20030847 Ver 1_Complete File_20030710

Certificate of Completion
DWQ Project No.: 03o8k17 County: ?.?ao??s?
?-? A164--r Pc.4N?r.?c ANaE`N?ie, 23R.?wcM
Applicant: G g J 7'
Project Name: _ fLw BQ?a?s? z8s ow .5?- /g/co ?8-3687)
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Quality Certification: \u i4/;7 7 Zoo3
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1621. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not
necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
I , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
Agent's Certification
I, -1,,,/ ,P 4 &7Zi41d1"-- , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and
diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built
within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the
approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
I, , as a duly registered Professional (i.e.,
Engineer, Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to
observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that,
to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that
the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality
Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No.: Date:
\N A T r Michael F. Easley, Governor
4
O?? 9pG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
\
co Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
> y Division of Water Quality
O .r Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 17, 2003
Randolph County
DWQ Project No. 030847
Bridge # 285 Replacement on SR 1916
TIP No. B-3687
APPROVAL of Randleman Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Randleman Buffer Certification for the replacement of Bridge No. 285 over Muddy Creek on SR 1916 in
Randolph County
TIP No. B-3687
DWQ Project No. 030847
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 13,947 square feet of protected riparian buffers
for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 285 on SR 1916 in Randolph County. The project shall be constructed according
to your application dated July 11, 2003 and any conditions listed below. This approval shall act as your Authorization
Certificate as required within the Randleman Lake Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0250). In addition, you
should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited
to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application (unless modified below). Should
your project change, you must notify the DWQ in writing and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner
must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed below.
1. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997), and Sediment
and Erosion Control Guidelines for Sensitive Watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) must be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
2. Stormwater shall be directed to diffuse flow at nonerosive velocities through the protected stream buffers.
3. Impacts to riparian buffers shall be graded to pre-disturbance contours and revegetated.
4. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of Completion
Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the Buffer Authorization has been completed. The responsible party
shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon
completion of the project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, 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 authorization and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
mmm
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives" determination required
in 15A NCAC 2B .0259(8). If you have any questions, please contact Beth Barnes at 919-715-8394.
Cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
SWE n
0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
FILE COPY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
4CDi GSSUEC)
July 11, 2003
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service Center g 0847
Raleigh, NC 27699 ATTENTION: Mr. John Dorney
NCDOT Coordinator
w3
eQ u NL\
Subject: Randleman Buffer Certification Application for the replacement of Bridge No.
285 over Muddy Creek on SR 1916 in Randolph County. State Project No.
8.2572701, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1916(5), TIP No. B-3687.
Dear Mr. Dorney:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDoT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 285 over Muddy Creek [DWQ Index #17-9(1)] Class WS-IV:* The project is
located within the Deep River Watershed (Subbasin 03-06-08) and under jurisdiction of
the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer Rules. The existing structure is
approximately 47 feet in length and will be replaced with a replacement structure of 110
feet in length. Since no suitable offsite detour exists for the volume of traffic on SR
1916, the use of a 64 foot detour bridge will be required.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
No jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters will be impacted by the proposed project.
Impacts to Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed Buffer impacts are the only impacts
proposed by this project.
RANDLEMAN BUFFER RULES
As documented in the attached CE document, this project is located in the Cape Fear
River Basin (subbasin 03-06-08, HUC 03030003); therefore, the regulations pertaining to
the buffer rules apply. Buffer impacts associated with this bridge replacement project
total 13, 947 ft2 (0.32 ac) of' allowable impacts. This includes 8,123 ft'` (0.19 ac) of
impacts within Zone 1 and 5,824 ft2 (0.13 ac) in Zone 2.
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.NCDOT.ORC, RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1546
Minimizatiop rpeuit6 include: level spreaders incorporated into drainage design for
filtering of stormwater prior to 50 foot buffer. According to the buffer rules, bridge
replacements are ALLOWABLE. Uses designated as allowable may proceed within the
riparian buffer provided that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use. These
uses require written authorization from the Division or the delegated local authority.
Therefore, NCDOT requests written authorization for a Buffer Certification from the
Division of Water Quality.
This project has been reviewed for jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Water Act
(CWA). The USACE has stated that none of the actions of this project fall under
jurisdiction of the CWA. Therefore, no permits pursuant to the CWA are required. This
application contains seven copies of a PCN, permit drawings and half size plan sheets.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Heather
Montague at [phone].
4
Sincerely,
0?- (4 20 101
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/ attachment:
Mr. Richard Spencer, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Deborah Barbour, PE, Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Ms. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, DIV 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
? Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested
N/A
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of' the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: BRIDGE 285 OVER MUDDY CREEK ON SR 1916 IN HIGH POINT
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
N/A
B-3687
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Glenola
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks,
etc.): SR 1916 off of Hwy 311 SI of
Archdale
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 53' 02"N, 79° 53' 42"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Muddy Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.cnr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Existing land uses include urban residental.
Page 2 oi' 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge No. 285 will be replaced on existing location (using an onsite detour) with a new
bridge using heavy duty construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work:
To replace inadequate bridge.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: buffer impacts
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year tloodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.Lov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uscs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
_ww%v.mar)(ucst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: NONE
Page 4 of 8
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

