association with
this temporary work bridge. No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the
construction of the proposed project.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 16 June 2000, the
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 Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" for each of these
species remains valid. Therefore, project construction will not affect these species.
Summary
It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary work bridge will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33. We are therefore, requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23
CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (65 FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000).
We anticipate 401 General Certifications will apply to this project. The 401 Water
Quality Certification (WQC) does not require written concurrence from North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as NCDOT intends to comply with general
conditions of this certification. We are providing one copy of the permit application to
the NCDWQ, as a courtesy for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mrs. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
i`. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. David Cox; NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., 8 Division Engineer
Ms. Michele James, P.E., Project Planning
4.
14
'i
f
DEM ID:
010277
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):'NWP 23 & 33s
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C.. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT/Project Development & Environmental Analysis
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY: Raleigh STATE:
1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME:
NC ZIP CODE: 27699
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Bridge No. 59 on SR 1404
over the Little Uwharrie River
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Randolph NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Asheboro
?'
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 59 over the Little Uwharrie River is located on SR 1404
(Fuller Mill Road). Bridge No. 59 is found approximately 12.0 miles
west of Asheboro, near the community of Fuller Mill. Bridge No. 59 is
located approximately 2.0 miles north of US Hwy 64 on from where US Hwy
64 intersects with Fuller Mill Road.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Little Uwharrie River
(DWQ Index # 13-2-1)
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin-Pee Dee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
M,
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
no wetlands are located within the project site
r
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A
EXCAVATION: N/A
OTHER: N/A
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. 1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
(IF RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: .A temporary work bridge, 70 feet in length and 25 feet wide,
will be used to facilitate the construction of the new bridge.
No surface water fill is proposed in association with this temporary
work bridge.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): see attached cover letter and drawings
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
4'1
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE. NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR
1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY) , A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM..
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE . DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

I
1
?w
I m
Y g0
w
f'I
a u' U O
o ~ ZO LO
?o
I N
N
I o 00
w
I U
U
Q

z
H z

a
z ? ?
® m
o w iz
:>
0
x
® 4 0 Q z ? 0
F ? z w w xe, ?I
a ? ? w
v
z ? w

O
4
Q
\ C
7O L-7 LLJ
LLJ
C) Z_
? -- -
03 No
?_ =? _? _
U 00 zo y?
Q7- CL
r, -Irz lo' z 1?13
F-I
z

c
n
:a
W

J\

`W ?SaSLY+i . O
A
L
0
Ln
O
N

Ld
J
W
O
O 1-

I? W
O O J
to D a

0
0
z;
J
Li
J
Q
W W m O O; rn
C) W
m J
W Ln
Y W N
t- ?
o W
F- w
` J
O W x W
J O cn
W ?_ O
? z w
'i
! Q
rn
v
w
J
W
N
• <
rr
O
z
V
U-) Ln L
IIIIIIIIIII?III
O
O
ti
N
O
O
Q0 -
N
0
0
N
O
O
v
N

H

®

?

v
?

?

?
?

x a
0

Nl
U A ? ? ? ?
W
Fy
z

0
M
N
0
11
? U
U ?
? z
py N
? o

Randolph County
Bridge No. 59
Fuller Mill Road (SR 1404)
over Little Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(1)
State Project No. 8.2570801
T.I.P. No. B-3021
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
010277,
1j 0•
Da e William D. Gilmore, P. E., Ma ager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Date N cholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Randolph County
Bridge No. 59
Fuller Mill Road (SR 1404)
over Little Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(1)
State Project No. 8.2570801
T.I.P. No. B-3021
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
March 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Michele L. James, Prajeci Development Engineer
Prd?ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r
• Q
SEAL
/?? --f-- ? s 025460 ` 11
>`J
Teresa H. Hart, P. E., Unit Head %?F,Q ••.°..•...• ????
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Randolph County
Bridge No. 59
Fuller Mill Road (SR 1404)
over Little Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(1)
State Project No. 8.2570801
T.I.P. No. B-3021
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Hydraulics Unit/Project Devel pment and Environmental Analysis Branch/Roadside
Environmental Unit/Division 8
The North Carolina Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be
followed during design and construction of the bridge. Approximately 16.7m3
(21.87 yd3) of fill in water will result from bridge demolition.
Neither High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-Il nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 Ian (1.0 mile) of the study area.
However, this area is located within a Wildlife Resources Commission's (WRC)
Proposed Critical `Habitat '(PCH) area for four species of freshwater mussels. HQW
guidelines for sedimentation control (15A NCAC 2B.0 10 1 (e)(5)) be implemented for all
construction activities surrounding the Little Uwharrie River and its tributary.
Roadway Desisn/Roadside Environmental Unit/Division 8

