20040908 Ver 1_Complete File_20040603

N d ? 41A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 28, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer, NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

wrr1 11111"Q 1401 GROUP
t_1P4 0 3 2004
LYNDO TI. ' 1MU 1 1 S
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge No. 363 over
Caraway Creek on SR 1331 (Ridges Mountain Road) in Randolph County, Federal
Project No. BRZ-1331 (4), State Project No. 82572301, WBS Element 33118.1.1,
Division 8, T.I.P. No. B-3504.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, permit drawings, and
design plan sheets. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 363 over Caraway Creek approximately 15 feet south of the existing alignment, realign SR
1331 (Ridges Mountain Road), and realign the existing intersection of Ridges Mountain Road and SR
1318 (Moore Road) 120 feet south. Also, an unnamed tributary channel to the north of existing bridge
wiI I be relocated due to the position of the fill slopes for the new bridge. The project involves replacing
the existing 75-foot bridge with a 105-foot long bridge. The new bridge will consist of three spans and
will be 33 feet wide. Bridge No. 363 will be built using drilled piers for the interior bents and steel piles
for the end bents. Traffic will be detoured offsite along surrounding roads during construction.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located within the Yadkin-PeeDee River Basin (03-07-09 sub-basin). Two surface water
sources occur in the project area: Caraway Creek and an unnamed tributary (UT) to Caraway Creek.
Caraway Creek is a perennial swift flowing stream that has a width of approximately 34 feet and a depth
of I to 5 feet. The substrate is comprised primarily of silt, sand, and bedrock. Caraway Creek has been
assigned DWQ Index No. 13-2-3 by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and a best usage
classification of C.
The confluence of the UT and Caraway Creek is located approximately 35 feet upstream and northeast of
the existing bridge. The UT is an intermittent stream that has a width of 4 feet. The substrate is
comprised of sand and gravel. It has not been assigned a separate best usage classification, so it shares
the classification of its receiving water, Caraway Creek.
All jurisdictional impacts will occur from the relocation of the UT channel. The relocation will result in
130 feet of permanent fill to the channel of the UT. Relocation was necessary due to the position of the
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.ORG RALEIGH NC 27699
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
fill slopes for the new bridge. Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
implemented as applicable. There are no wetlands in the project area.
Sedimentation and turbidity may result from construction related activities. HQW Sedimentation and
Erosion Control Measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to potential freshwater mussels at the
project site. No mussels were found at project site, however the likelihood of their existence in the
project area is high based on historical evidence.
Utility Impacts
No utility impacts are °?xpected.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 363 was built in 1959 and is 75 feet long. The superstructure consists of a timber deck with
steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of two rubble/masonry interior bents with concrete caps and
two end bents consisting of timber caps, posts, and sills. Although it is expected that components of the
superstructure and substructure will be removed without dropping them into Caraway Creek, there is the
potential for the interior rubble/masonry bents of the substructure to be dropped into Caraway Creek
during demolition and removal. The resulting potential temporary fill is approximately 22 cubic yards.
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented during the
demolition and construction of Bridge No. 363.
Restoration Plan
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal
of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers, cranes and
various other pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways and bridges will be
used on site. The contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems
suitable in the construction of project.
Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the structure will be
removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be revegetated
according to NCDOT guidelines. Class I riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank stabilization. Pre-
project elevations will be restored. NCDOT will restore the stream to its pre-project contours.
Schedule: The project calls for a letting of August 17, 2004 with a date of availability of September 28,
2004. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in September.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation: The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and
practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory
mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during
the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the
project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization:
The new bridge will not have bents located in the stream.
Limited instream activity.
Use of High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures to minimize impacts of turbidity and
sedimentation.
An offsite detour will be used.
-2-
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in jurisdictional waters of the US and that the proposed action includes all practicable
methods to avoid and/or minimize jurisdictional stream impacts that may result from such use. The
impacts from this project do not meet the minimum mitigation threshold of 150 linear feet of stream.
Therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for Randolph County, the Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). A survey was
conducted in June of 2000 for the Cape Fear shiner. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" due to lack
of suitable habitat was given for the Cape Fear shiner. The project site was surveyed in September of
2000 and in May of 2004 for Schweinitz's sunflower. Habitat was found on both occasions, but no