t,ist cacn impact separatery ana iaenmy temporary impacts. impacts include, nut are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The replacement bridge will be a spanning, structure, thereby eliminatinu impacts to Muddy
Creek.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
tJSACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
Page 5 of 8
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwet]ands/strmgidc.htm1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.statc.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 8,123 3 N/A
2 5,824 1.5 N/A
Total 13,947 NONE
Aone I extends out io feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to , protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The guidelines for the NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds" will be followed. These include minimizing the project footprint and diverting
stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
y_Q
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
1495 ? ---
a
1996 918
11014
L
1914 i
I ? I
1570
LJ I -'
I
2017 2028
a? r4`-
20 \ 1917
PROJECT SITE
J
J John R. Lawren
Elementary
3 &G1. 1917
v -i1
I 711 ? ?
i
1918 - -
I 17JB/ ? r - - -- --v 1919
PORTION OF RANDOLPH COUNTY MAP
Leeds
•0 /
BUFFER IMPACTS
L?17
1
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
8257270(8-J687)
8R G,E '7.85 OVER MUDDY CREFK
ON SR 19!6
a
PORTION OF STATE MAP --II
)^.
CJ`r-Aoc` rt.. III4, ??• ?" ??+ '77-
J /1 • ?-? /,' ? ? 1 ,, III ? J 1
I Ia1 I I?l?d I.-' ?' ..1 1 A? ij `:,1? --....-•`?I ? , J ?, :-Y} \' ,'? ,?I,?-' -y'r/,. ? /??.
Ilk,
/07
eJEi'
' ?' ??'`- ?"_-qc'-,=??a_.---?/. •}`4f ? ?;??;?•? -\ \1??\i' A ( ill -::?++Ili ? / + rl? ?%? •'r\?c 1`?,;,?./
19.9
l i ' • I , L _ "-?i 786.
`?;
^ry B?"?
?? \\;` ?' + I •' ?j )\\ ?J?-? I,I+: h •?- ;?I- '. .• ,•_ ??I ?l'9 ????? •?I , Ord / U •'y•` .Ih
.il'`?` it \?? , ? I ?? I?p2 (i?•C7tUla J?° v -
SITE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
1)FPARTW:-AIT nc Lllr L4dr AVC-
RANDOLPH COUNTY
8.257270118-3681)
BRG E '285 GVER N000r CREEri
ON SR 1915

'I- • ?

--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
Y - 1
PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
WL
xxxii
xxxx`, ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
-1
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
MITIGABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
- BZ - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
- BZ1 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 1
30 ft (9.2m)
- BZ2 - RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
20 ft (G.1m)
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
- B TOP OF BANK
WE' - EDGE OF WATER
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -P1 - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x x LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
?- WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
MPIP, RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
EEE? LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEFT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2572701 (11-3687)
BRIDGE, N0.285
ON SIB 1OI(,
i
3' BASE PREFORMED
6' BASE-PREFORME SCOUR HOLE
SCOUR HOLE
PROPOSED B D rT /
N,
EXISTING BRI
i
L-n
EXISTS N R/W
SR 1916 WEANT D, --- ' ----
l8' , A WAY o -L - `-- -
o _ ? o
- -?- EXISTING R/1 -
/
u.J
a- m r? l
m /
? ? E r
LEVEL /
LEVEL SPREADER 53.Offt(L)
20 ft(L) i DA=2.03ac / J
DA=0.64ac / i Q10=4 Ids /
Q10=1.lcfs
SHEET 1

LEGEND `??.?
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
-- RIPARIAN BUFFER-ZONE I ?--- --.- --_ , .................,
_ RBZ2 _ RIPARIAN BUFFER-ZONE 2 11
E + -
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDIO(PH COUNTY
82572701fB-36871
BRIDGE '285 OVER MUDDY CREEK
ON SR /916
S('Nf 'All' 9(mv
SHE E. ? - OJ
\ \ S?? WOODS
_TB
EXISTN,G BRI
SR 1916 WEANT RD, - ,,( FSS -
r 1 1 l8' , A EV D CrDADWAY o

DETOUR BRIDGE
SHEET 2
LL RIPARIAN BUFFER-ZONE 2
ND ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
mw ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE
RBZI RIPARIAN BUFFER-ZONE I
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
825727010-3687/
BRIDE '285 OVER MUDDY CREEK
ON SR 1916
V l 'I" "m'WN
J,!; I 5_

DETAIL-0-
PLAN VIEW
Pipe or
Ou
Square
Scour I
(Rip Rol
basin n
for cla
;vel and flush
Mural ground.
B VAR
0 r
W 4'
d 0.5'
SECTION A-A
F,//So PIPO or Oltch
°e Outlet
PSRM
D(I'min) -d Natural
-? T - - ??- °° - - -
?ooooo00 0 o Ground
Liner: Class 'B" Rip Rap - B-y.?, ?I' Tuck
LO'thick with Filter Fabric
4/4/02