The Land Trust for Central North Carolina has expressed an interest in
preserving/maintaining the existing Bridge No. 59. To date, a Memorandum of
Agreement between NCDOT and The Land Trust for Central North Carolina has not been
executed. Unless this agreement becomes final, NCDOT will remove the existing bridge
and roadway and replant to natural conditions.
. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) determined the proposed project
will have No Effect upon the National Register eligible Dr. Charles Phillips House (See
Appendix A-2) as long as the commitment that the "gravel roadway will be left in place
as much as possible from the ditchline west"- is adhered to. Any roadway improvements
will be from the eastern ditchline. The project as currently designed will not impact the
Dr. Charles Phillips House.
Categorical Exclusion - B-3021
March 2000 Page 1 of 1
Randolph County
Bridge No. 59
Fuller Mill Road (SR 1404)
over Little Uwharrie River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1404(1)
State Project No. 8.2570801
T.I.P. No. B-3021
Bridge No. 59 is located in Randolph County on SR 1404 crossing over Little
L''wharrie River. The location is shown in Figure 1. It is included in the 2000-2006
Transportation Improvement Program as a bridge replacement project. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The project has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 59 will be replaced on new location as recommended in Alternate 2
with a structure length of 64m (210 feet) and 8.5ms (28 feet) in width on new alignment
to the west. The new structure will provide for a two-lane, 22-foot (6.6m) travelway with
3-foot (1.0m) offsets. A 22-foot (6.6m) roadway width with 6-foot (1.8m) turf shoulders
will be provided on the approaches. The total project length is approximately 0.436 mile
(0.702 kilometers).
Based on preliminary design work, the horizontal alignment will be improved as
shown on Figure 2. The proposed alignment will provide a 40 mph (64 km/h) design
speed.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the construction period;
however, an off-site detour will be required in order to connect the northbound roadway
approach with the existing roadway.
The estimated cost, of the project, is $1,557,350 which includes $57,350 for right
of way and S 1,500,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in
the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program, is $586,000, which includes
S 140,000 in prior costs.
Il. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A Nationwide Section 404 permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] from the Corps of
Engineers (COE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to project construction.
Wetlands will not be impacted by the recommended alternative.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1404 is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is a Federal Aid route. The current traffic volume of 200 VPD is expected to
increase to 500 VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes I% truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and I% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted.
School buses do not cross the studied bridge.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1949. The overall length of
the bridge is 131 feet (40m) and the clear roadway width is 11.2 feet (3.4m). The posted
weight limit is 12 tons for single vehicles and 16 tons for trucks with trailers. It has a
sufficiency rating of 29.1 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1404 is a 20-foot (6. lm) unpaved roadway with
3-5 foot (0.9-1.5m) shoulders (see Figure 3). The one-lane structure is situated 24 feet
(7.3 m) above the creek bed. The approaches are on embankments 15 to 18 feet (4.6 to
5.5m) above natural ground. The southern approach consists of a sharp downhill reverse
curve while the northern approach is a more gradual reverse curve.
An aerial power line crosses the Little Uwharrie River west of the existing
structure and crosses 328 feet (100m) from either end of the existing structure.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge from August, 1996 to
July, 1999. One car hit a fixed object and the other car ran off the road.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 59 were studied. During construction,
traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge for all three alternatives; however, an
offsite detour will be required in order to connect the northbound roadway approach with
the existing roadway. The alternatives studied, shown in Figure 2, are as follows:
Alternate 1 - will replace Bridge No. 59 approximately 180 feet (54.9m), west
(upstream), of the existing bridge. This alternate will consist of a bridge
150 feet (45.7m) in length and a width of 30 feet (9.1m). The extra width
will allow for inside curve widening on the bridge. Approximately 850
feet (259m) and 1250 feet (381 m) of paving will be included on the
northern and southern approachways, respectively. The design speed is
20mph (32 km/h).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - will replace Bridge No. 59 approximately 250 feet
(76.2m) west (upstream) of the existing bridge. This alternate will consist
of a bridge 210 feet (64m) in length and a width of 28 feet (85m). The
3
design speed is 40 mph (64 km/h). Approximately 855 feet (261m) and
1270 feet (397m) of paving will be included on the northern and southern
approachways, respectively.
Alternate 3 - will replace Bridge No. 59 approximately 200 feet (61m) west
(upstream) of the existing bridge. This alternate will consist of a bridge
170 feet (52m) in length and a width of 30 feet (9.1m). The extra width
will allow for inside curve widening on the bridge. Approximately 1010
feet (307.8m) and 1350 feet (411.5m) of paving will be included on the
northern and southern approach roadways, respectively. The design speed
will be 20 mph (32 km/h).
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge.
This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by SR 1404.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates
that rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
- Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structure $ 337,500 $ 441,600 $ 382,500