species were located. A biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect was given.
Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated on April 7, 2004) revealed
no occurrences of sunflower within 1.0 mile of the project area. A letter requesting concurrence from the
USFW was sent on May 21, 2004 (see attached letter).
As requested by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, NCDOT will observe a moratorium
on in-water work between April 1 and June 15 to protect sunfish spawning.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is 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 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3403 will apply to
this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of this WQC. Therefore, written
concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a) and 15A
NCAC 2B 0.200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as notification.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.htmi. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincerely,
_ Gregory J. horpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director,
Project Development Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. T. Johnson, P.E., Div. 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Div. 8 Environmental. Officer
Ms. Missy Dickens, PDEA
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
-3-
.' SUTE n4
311
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 21, 2004
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Biological Concurrence Request for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 363 over Caraway Creek
on SR 1331, Randolph County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1331 (4), State Project No. 82572301, WBS
Element 33118.1.1.1, Division 8, TIP No. B-3504
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize federally protected species surveys to date and to
request concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA).
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) for this project was completed in October 2002 and the
Natural Resources System Report (NRTR) in November 2000. As of January 29, 2003, the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered and threatened species
for Randolph County consists of the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and
the Caper Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). Field surveys were conducted in June 200
and September 2000. Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were found for both species.
The conclusion was based on the fact that no species were found for both and no suitable
habitat was found for the Cape Fear shiner.
The biological conclusion for the Cape Fear shiner of "No Effect" remains valid. However,
due to the suitable habitat found in September of 2000 and a change in biological conclusion
terminology the conclusion for Schweinitz's sunflower has been changed from "No Effect"
to "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect". The site was revisited on May 20, 2004 to
re-survey for the Schweinitz's sunflower. The project area does have suitable habitat for the
sunflower. However, no species were found during the site visit. The biological conclusion
of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" remains valid the Schweinitz's sunflower.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLB SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
The USFWS listing of protected species and current Biological Conclusions are listed in the
following table.
Federally Protected Species for Randolph County
Common s ;` f cientific
ame Status f' yHnbitat Biological
"'Coiiclnsion
Schweinitz's Helianthus Endangered YES May Affect, Not
sunflower schweinitzii Likely to
Adversely
Affect
Cape Fear Notropis Endangered No No Effect
shiner mekistocholas
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The most recent survey for this project was conducted on May 20, 2004. Prior to the site
visit, a known population of Schweinitz's sunflowers was visited to get a visual evaluation
of the plant at this time. A plant by plant survey for the sunflower consisted of searching for
the 12" to 36" tall plant with leaves that were both alternate and opposite, rough on the top
side and fuzzy on the bottom and a purplish to green fuzzy stem. The plant survey was
conducted along the disturbed roadside areas where suitable habitat exists. In all areas along
the project alignment containing habitat for the plant species, no specimens were found.
Total person hours spent looking for the plant species was 1.5 hours. In addition, a review
of the Natural Heritage Program database (updated on April 7, 2004) revealed no known
occurrences within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
Investigator: Deanna Riffey
Education: BS Biology, University of Tennessee, 1991
MS Environmental Health Science, East Tennessee State University, 1996
Experience: Environmental Scientist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, October 2003 to Present.
Environmental & Safety Compliance Officer, City of Bristol, VA,
September 1996 to October 2003.
Expertise: Technical reporting writing and wetland delineation.
Investigator: Carla Dagnino, Environmental Scientist
Education: BA, Environmental Studies, UNC-Wilmington
Experience: NCDOT - Office of Natural Environment, October 2003 to present
NCDWQ - Water Quality Modeling, April 1985 to January 1998
Expertise: Section 7 Field Surveys, Wetland Delineation, Water Quality analysis
2
Based on our surveys, the project area does not contain any federally listed species known to
occur in Randolph County. The NCDOT concludes that the project will have biological
conclusions of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the Schweinitz's sunflower
and a "No Effect" for the Cape Fear shiner. NCDOT believes that the requirements of
Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied and hereby request your concurrence.
Thank you for your time. Please contact Deanna Riffey at [phone] if you have any
questions concerning this request.
Sincerely,
?Vl Phillip S. Harris, 111, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
cc: Missy Dickens, Project Engineer, PDEA
File: B-3504