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNFY
8257Z701(8-J680
BRIDGE '285 OVER MUDDY CHEE:1
ON SR 1916

'r
M
N I
-

$Y I
n n n u ?
w 1
z
J 1
W
O
W I 8?
I ?
? I ±
a
o I
a
I
I co
J ?II
w
R
N3??JO ,cOOnw ? r°"
i r=
0
n
0
bC.
O
N N p ?
n p
arm ?_
-OJY
I
0 0! o!
Q'. fn N.
(ELEVATION IN FEES
0
0
co
O
O
ti
0
0
0
a
z
O
Q
> o
Q o
U - - +
X Q
W _
w
?- U-
LLI
a
w
? z
J
J
aD
LJ
LL
r 2
w
o ?? a
V
o?
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
82572701(8-3687)
BR1LrE '285 P/ER MUDDY CREEK
ON SR 1016
A', ' 10VN
----
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS

0
E
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
8257270I(B-3687)
BRIDGE_ '285 (HER MUDDY CHEEK
ON SR !9!6
TRACT NO. PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS SITF Nn
r
z
_ D
_U O
LL =
O
J
z U
_O p
cn z
Q
O
co
m
0
N
n
U7
N
H
U
W
O
a

ml
00
?0
M
0
N
"V
U
01
a
See Suet 1-A For Index of Sheets
See Suet 1-B For Conventlonol Symbols
r
?l 4
'?I GT
( ?? • ? rloly
"M Ft
alft lea
?I;iezc Hsu 'l,
uu
(
VICINITY MAP
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
LOCATION; REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 285 ON SR 1916
OVER MUDDY CREEK
TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING,
STRUCTURE, AND RESURFACING,

-L- POC STA. 10+00.00 BEGIN STATE PROJECT 8.2572701
-L- POC STA. 10+00.00 BEGIN RA. PROJECT BRZ-1916(5)
ffS4NT gOAD
-L- POC STA. 21+00.00 END STATE PROJECT 82572701
L- POC STA. 21 +00.00 END F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1916(5)
/ END BRIDGE
BEGA'A. RIDGE L- STA. 15+83
-L- ST 14 + \ \Y?,
400
-DET-
IP-
Us 311 BEGIN BRIDGE
1'O DET- STA. 14+77
•• DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
SR 1916 -
4tpo ? END BRIDGE ft
DET- STA. 15+41
e,
GRAPHIC SCALES

50 25 0 5o t
DESIGN DATA

ADT 2002 = 1700
PROJECT LENGTH e
PreWed in tle office of.
DIVISION OF DHIGHWAYS

1900 Birck Ridge , NC, 27619 HYDRAUMCS DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTE cAROLnU
-
11111 ADT 2025 = 3200 2W SLIMUM MCUPMA2UM
PLANS
50 25 50 100 DHV = 10 %

D = 65 % LENGTH ROADWAY F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1916(5)= 0.188 MILES

LENGTH STRUCTURE F
A
PROJECT BRZ-1916(5) = 0
021 MILES

RIGHT OF WAY DA18:

ROGER D
THOMAS
PE
rs
'?""'?'

rs
.
.
. .
.
PAMMT aaw? ROADWAY DESIGN SrSa nISM Sties
•
T = 4 % TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 8
2572701= 0
209 MILES OCTOBER 17, 2002 RN
E

PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
10 5 0 10 20
•• V = 45 MPH
V(DETOUR) = 35 MPH .
.

LE777NG DAM-

B?P?ROBI Guz= GA
ZR DEPARTAUNT OF TRANSPORTA27ON
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMDUS73?A27
OBER R 211, 2,2003
OCT
PROFILE (VERTICAL) • TTST 1 % DUAL 3 % Pa APPWVm
slaRMU r Dais= enaasne+me DAM

N

?-L-
LIP 112
1.`
SO ?1
a ., \ S?Gti?O 8.0'
APR ??' E 0
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2