Roadway Approaches 863,756 832,256 923,756
Detour Structure & Approaches -- -- --
Structure Removal 11,744 11,744 11,744
Engineering & Contingencies 187,000 215,000 182,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 54,400 57,350 56,500
Total $1,454,400 $1,557,350 $1,556,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate 1 was not selected due to the poor horizontal alignment and a 20 mph
(32 km/h) design speed.
Alternate 2 was selected as the recommended alternate because it provides an
improved horizontal alignment which results in a 40 mph (32 km/h) design speed.
4
Alternate 3 was not selected, due to the undesirable horizontal alignment (reverse
curves), which resulted in a 20 mph (32 km/h) design speed.
Bridge No. 59 will be replaced with a structure 210 feet (64m) in length and a
width of 28 feet (8.5m). The new structure will be located approximately 250 feet
(76.2m) west (upstream), of the existing bridge as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in
Figure 2. A 22-foot (6.6m) roadway with 6-foot (1.8m) turf shoulders will be provided
on the approaches.
This bridge replacement project involves extensive paving; however, for
approximately 350 feet (106.7m) from.the southern end of the project limits to SR 1400,
SR 1404 will remain a gravel road.
A design exception is needed for the proposed 40 mph (32 km/h) design speed.
The existing SR 1404 has a 20-foot unpaved roadway with 3 to 5 foot shoulders. The
southern approach consists of a sharp downhill reverse curve while the northern approach
is more of a gradual reverse curve. The existing northern and southern bridge approaches
need to be realigned to improve the overall safety of this location. The proposed
horizontal alignment has been designed to accommodate a 40 mph (32 km/h) design
speed, which improves the horizontal curvature on both approaches of the bridge. The
improvements will not impact the National Register Eligible property.
Based on preliminary studies, the- Hydraulics Unit recommends that the proposed
elevation of the new structure, remain the same as the existing bridge. The length and
height may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrological analysis and hydraulic design.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the construction period;
however, an offsite detour will be required in order to connect the northbound roadway
approach with the existing roadway.
The Division Office concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 2.
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 bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
5
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact
on noise levels and air quality will not be substantial. 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 Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
Randolph County currently participates in the National Flood Insurance Program;
however, Little Uwharrie River is not included in the detailed flood study. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an
effect on a property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given the opportunity to
comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the Area of Potential Effect (APE)
were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and reviewed with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). An NCDOT staff architectural historian
conducted a survey within the APE. The Dr. Charles Phillip's House was discovered
within the APE. The SHPO considers the Dr. Charles Phillips House eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places under Criteria C. A November 17, 1995 letter from
the SHPO is included in the Appendix (A-1).
The SHPO determined that the proposed project will have No Effect upon the
Dr. Charles Phillips House (see Appendix A-2). The No Effect was rendered with the
commitment that the gravel roadway will be left in place as much as possible from the
ditchline west, in the APE. The proposed project adheres to this commitment.
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement project to
locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or
destroyed by project construction. The results of the archaeological study indicate
evidence of six archaeological sites. Five of the archaeological sites are considered not to
6
be significant archaeological resources. Therefore, no additional archaeological
investigations or documentation of these sites are recommended. However, the Charles
Phillips House Site is considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. The proposed bridge replacement will not disturb this site. Therefore, as long as
the Charles Phillips House is avoided, no additional archaeological investigations or
documentation are recommended as a consequence of the proposed project. (See
Appendix A-2A).
The structure is to be replaced west of its existing location. Therefore, the project
is not exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The relative value of the
farmland impacted by Alternate 1 is 70.3 on a scale of 100 points. Completion of the site
assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006)
produced a total point score of 61.9, on a scale of 260, for Alternates 2 and 3.
Consideration of other alternates is required for proposals which score over 160 points.
The completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form is included in the Appendix
(A-3).
Project B-3021 is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin (Uwharrie River
sub-basin). Little Uwharrie River originates in northwest Randolph County and
meanders southeastward approximately 8.05km (5.0 miles) to its confluence with the
Uwharrie River. The Uwharrie River then flows southward into Montgomery County to
converge with the Yadkin and Pee Dee River near the Tuckertown Reservoir System.
The project is located approximately 2.5 miles (4.02km) west of the confluence of Little
Uwharrie and Uwharrie Rivers.
Two perennial streams exist at the project site: Little Uwharrie River and one of
its unnamed tributaries. The unnamed tributary intersects the project north of the
proposed bridge and preliminary drawings show that it will be impacted by Alternates 2
and 3. It unites with the Little Uwharrie River west (upstream) of the study area.