7 735 1412 1411 tit/
1807 408 1413
3155 1410 \ 1411
TO 3200

GTON 1416
1 3136
1372 / -. 416
1417 1418

1332 1330 318 419

per 189

-T
1374
, . >
PROJ E
1328 C
1331 .
'-
•
1329
f f 13 105
13 9 Y ?
m ' 1326
l ti

' -1318 ? ? U
?? '
DETOU ROUTE ?-
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2572301 (B-3504)
MAPS REPLACMENT OF BRG. "363 ON
SR 1331. BETWEEN SR 1330 AND
SR 1318
SHEET 1 OF 5 8 / 77 / 03
? NORTH CAROLINA
I2 1
?m
N
N

a5

4 E8 4VN 8
0

w?
ag

11 r
J

U ?
N

m N
a 1 ?

f,
1
N
1
J ?
1 ?

[
?
r,,? W
I L(? U
?
1
j ]j,
J I
W r
-`0, ?d

68
StM A,.
In -Y- SR 13I8 vI ?
IInn pp??
~IN

W
L
'l

\

V I O ? \ 1 \ \
a
~
?? Q$NR
\
Stia
JJ GWffi d
\
1
\
= u? IIQN O 3
1, I

o

r
N
S
'
? J O
?
N11S
C
w w? I'
I ?
H

W
?s1•
.o? a vl^
a\
? I
dy\'o ? g ? a u'e
J

4
I R « «
i, • d p K J
o? I ¢ °C ? d d
„
M J df5
l? ?
?r ?
q
8
o

? ,
a S
=ice
, N
o 0

«
}
g
p
?l 3 Y ,1 H Iii Q o
O Q
G ?Q
i ? o
Q O O
??.?Y

14- ?1

' r p ?

8A 'r
$ g 0 h

Cc «
J 5 L. o
/u o?
V w
O
o
°? N -?
OM
??

j

K
V ?
WZ
1 r I
y?4 NN
ma
of
10 .? d
r?
u
L&j

?rg
d kb 1Y ?1
I d d ? ?

W
yr
H
N N m>

ct,
'O
_ J
N
y I/
of
6L,/L] 9
SNIMA3 I

11 r;
M ?
0
? O
f
W
H ?.J
1- m Q
r
nN
JI
<? ?+Q m J
JJ ly'
RS
= J
I
\
_ Y
Qo

uW ?
?CN

W 1
...1
?
a d g 1? ? ?I `
.

+ 1
r °? I
g 1 1
?
? u 1\
e
W l I
? 1 I
? ?b 1 I I
1
S I
Q:
? Mo
? I I

a
1 I I
„ W 2 I
1 I
8 g ?? I
I 1 ?
? II
I
I i
I I
I
I
I
I
I

I d I
I
mss, ..
Z
W !C +
Ie3VVV/ C
:. ?s
l
?I
I I
I ?I
1 ?1
I I
?

11 ?
SLy 151
I +I
I
? I >DI
I
f? ,bi
N Y • p
I
I ZQ I
ILu I

Q a r
'? j
ill I
1\ I
I Sp I
I
I
?
I
I ? I
I , I
°g O
+
app
a W
4W
NN
L
l
L
? i
L
F; z or
w
8 L-L
w
Ln,j
O s? $ ? "LL
II Y Y Y Y Z c
oN
v
P, ,
I pp
1 O (D i!f1 ?S IC
,I 11 ,) 11 II
J
mMg???
C,j
Zn Y Y Y Y Y
a QOJh?
O `Y
M W
yOj m?
W O
J
F-
Z
W
i
W

>
11
a

o 1 ?•

O

O
? Lil

a
0- J
?
Fpm O
1- J
II' 2'

xoo
mti+ L
p
z-? I-
vMn
J
L
Q
?l
?JJ
N O
0-
I
?
J !V
U)
O N

I I I
c
w
1 Za,
y9
s 11111 11"
d

?m
Wy ?Oz
v
? Y II „ II II Y Y

O _
(ZI -j cc L?
?
x0
S
K
?YY
O
?gP

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
472206 DEMPSEY L. DELK 127 MOORE RD.
ASHEBORO, N.C. 27205-2873

m
o
_
`r O
m
Q M 0
?

F
U-) co co °o
5< CL
o??
O x
? C? N

OF
t- co
F---1

? O
°OW?? o

CL u
i ?
o q
z
?
1n
?
w?x?
A O
mw
a p x

'
,C E

a
C'

2
O

C/5 Z

E

zoo
c c
0 0

wU E

m
om o
v
?

c ,? U
:? O O
fC
Z p O
W r..