a
0G
., 1

L DET-
4'-0' 12'-0' 12'-
7'-0' W/GR
Q CI MADE .02
POI M
? Lp 02
1
ZOZ•?
`\ Ct\01L5
SSE
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.3
a
Ix
4= I
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
-L- STA 13+00 TO 14+61
-L- STA 15+95 TO 18+00
t SO Z.W
1?1
J PR A.s ?'S64
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO.3
-DET- STA 12+03.88 TO 17+90.32
1
1 S
PIZ= FAFB04CE NO. MBT N0.
8-3687 2
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C PROP. APPROX. 1.25' ASPHALT CONC. SURFACE COURSE. TYPE S9.SA.
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 140 LBS. PER SO. YARD.
C1 PROP. APPROX. 2.5' ASPHALT CONC. SURFACE COURSE. TYPE S9.SA. AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 140 LOS. PER SO. YARD IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS.
PROM VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONC. SLWACE COURSE. TYPE S9.5A. AT AN
C2 AVERAGE RATE OF 112 LOS. PER SO. YARD PER 1' DEPTH. TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NUT TO EXCEED 1.5 ' IN DEPTH.
D PROP. APPROX. 2.S' ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE.
TYPE 119.08. AT AN AVERAGE WEIGHT OF 285 LOS. PER SO. YD.
PROP.VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONC. INTERMEDIATE COURSE. TYPE 119.08.
DI AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SO. YARD PER I- DEPTH. TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT GREATER THAN 4 - IN DEPTH OR LESS THAN
2.25 IN DEPTH.
E ? COURSE. TYPE M.N. AT AN
PROP.
APPROX.
C? .
0 -
LTT
R
Y
RAGE
OF
AVE RATE 342
LBS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONC. BASE COURSE. TYPE 825.08. AT AN
El AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SO. YARD. PER 1- DEPTH. TO BE PLACED
IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3- IN DEPTH OR GREATER THAN 5.5- IN DEPTH
P PRIME COAT AT THE RATE OF .35 GAL. PER SO. YD.
J PROP. 8- AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
T EARTH MATERIAL
U EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT. (SEE WEDGING DETAIL)
NOTEL PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE WLW UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE
q SURVEY
-L- STA 10+50 TO 13+00
TYPICAL SECTION NO.[ -L- STA I8+00 TO 20+50
NOTE: OVERLAY -L- WITH
STA. 10+00 TO 10+C0 AND
STA. 20+50 TO 21+00
Detail Showing Method of Wedging
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LOCALIZED COORDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE PLANE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
NCGS FOR MONUMENT 'WOUAND"
WITH NAD 83 STATE PLANE GRID COORDINATES OF
NORTHING: 7F%5242(ft) EASTING: 1722871b46(ft)
THE AVERAGE COMBINED GRID FACTOR USED ON THIS PROJECT
(GROUND TO GRID) IS. 099990836
THE N.C. LAMBERT GRID BEARING AND
LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
'WOLLAND" TO -L- STATION 10+0000 IS
N 10 36 39.3 W 1524950 (FT)
ALL LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NGVD 29
DC/ IAI MM/1 1 D-7Ci!Y7
888P DEwELOPEK"T.LLC
08 L62 PG 961
PO 56 PG 63
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
DETAIL D
PLAN w ¦
?rar»..?ana.?,
Pipe or Darn iT ttn mnravam
afrT
a A
SRwre Pre
'
es.
5coil IOM 6
510
ob R- 1

8 VAR
a.n
ear arnri D r
c gru
X
sh
I
d
SECTON 6"A
'? M rMn
Ps w
Daaro 0
mar,r0
1
- --Crouro
, e.lt Rq RF I
?4?-a.? I'iuc
Wr.
1CTTrru .nn Plrx Franc 1/1/02
FAFEVAMM NO. aw Np0.
B-3667 4
Mw Pw No.
MADWAY DESM
ENGNM MYDeAUIILf
S MIM
' 4? 83
CA/l1 D
? ? I ER
f
IMMOM
QYIS03 p) Ganged properly owner name an pooh No. 1, 3, 4, 6,
13, 14, and 16.
(2) Bawd am gory frame dwaiq, and concrete drMeay
on I , No.1 and A.
(3) Placed a foundalion and Sol i [)noel dihrway on
Parcel No. 6,
(4) Placed a 'Replace dMwwy with aonoW nole, acrd
adjuded RAY tie an parcel No. 3.
(5) Placed a ' Do not didurb trece' nab on parcel No, 13.
(6) Placed a 'Do not db wb fencing' role on parcel No. 15.
fR A*Ated GW from 50 fl to 40 R 4-
1 1+20.36 to U+25.10 RT.
Irm
F
b
%E? 0E d?Mppl???
NOTf?,?LEO 8
?f