Information regarding characteristics of water resources is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT B-3021
Stream Characteristics
Substrate
Current
Stream Gradient
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Water Color
Aquatic Veg.
Little Uwharrie River
B/C/P/Sa/Si
medium
flat
7.6m (25.0 ft.)
0.3m (12.0 in.)
clear
benthic algae
Unnamed Tributary
C/P/Sa/Si
medium
flat
1.2m (4.0 ft.)
0.1 m (4.0 in.)
clear
none
NOTES: Observations were averaged along 100.0 ft. upstream and downstream at each
crossing; Substrate: B=boulder, C=Cobblestone, P=Pebble, Sa=Sand, Si=Silt.
7
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Little Uwharrie River and its unnamed tributary are
designated as "Class WS-III". This classification denotes waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules 0.0104 and 0.0211; local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required;
suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses are defined as secondary uses such as aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the study area.
However, this area is located within a Wildlife Resources Commission's (WRC)
Proposed Critical Habitat (PCH) area for four species of freshwater mussels. It is
recommended that HQW guidelines for sedimentation control (15A NCAC
213.0101(e)(5)) be implemented for all construction activities surrounding the Little
Uwharrie River and its tributary.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN information is available for Little
Uwharrie River nor its unnamed tributary at or near the proposed project.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES does not list any discharges at or near the
project area.
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred from a biological perspective. It poses the least.
risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacement on new
location usually results in more severe impacts. Impacts expected with the B-3021
project will be associated with new location. Impacts to water resources will be both
temporary and permanent depending upon the alternative chosen.
Alternative 1 is more favorable, from a biological perspective. It only impacts
Little Uwharrie River. Alternatives 2 and 3 impact Little Uwharrie River as well as its
unnamed tributary. Impacts to water resources may result in sedimentation and turbidity
from project construction. Other impacts expected from construction on new location
include increased channelization, scouring of the streambed, soil compaction and
vegetation removal, thus allowing lateral flows to enhance sedimentation, if control
measures are not used properly.
q
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area; NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage
of the project.
Badin Series is the dominant soil series occurring at the project site. It consists of
moderately deep, well-drained, moderately permeable soils that have formed in residuum
weathered from slates and other fine-grained metamorphic rocks. These are gently
sloping to steep soils found mainly on uplands in the piedmont. Slopes range from 2 to
55 percent.
Randolph County is in the center of the Piedmont physiographic region of North
Carolina. Most of the county is characterized by gently rolling to hilly landscapes.
Topography at the project site varies between 500 feet (152.4m) and 560 feet (170.7m)
above mean sea level (msl).
Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area:
(1) alluvial forest, (2) mixed pine/hardwood forest and (3) maintained communities.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of the three
terrestrial communities discussed.
The alluvial forest is found along floodplain ridges, terraces and active levees
adjacent to a river channel. The hydrology reflects intermittent flooding only during
extremely wet periods. Alluvial forests are believed to form astable climax forest,
having an uneven aged canopy composed primarily of bottomland hardwood trees.
- The canopy of the alluvial forest is composed with green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), river birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum (Liguidambar styraciflua), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Red maple (Acer
rubrum), sugar maple (A. saccharum), hickory (Carva spp.), black cherry (Primus
serotina), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus vir iniana),
ironwood (CaMinus caroliniana) and hackberry (Celtis laevigata) comprise the understory
along with saplings of the canopy'species. Shrubs and vines include buckeye (Aesculus
sylvatica). Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinguefolia), wild grape (Vitis spp.), cross vine
(Anisostichus capreolata) and poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), which are prevalent
throughout this community.
The alluvial forest community is rich in herbaceous vegetation. Many types and
varieties of species inhabit this particular location. Species such as Christmas fern
(Polystichium acrostichoides), panic grass (Microstigeum virmineum), beggar ticks
(Bidens spp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica),
giant cane (Arundinaria ig_gantea), wild ginger (Hexastylis spp.), jack- in-the-pulpit
(Arisaema triphyllum), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), little sweet Betsy (Trillium
cuneatum) and fescue (Festuca spp.) are just a few of the species present.
9
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest includes species associated with
ecosystems that are temporarily flooded during periods of heavy precipitation and runoff.
A few of the species that may be found in this community include spotted salamander
(Amb. sty oma maculatum), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), two-lined
salamander (Eurycea bislineata), spring salamander (Gydnophilus pmphyriticus) and
spring peeper (Hula crucifer) which forage on small arthropods, insects and worms. The
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) and swamp sparrow
(Melospiza geor ig ana) also may be observed in this community. Dominant predators of
this community include the barred owl (Strix varia) and red shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), which prey on small rodents, birds, reptiles and amphibians.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is found along upland flats, ridges and