rrr?\
?= i9 00 52P(RT) D= tI GB 324'(RT) p= r59 o3T rRT1
STl D.50 LT TO 19.00 LT -L-
ST40.50 FIT TO 4.10 RT -L-
ST 1e.00 RT TO fr.50 PT -L-
S7-6.85 LT TO 19.50 LT -L-
ST40100 LT TO I4.40 LT -L-
D = 6'15'00D' D = S15'00D' D • 3'00'000'
L = 3D423' C = 325.88'' L = 66J5'
T = 15353' T = 164x5' T - 33D&
R = 9N6.73' R = ID9l.35' R = 150986'
SE = SEE PLAYS SE = SEE PLANS SE = SEE PLANS
NOTE :SEE SHEET 4A FOR DETCX1R ALIGNMENT
SEE SHEET 5 FOR PROFILE
P
m
Mora
DET
PISto 9+5335 P/Sfo 15+6695 P1Sfo 18+3327
A- 21443a4'(R7) A- 754'213'(LT ) a= 24I71 15B(RT)
D = 726 27e D = 630'392' D = 7 2627.6
L = 292!9' L = 15214' L = 32640'
T = 14761' T = 7626' T = 165,69'
R = 77000' R = 880.W R = 770007
SE - SEE PLANS SE - SEE PLANS SE = SEE PLAYS
W&p DEvEIOPEWj4T.IIC
Do am PG 964
Ps 56 PC 83
n
N'qp 83
PRO[Q RRgM= NO. amEr No,
B-3687 4A
ww 9NCr NO,
UMMAY DERW HYDRAUM
ENOMW B10R1am
END PROJ. B
;*4?
ft 64;?
F
b
z w'?? ??ao?a
aA_?„?be y ?? 1
STS 2+00 RT TO 4 20 R7 CET"!
S7A. 17.5!3$RT TO 6.92 RT (DETOLR)
or," E
? IC41-
nq??egLy,F ?v 0,
*A 7(' L
Q k
qA7 RT
rS ? 0
Jti i 4
N
F8 f-- d' 9t T
PD J
MOTE :SEE SHEET 4 FOR -L- AUGNMENT
SEE SHEET 5 FOR PROFILE
USE THIS SHEET FOR THE TEMPORARY DETOUR ONLY
- ;-0
J1
Randolph County
Bridge No. 285 on SR 1916
over Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(5)
State Project No. 8.2572701
T.I.P. No. B-3687
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
APPROVED:
g-7-o2
Date
g-9-D2
Date
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

ka'1
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Randolph County
Bridge No. 285 on SR 1916
over Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(5)
State Project No. 8.2572701
T.I.P. No. B-3687
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch By:

Date Dennis Pipkin
Project Planning Engineer
e-6-vZ
Date William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E.
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Planning zit
g - '? - 0 2 - y? D
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
-.-Is
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
Randolph County
Bridge No. 285 on SR 1916
over Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(5)
State Project No. 8.2572701
T.I.P. No. B-3687
1. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
The existing bridge has an asphalt wearing surface, and the remainder of the bridge, both
superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The asphalt surface will be
removed prior to demolition. The remainder of the bridge will be removed without dropping into
Waters of the U.S. During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
Greensheet Page 1 of 1
Randolph County
Bridge No. 285 on SR 1916
over Muddy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1916(5)
State Project No. 8.2572701
T.I.P. No. B-3687
INTRODUCTION:
Bridge No. 285 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible for the Federal-
Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 28.0 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in central Randolph County. (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is suburban residential in nature.
SR 1916 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. This route is not a designated bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual
number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1916 has a 19-foot (5.8-meter) pavement width with 6-
foot (1.8-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway is situated approximately 9
feet (2.7 meters) above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 285 consists of three spans and is constructed entirely of timber with steel
1-beams. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1954. The overall length of the
structure is 47 feet (14.3 meters). The clear roadway width is 17.1 feet (5.2 meters). The posted
weight limit on this bridge is 18 tons for single vehicles and 26 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there is a parallel
sanitary sewer line (force main) to the west-of the existing alignment. Electric, gas, and phone
lines are also in the vicinity. Utility impacts are anticipated to be of a medium level for this
project.
The current traffic volume of 1700 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
3200 VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and three percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). A regulatory speed limit of 45 mph (73 kph)
is posted in the bridge vicinity. An advisory speed limit of 35 mph (55 kph) is posted for the
north approach only.
There were three accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 285 during a recent
three year period. Two of these involved single vehicles leaving the roadway at the curve on the
north approach.
School busses and emergency vehicles will be accommodated by maintaining traffic with
a temporary on site detour structure during construction of the new bridge.
III. ALTERNATES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a 110-foot (33.0-meter) long bridge, with a clear
roadway width of 33 feet (10 meters). The bridge will be of sufficient width for two 12-foot
(3.6 meter) travel lanes with a 3-foot (1 meter) and a 6-foot ( 1.8 meter) bridge rail offset on the
left and right side of the bridge, respectively.
The roadway grade approaching the new structure will be raised approximately 4 feet
(1.2 meters) above the existing roadway approaches.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width to provide
two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Eight-foot (2.4-meter) turf shoulders will be provided on each
side. This roadway will be designed as a rural local facility.
Initial design indicates that the completed project will provide a design speed of 45 mph
(73 km/hr). It is anticipated that a design exception will be required for the proposed vertical
alignment.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternates
The one alternate for replacing Bridge No. 285 is described below.
Alternate One: - Replace bridge approximately on existing location, and maintain traffic with a
temporary detour structure placed to the east of the existing bridge.
C. Alternates Eliminated From Further Consideration
The "do-nothing" alternate will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1916.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age and deteriorated
condition. The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to the aging of the timber
components.
The location for the temporary detour structure was not selected for the west side of the
existing bridge, due to the existence of a major tributary joining Muddy Creek near the bridge.
D. Preferred Alternate
Bridge No. 285 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternate 1 in
Figure 2. Alternate 1 is recommended because there is no suitable offsite detour for the volume
of traffic on SR 1916. Two offsite detours were investigated. Although one of these is
marginally acceptable from the viewpoint of road user costs, the road characteristics and speeds
are not suitable for the additional detour traffic volume.
The NCDOT Division 8 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 1 as the
preferred alternate.
IV. Estimated Costs
The estimated costs for the one alternate are as follows:
Alternate 1
Structure $130,000
Roadway Approaches 491,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 198,000
Structure Removal 7,000
Contract Cost $826,000
Eng. & Contingencies 124,000
Total Construction Cost $950,000
Right-of-way Costs 87,000
Total Project Cost $1,037,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed below. Soil
types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna
in any biotic community.
Randolph County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Land in the project study
area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area of Randolph County
surrounded by forestland and residential houses. The project study area is located approximately
750 ft (228.6 m) above mean sea level.
Soils
One mapped soil unit is located in the project study area, Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes,
frequently flooded.
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on flood plains. They
formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is
moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is within a depth of 0.5 ft-
1.5 ft (0.15 m-0.45 m) . These soils are subject to frequent flooding. Chewacla loam, 0-2%
slopes, frequently flooded, has hydric inclusions.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources' relationship to major
water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Deep River Watershed
(Subbasin 03-06-08) of the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin (N.C. Hydrologic Unit 03030003).
The Cape Fear River Basin is the largest river basin in the state, covering 9,149 square miles
(23,800 square kilometers) (NCDEHNR, 1995).
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Muddy Creek. Muddy Creek at the project site is
approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) wide. The depth is approximately 1 ft (0.3 m). The substrate
consists of rock, sand, and cobble.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDENR (2000). The best
usage classification for Muddy Creek (Index No. 17-9) is C. Class C waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The project study area is located in a Protected Water Supply Watershed.
a. Water Quality

The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal, the DWQ collects biological, chemical,
and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. Specific river basins -
within North Carolina are intensively sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates. The
macroinvertebrates are a good indicator of water quality because of their sensitivity to subtle
environmental changes, mobility (as compared to fish), diversity, and relatively long life cycle.
The overall species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of
streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water
quality and facilitate the NPDES permit review.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) monitors ambient water
quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications
based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPTs). Muddy Creek received Good-Fair bioclassifications (NCDEHNR, 1995).
There were no BMAN monitoring sites in the project vicinity.
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or other
defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges associated with
wastewater treatment plants. 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. There are no NPDES sites located within 1 mile
(1.6 km) of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or
no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that can serve as
sources of non-point source pollution including land development, construction, crop production,
animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads, and parking lots. Sediment and
nutrients are major pollution-causing substances associated with non-point source pollution.
Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that
may be washed off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters.
Excluding road runoff, there were no identifiable non-point sources that could be observed
during the site visit.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Roadway construction in Muddy Creek will result in water quality impacts. The
proposed project will bridge Muddy Creek and result in both temporary and permanent impacts.
Clearing and grubbing activities near the creek may result in soil erosion leading to increased
sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend downstream for considerable distance
with decreasing intensity. Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are
dependent upon final construction limits.
I&
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality. The
vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water temperature.
The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in fluctuating water
temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease in dissolved oxygen
because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also stabilizes streambanks and
reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials can
adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological and
chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend both upstream and
downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may include isolated changes in flooding
regime, discharge, erosion, and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced
during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a
sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts formal BMP's for the
protection of surface waters. The project study area is located within the piedmont and crosses a
perennial stream.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name
only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife
and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Fish, 1960;
Martof et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985; Rohde et al., 1994; Potter et al., 1980).
6
Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed community, riparian fringe, and mixed hardwood forest.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses three types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder, disturbed/early successional, and
abandoned field.
Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained habitat that is kept in a low-growing, early
successional state. Herbs, grasses, and vines located here include fescue (Festuca sp.), poison
ivy (Rhus radicans), white clover (Trifolium repens), bead grass (Paspalum sp.), common
plantain (Plantago sp.), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), and passion-flower
(Passijlora sp.).
The disturbed/early successional habitat is comprised of a thick layer of herbaceous
species and is not maintained. The herbaceous canopy is comprised of pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana), wingstem (Actinomeris alternifolia), Japanese honeysuckle, jewel-weed (Impatiens
capensis), trumpet creeper, muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy, false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), Virginia creeper, Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis), cardinal
flower (Lobelia cardinalis), and great ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Shrub and tree species
observed here include blackberry (Rubus sp.), arrowwood (Viburnum sp.), black willow (Salix
nigra), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Abandoned field is located in the northeast quadrant of the project study area. Herbs,
grasses, and vines observed here include bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), poison ivy, ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), white clover, red clover (Trifolium pratense), aster (Aster sp.), daisy fleabane
(Erigeron sp.), morning glory (Ipomoea sp.), nightshade (Solanum sp.), orchard grass (Dactyli.s
glomerata), and horse nettle (Solanum carolinense). Tree species observed here include
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Riparian Fringe
Riparian fringe is located adjacent to Muddy Creek and serves as a streamside buffer.
The herbaceous canopy is comprised of trumpet creeper and goldenrod. Tree species located
here include sycamore, river birch (Betula nigra), box elder (Acer negundo), and black willow.
Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed hardwood forest is located in the northwest quadrant of the project study area.
Herbs, grasses, and vines observed here include poison ivy, goldenrod, Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus carota), trumpet creeper, beggar's ticks (Desmodium paniculatum), muscadine grape,
and Japanese grass. Shrub and tree species observed here include green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), box elder, sycamore, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple,
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), hackberry (Celtic sp.), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red bud (Cercis canadensis),
and arrowwood.
Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project area likely use various communities for forage, cover,
and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and
clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such that both
are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats to moist
forests as well as urban areas. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are occasionally
observed along broken areas of mixed young forests, old fields, and crop lands. These two
ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and
hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas dominated by herbaceous
vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus
floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carolinensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)
inhabits woodlands where they are known to forage at night and spend the day in burrows under
logs, stones, and leaf litter. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) inhabits woodlands where it may
be observed under forest litter or brushy undergrowth. Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina)
are commonly observed throughout forested habitats where they feed on plants and small
animals.
The common crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is seen in a wide variety of fields and open
country habitats. Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) favor woodland margins and residential
shrubbery. The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) occurs in open country habitats such as
fields, woodland margins, and suburban neighborhoods. Carolina wrens* (Thryothorus
ludovicianus) are found in remote swamps, woodlands, farmyards, and residential sections of
cities. The mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) is common in woodlands and residential areas.
Other bird species observed in the project study area include tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor),
red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus), Canada goose* (Branta canadensis), and Carolina chickadee*
(Parus carolinensis).
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, is located in the project study
area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the water influence the
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Perennial streams support an assemblage of
fauna that require a constant source of flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing
water.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to moderately sized
perennial streams in rural areas may include northern dusky salamander (De.smognathus fuscus),
three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (R.
palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Muddy Creek provides habitat for redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), warmouth
(Lepomis gulosus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), shiners (Cyprinella sp.), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), other sunfish (Lepomis
sp.), brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community (Table 1). Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire ROW width and length.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Alternate 1
In Place Replacement Temporary Detour
Maintained/Di sturbed 0.14/0.06 0.27/0.11/
Riparian Fringe 0.002/0.0009 0.003/0.001
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.02/0.01 0.03/0.01
Total (see note) 0.16/0.07 0.30/0.12
Notes:
-Values are cited in acres/ hectares
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community due to
rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate I In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with the
removal and replacement of Bridge No. 285 and adjacent roadway approaches.
-Alternate 1 (Temporary Detour Structure) values indicate temporary impacts associated with
the placement and subsequent removal of the temporary bridge and roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of project
construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. A
majority of the project study area is located in habitat.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area as well
as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to
construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified throughout the food
chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher trophic levels. Strict erosion and
sedimentation controls must be maintained during the entire life of the project.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely impact
spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and highway spills
may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources located in the project
area.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
Waters of the United States
. Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3(b), are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water 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. Surface waters are waters used in interstate or
foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides, all interstate waters including
interstate wetlands, and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action
that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Muddy Creek is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. This stream is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.2. Potential jurisdictional wetland
communities were examined pursuant to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for wetlands. According to the
manual, an area is considered a wetland if three parameters, hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
10
and hydrologic characteristics concurrently, exist. Based upon the results of the field
investigation, the project area contains no jurisdictional wetlands.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. Muddy Creek is proposed
to be bridged. Approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) of Muddy Creek is located in the ROW of the In
Place Replacement associated with Alternate 1. Approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) of Muddy Creek
is located in the ROW of the Temporary Detour associated with Alternate 1. The amount of
surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in roadway design.
No bridge material will be dropped into surface waters during demolition. This project
can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the COE for
discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." Due to surface water
impacts expected at the project study area, Nationwide 23 & 33 Permits will likely be necessary
for this project. Final decision concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ. Section 401
of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. The issuance of a
401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of 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 maintain and restore 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
Avoidance mitigation examines an 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 and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
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. Impacts to surface waters can be
minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of ROW
widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths; (2) installation of temporary silt fences, earth
berms, and temporary ground cover during construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation
and erosion control BMP's for the protection of surface waters; and (4) reduction of clearing and
grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
Compensatory Mitigation
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. Such actions should be undertaken in areas to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.5 ac (0.45 ha) of wetland will
require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211.0506(a) and (h); and fill or
alteration of more than 150 linear ft (45.7 linear m) of streams may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0506(a) and (h). If these acreage and linear
thresholds are exceeded from project construction, NCDOT will follow these regulations.
Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces of their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
FWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
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 ESA. As of March 22, 2001, there are two federally protected species listed for Randolph
County (Table 2). A brief description of each Endangered or Threatened species characteristics
and habitat follows.
12