occasionally well-drained small stream bottoms sporadically in the project area. Canopy
species include shortleaf pine (P. echinata), tulip poplar, hickory and white oak ( uercus
alba). Understory components are dogwood, black cherry, umbrella tree (Ma ng olia
tripetala), red cedar, holly (Ilex opaca) and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). Shrub
and vine species include privet, blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), Japanese honeysuckle,
sumac (Rhus spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The
herbaceous layer is composed of grapefern (Botrychium spp.) and Christmas fern.
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. Such
species include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroling), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus) and American toad (Bufo
americanus). Gray fox (Urocvon cinereoar eg nteus) and black racer (Coluber constrictor)
serve predator roles by feeding on numerous small reptiles, rodents and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for avian species such as
the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis*), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), red-bellied
woodpecker (MelaneMes carolinus), northern flicker Cola tes auratus) and downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens*).
Maintained communities are communities that are disturbed periodically by man.
Such examples of maintained communities are housing subdivisions, roadshoulders,
powerline and gas right-of-ways, etc. The maintained communities in the project area are
dominated by saplings, vines and small herbs that are regularly controlled by mowing.
They occur along the ecotones between the existing roadway and forested or open areas.
Common species occurring in the maintained communities in and around the
project are persimmon (Diospyros vir ing iana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), Japanese
honeysuckle, greenbrier, wild grape, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), thoroughwort
(EuQatorium spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), aster (Aster spp.), fescue, barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crus alli), blackberry (Rubus spp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
goldenrod (Solidago spp.), dandelion (Taraxacum spp.), chickweed (Stellaria spp.),
sumac, and henbit (Lamium spp.).
10
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of faunal species related
to open settings. Species such as the northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), mourning
dove (Zenaidura macroura), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), roufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
enghrophthalmus), black and white warbler (Mniotilta varia) and song sparrow
Melos iza melodia) are found throughout this community. The eastern cottontail
(S ly vila us floridanus) and woodchuck (Marmots monax) may also find foraging
opportunities and shelter in this community. Major predators include the red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) which require open areas for foraging
purposes.
Two aquatic community types, piedmont river and small piedmont perennial
stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics
of the water body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities and
vice versa.
The piedmont river community exists along the Little Uwharrie River. It differs
from the small piedmont perennial stream in size and diversity of organisms. Many
species of fish, freshwater mussels, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds utilize the
piedmont river community. Species likely to be present in Little Uwharrie River are
gizzard shad Qorosoma cepedianum), threadfin shad (D. petenense), spottail shiner
(Notropis hudsonius), whitefin shiner . niveus), redlip shiner (N. chiliticus), rosyside
dace (Clinostomus funduloides) and bluehead chub (Nocomis leotocephalus). These prey
fish feed on algae and detritus while providing forage opportunities for predator fish such
as chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin pickerel (E. americanus), redbreast sunfish
(Loomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides).
Species likely found within the small piedmont perennial stream are highback
chub (Hybopsis hvnsinotus), rosyside dace, bluehead chub, fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabellare) common carp (C)nrinus c io) and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
These fish also provide forage opportunities for redbreast sunfish, bluegill and
largemouth bass.
Middens of asian clams Corbicula fluminea) and eastern elliptio (Elliptio
complanata complex) are commonly found along the streambanks of the piedmont river
community. The project is located within a WRC PCH area for four species of mussels.
The Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), squawfoot
(Strophitus undulatus) and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) are four state
protected species likely to be present at or near the project. Other species found within
the project area may include eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), great blue heron
(Ardea herodias), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and green frog (R. clamitans) which forage
on insects, crayfish, invertebrates and sometimes small vertebrates.
Calculated impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project construction will result
in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way
widths of both alternates. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right
of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Recommended
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Alluvial Forest <0.1 0.16 0.16
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 0.27 1.47 1.38
Maintained Community 1.4 2.1 2.19
Piedmont River 0.03 0.06 0.06
Small Piedmont no effect <0.01 <0.01
Perennial Stream
TOTALS 1.8 (0.728) 3.8(l.53) 3.8(l.53)
NOTES: Values cited are in acres (hectares).
. Permanent impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little impact will occur
to species that live along the edges and open areas. However, ground dwellers and slow