Table 2. Federally-protected Species for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Endangered=a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is small, rarely exceeding 2 inches in length. The fish's 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. 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 species is
typically associated with schools of other related species, but it is never the numerically
dominant species. Potential threats to the species and its habitat could come from such activities
as road construction, stream channel modification, changes in stream flows for hydroelectric
power, impoundments, land use changes, wastewater discharges, and other projects in the
watershed. No information is presently available on the species' breeding behavior, fecundity, or
longevity. Plant material forms the primary part of the shiner's diet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The only known occurrences of Cape Fear shiners in Randolph County are in Fork Creek
and the Deep River. This project is not located near these streams. A review of the NHP
database for rare species and.unique habitats revealed no known populations of Cape Fear shiner
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Impacts to this species will not occur from
project construction.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
Flowers Present: September
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows from 1 to 2 meters tall from a cluster of carrot-
like tuberous roots. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to alternate above. In
shape, they are lanceolate, wider near their bases, but variable in size, being generally larger on
the lower stem, and gradually reduced upwards. Leaf margins are entire or with a few obscure
serrations and are generally also somewhat revolute. From September to frost, Schweinitz's
sunflower blooms with comparatively small heads of yellow flowers. The nutlets are 3.3 to 3.5
millimeters long and are glabrous with rounded tips.
13

The species occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content and are moderately podzolized.
The underlying rock types are highly weatherable, generally contain low amounts of resistant
minerals such as quartz, and generally weather to fine-textured soils. Schweinitz's sunflower
usually grows in open habitats not typical of the current general landscape in the piedmont of the
Carolinas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 5, 2000. No plants were
observed. A review of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Impacts
to this species will not occur from project construction.
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may or may
not be listed in the future. Six FSC are listed for Randolph County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC no
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. SR no
brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T(PE) yes
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis W3* no
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) yes
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana SC(PE) no .
* indicates the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Threatened (T) species are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future througout all or a
significant portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species or once-native
species of fauna or flora whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora or
fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly Rare (SR) species are very rare in North
Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state. Special Concern (SC) species require
monitoring but may be collected and sold under regulations adopted under provisions of Article
25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987. Proposed (P_) species have been formally
proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but have not yet completed
the legally mandated listing process. Watch Category 3 (W3) includes species which have been
reported from North Carolina without adequate documentation.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the
14
State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the
level of protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats conducted on August 3,
2000 revealed no records of animal or plant species within 1 mile (1.6 km) of the project study -
area. Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
these species observed during the site visit.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to
comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The NC Historic Preservation Office stated in a letter of March 29, 2001, that a historic
architectural survey is not recommended.
C. Archaeology
The NC Historic Preservation Office stated in a letter of March 29, 2001, that an
archeological survey is not recommended.
VII. GENERAL 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.
15
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.
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. With the exception of the construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done
within the existing right-of-way. 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. 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.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. 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 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.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16

e'er ?
y ?s,4N
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Statt Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley. Governor Division of Archives and Hiswr -
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
March 29. 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.F., Manager
Project Development artc i ronmentaI Analysis Br ch
From: David Brook plv-i
If
Deputy State Historic Preserv.aion Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 1'5 on SR 1916 over Muddy Creek,
TIP No. B-3687. Randolph Cour.-y, ER 00-8446
On.lanuarx 20, 2001, April Montgomery of our 1-t:--f met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meetingh of the minds concerning the
above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photog-raphs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the inforn-nation discussed at the meeting.
We offer our preliminary comments regarding this project
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of , o historic structures located
within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no h. ,toric architectural survey
be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed pr-iect area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area. it is unlikely that any archaeoloci ?al resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Place will be affected by
the project construction. We. therefore. recommend that no archae logical investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of :ter a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental .Assessment. which indicates how NCD(.?', addressed our '
comments.
lwKatiun Mallint Addmr Telephone/Fui
kD%11N1CTRAT10N 507 N Mount St.. Ralneh KC 4617 Mail Sm-ter C'rnter. Raleigh ti(' 7697-461 (919 'Z1-176? . ?1a.?p5l
I?F 1'1'0K \T1O\ I I 1 `, main, C:. Ral;ren \( abll Nall Sm irc l cw i Ralewh NC 2 7 6 99-46 1 ))'Z1_(,t 17 1sUl

Page 2 of 2
William D. Gilmore
March 29, 2001
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 any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
Worth Carolina Departmcnr, of
Transportation
Division of Righ-vavs
Project Dmelopmenr &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Randolph CounnReplace Bridge No. ?85 on SR 1916
Over Aluddy Creek
B-3687

Looking south
- ?e
R -
across Bridge
No. 285
w1 } ,
7

w5
? f
Y a
k
?
?
C ? ?
?
h
5
S 2'
ir§.•
:

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Hi
b%a
s
r
' g
y
Project Development & Em •ironmental AnalN'sIS
a ?
Branch
Randolph County
Replace Bridge No. 285 on SR 1916
Over Muddy Creek
B-3687

I
1 Figure Three