moving organisms will decrease in numbers. Mobile species will be permanently
displaced. Increased predation and competition may occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur from
increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed and obtain oxygen. Less mobile
organisms such as many of the filter feeders may also be covered by this sedimentation,
preventing their feeding. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead to
the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction of dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light
penetration from removal of stream side vegetation may also increase water temperatures.
Warmer water contains less oxygen thus, reducing aquatic life that depends on high
oxygen concentrations.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated
12
by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
either alternate as a result of construction. However, impacts will occur to surface waters.
Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the COE. A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 will authorize impacts to natural resources
concerned with the proposed project. This permit authorizes:
(1) activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or in part, by another federal agency or department, and;
(2) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation that the activity, work or discharge is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(3) the office of the chief of engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with the determination.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a certification is required. Certifications
are administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
13
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters will result from project
construction.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
The following methods will be used to minimize adverse impacts to Waters of the
United States:
1. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMP'S) to control
sedimentation during project construction.
2. Clearing and grubbing activity will be minimized.
3. Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide
and herbicide management.
4. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
5. Use responsible litter control practices.
6. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition-and
Removal (BMP-BDR).
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE.
Approximately 16.7m (21.87 yd3) of fill water will result from bridge demolition.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely impact a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review
14
by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
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
May 13, 1999, the FWS lists two federally-protected species for Randolph County: Cape
Fear shiner (Notropsis mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). Information describing these two species is listed below.
Notrgpsis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/26/87
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore, Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins
are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black
bar along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
associated with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among
large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is
thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive specimens
feed readily on plant and animal material.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The
strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population is located
above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third population
is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
The project is located within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Populations of the
Cape Fear shiner are limited to the Cape Fear River Basin. Therefore, no impacts to the
Cape Fear shiner will occur as a result of project construction.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6, 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Davidson, Mecklenburg, Montgomery,
Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, Union.
15
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows 1-2 in tall from
a cluster of carrot-like tubrous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and only branch
above mid-stem. The leaves are rough feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-
white-hairy beneath. Leaves of the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem
and usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad flowers are borne from
September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and arranged in an open system
of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina. These
sunflowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and along the edges of
open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods. Common soils that this species is found
in are moist to dry.ish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel
content and always moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are
considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
After extensive field reconnaissance it is determined that suitable habitat for
Schweinitz's sunflower exists at the project site. Plant by plant surveys were conducted
along the road shoulders and powerline right-of-way during the site visit. No plants were
identified. Therefore, no impacts will occur to Schweinitz's sunflower as a result of
project construction.
On the basis of project development and environmental studies conducted for this
project, it is determined the proposed project will not have significant adverse effects
upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, a Categorical Exclusion is applicable
for this project.
MJ/plr
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 59
SR 1404, REPLACE BRIDGE OVER
LITTLE UWHARRIE RIVER
RANDOLPH COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3021
FIGURE
r
,£ }
lll? F,
iFp
't*'f,"',+ *. a°,. •:o- }??' 4j4 Y, ,c? 4. ?:% ?rr'?r 3H.nt !*; ...sue p?."

?y.,A-41
???S AY?? ? S "9t
w firi?sitid._

V" 77
?{$L' F .
E f l J am..,. ':

r vs

e ?
)
lit,
? !1
W
,`? r e.Lj ?( r,? } rc w , t it
arF

u` "? # '6, .t r r t ` r. .$ Y n =? 2 tg}tj

1
i
BRIDGE NC. 59
RANDOLPH CO.
B- 3021
LOOKING NORTH
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3

72(;\0

i
,
-harric Ril'erii
l

? s'•?8 ht o

1\
\

n n

EC
Andrews Grove
.Ch
? o0
?CemPlezlfi
Ch
662\? o
I 11
II
\ r . II6
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN L
.685
1
I o
•?13si Wes&I d
o?!
,Ch
?, o
1 tL
/ Z
f// I ? ?i \ 11
I jl v ?
ZONE A ;o
-
r I' \ _
int ill ` I \ \.
ZONE A
•;' 1551/
43 " BM ,.
\_ o X637 0-_-??
\ Uwharrie
J River
o
ZONE A/
\ j
PROJECT S ZONE
ITE \ q 11
o
0
ou c= o

J
f r, ,
ie ? 1I/
\jll0,'
o ,
t i
8BO
\• I
90 ZONE C
1635 i'
FIGURE 4
r SLUE o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 17, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for
replacement of Bridge 59 on SR 1404 over Little
Uwharrie River, Randolph County, B-3021,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1404(1), State Project
8.2570801, ER 96-7720
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Dr. Charles Phillips House. Criterion C--The house is one of the most intact
and elaborately detailed examples of the Queen Anne style remaining in rural
Randolph County. We believe the northern boundary for this property should
extend to SR 1404 and include the well-house, shed, and barn. These
structures are located within the larger domestic space of a rural residence,
and contribute to the house's setting, feeling, and associations.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Bridge No. 59. The bridge, which was rebuilt in 1949, incorporates stone
abutments and two piers from a turn-of-the-century covered bridge. These
remains lack integrity and are not sufficient to convey the significance of the
covered bridge.
Fuller's Mill. This property was determined not eligible under Criterion C due
to its overall lack of integrity. It should be evaluated under Criteria A, B, and
D in an archaeological report for the project.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-1
Nicholas L. Graf
November 17, 1995, Page 2
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
" Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H.-F. Vick
"I1 Church
T. Padgett
Federal Aid # VM- I + TIP -fur -j, 21 County RANDo+.rAr
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSi1IENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
_JLr? Vm1up4E t.1o. !M oN ',1-104 ovza- I nLr- UWAARRtE RWC-0-
On rgj?,umL4 27 1-1'1'7 , 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.and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
? there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National. Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
L--? Fe 6 . 'z7 OM -7
Represent ive OT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Date
ilk
V or the Di ion Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO Date
State Historic Preservation
Date
(over) A-2
Federal Aid # IM-4- -14A4 TIP # 3021 County V--*NDoLF++
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Da.. "AP.Es PkILLiP'S POUI.E - (vi)
TNS. C-Mvrt. F-OAPWa7 W ILA- P-PT- REF r t w VILAe r, .4s VAL 4t AS Pest 6W, F4404
QITGNuME WFhT'
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
J
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA G SHPO

SaK ???M
r ?
•? Gw+w1N
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 24, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 59 on SR 1404 over Little Uwharrie
River, Randolph County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
14040 ), State Project 8.2570801, TIP B-3021,
ER 97-7557
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1996, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Kenneth W. Robinson concerning the above project.
The following sites were determined not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places: -
31RD1107**, Fuller Mill Site, lack of integrity
31 RD 1108 * House site, lack of research potential
31 RD1109* House site, lack of research potential
31 RD1110* Shed structure, lack of research potential
31 RD 1 112 * Fuller Mill Bridge, lack of. research potential
Site 31 RD1111 * *, the Charles Phillips House Site, has been determined eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C because of its
architectural qualities. Although this site will not be affected by the proposed
project, we wish to remind the Federal Highway Administration that it has not been
assessed for archaeological significance.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
3
A-2A
l,.
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,
t1a David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
?T. Padgett
1007Y - Aa0Z
U.S. Deparrment of AVicuicure
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT PATINC
?t
PART I !To be torrrovared by I Date 4t Lsne E,ra?uat 6 /
Fe-_4er3l A9enC/1 eAeY lmo?v*c G u
(p.a.ral .?i 1
lVsen. at ?rOI.G ..? p 2 ! , W,.AtY Ano Spce 2a-fJ O L- P?4
Propatra Lana Use ?' , .
I Oacs p.auest q.ceiv00 v
gv.raga Faecn Site
PART It (To be cam Dtered by SCSI yes .yo IAeres lmgstso 4 ('o
ide or Iol imisortarst tarns{and7 Q 9?
Does me sits tannin prime, unique. snttw lore addidanel Rarer of [his form). An,o.uu Ot Perrreana x oef1"'a'n F?PA
l nor 2,001v -der not ?°
!3`3
carne unsalco! Acres_
(if no. :he FIPA deal FfrffsDlf Land in ?•iOrt- ' ?? .
i vsweoon a.tc+rtcb dv SCS
tAelar CroOU! - Acres: 3i< 5Z I Date LA"
rJ Niaa,,, Ot L gll Sice Atseam.At Svss*i^
lVercw Ot !„ana Evawaon Svstern 1Js.o n10, u ?lcKnanw Site Panne
P Y nrri Sees 3 1 S:c. C I Ste O
.a I 1 Z S
) Sim
PART I{l (To be camR/ered by Federal Agertc/ ( I ( 3. o I
A. Total Aces To Se Converted OirecdY I I i I
f S` I 3 0 2..
B. Toni Acres To Be Conversed lndireedv I
C. Total Acts In Site I
PART lV (To be camRl by SCSI Land =valuation Information I c 3 I 2.5
I ?? I I
A. Total Acts Prime And Unique Farmland I I I v c?xx?2' 1
Z I
B_ Toni Acres Statewide And Loot imoorant Farsrlian I p.?m I o e 1 Z.
C. Percentage Of Farmlnd In CountyOr Local Govt. Unit To Be Cacsv
a
. ?t+soicsen Yuri S... or M?gn.r pNatsv Valw 1 4 I Z• I
t Ffr}}1lafltt , in Govt
.R A
PART V (To be camp/eced by SCSI Land Evaluation Critrion
Relative Value of arrrsla Be Con verted (? /e of 0 m 100 Pointsl i'1 • ' I
Federal AgancY) ` maximum I
PART VI (To be comRleced by F I polAa 1 I 1
Sts Assessn+.nt G+ceria M ail criteria errs .xDriiA.d in 7 G°R 6583tb1 I I 1 I I
1. Area In Norill Use I S /2 I t2. I
Z, perimeter in Nonurban Use I ( !2 D I D
3. Percent Ot to Being Farmed ( D I I I
I I
4. Protec:jon Provided BY State And Loci Government
5. Dismncm From Urban Builtuo Area I 3 ( 3 I 3
8. Distanca To Urban SuQOOK Services I 3 I i
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Avenge ( I i i
8. Creation Of Nonfarrsuble 'rarsniand I 5 I is
9. Availability Of Farms Suooars Services I ?
5 I D
10_ On-Farm InvesL. ill I I
I .3
11. Effeea Of Con"rsion On Faun Succors Services I I I
Wits Exisana Aasie?lturai Use
12 Comoatibiii' 160 I
TOTAL SITE ASSc55ME'•VT POINTS I I
. PART VII (To be camRle[ed by Federal Agency) I 100 3 I B. 9 I
Reiative Vaiue Of Farmland (From Parr V) 1-7- ?/• 9
I 160 I D3 I I
c ! Site enrient (From Part v/ above or a (oval I
y 260 Was A ?„?esl site AsaarnMS usedt
TOTAL POINTS (r'owl of above 2lintsl yes Q No C -
Oata Of Saiecdcn
Sts Saiected:
Rawton par s.N.euon:
A-3