F-
Q o ?
4.
? - c _
? V
L >
lv O
~ l
p
V ?

? X
W C

W ?
a =?

g a? v
E o
es
W - c
F

c °

m LLJ

m
2 ar
N
? (n
O

J

p -? J
O ? J O

? O
(? LL ? t
N
+
r
?

J

0

RANDOLPH COUNTY
SR 1331
BRIDGE NO. 363 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1331 (4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2572301
T.I.P. NO. B-3504
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
10 a az ILQtLAt C? - 0YLtrL/_V____
DA YE ,-Gregory Th % .D. J&
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1 dL9 0 2?--
DATE? Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
J
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SR 1331
BRIDGE NO. 363 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1331 (4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2572301
T.I.P. NO. B-3504
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
OCTOBER 2002
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27609
Montell W. Irvin, P.E., PTOE Pr(
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
r
ary Ali Dickens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?4 J A LA c,-l
Teresa Hart, P.E., CPM, Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
t o 2 5/0 z--
D to
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1331
BRIDGE NO. 363 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1331 (4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2572301
T.I.P. NO. B-3504
SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NCDOT Division 8 and Structure Design
1.) Bridge demolition and removal will be completed following the latest NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal guidelines. There is potential for concrete
components of bridge to be dropped into Caraway Creek during demolition and removal. The
maximum temporary fill associated with the removal is approximately 22 cubic yards (17 M3),
Other components of the structure are expected to be removed in a manner which will avoid
dropping them into the creek, however, removal of the interior masonry/rubble bents will likely
raise sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain (silt screen) is recommended.
NCDOT Division 8 and Roadway Design
1.) The NCDOT will observe a moratorium on in-water work between April 1 and June 15 to protect
sunfish spawning, as requested by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
2.) HQW Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to
freshwater mussels at the site. Even though project team members did not find any mussels at
this site, the likelihood of their existence in the project area is high based on historical evidence
and therefore HQW erosion control measures are warranted.
3.) This project will be designed to avoid excavation within the boundaries of archaeological site
31 RD555/555**. If it becomes necessary to excavate within the site's boundaries during
construction, the NCDOT PDEA Branch will be notified immediately in order to re-open the Section
106 process prior to proceeding with construction activities.
4.) NCDOT will transmit final roadway design plans to the SHPO for their concurrence with the no
effect determination to complete compliance with Section 106 with the National Historic
Preservation Act as amended.
Categorical Exclusion
October 2002
RANDOLPH COUNTY
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1331
BRIDGE NO. 363 OVER CARAWAY CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1331 (4)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2572301
T.I.P. NO. B-3504
Bridge No. 363, located west of the City of Asheboro in Randolph County, is listed in the Draft 2002-2008
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
B-3504 and is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program (BRZ-1331(4)). Refer to Figure 1
for location of the project.
Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural environment, it is concluded no substantial
impacts will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 363. Therefore, this project is being processed as a
Federal Categorical Exclusion.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The preferred altemate (Alternate A) consists of replacing Bridge No. 363 in-place with an off-site detour.
Realignment of SR 1331 within the project area and a new intersection with SR 1318, approximately 120 ft
(37 m) south of the existing intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318, is proposed with this alternate. The
recommended alternate will provide a new multi-span bridge approximately 76 ft (23 m) in length. The new
structure will provide a 26 ft (7.8 m) clear roadway width that will include two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes with
2 It (0.6 m) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The roadway approaches will provide two 11 ft
(3.3 m) travel lanes with 6 ft (1.8 m) grassed shoulders. The roadway approach and bridge grades will
approximately match existing bridge and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of 0.3% and minimum
cross-slope of 2.0% on the proposed structure and roadway approaches will be maintained to facilitate
deck and roadway drainage. The design speed of Alternate A will be 60 mph (100 km/h).
SR 1331 will be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Traffic will be detoured via SR 1332, US 64, and SR 1318 (see Figure 9). The maximum
detour length is estimated to be 7.9 miles (12.7 km).
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $627,250. This amount includes $27,250 for
right-of-way acquisition and $600,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the
Draft 2002-2008 TIP, is $455,000 ($420,000 for construction and $35,000 for right-of-way).
PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 363 has a sufficiency rating of 38.3 out of a possible
100. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will
result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
2
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 363 is located on SR 1331 (Ridges Mountain Road) west of the City of Asheboro,
approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) south of the intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318 (Moores Road). Refer
to Figure 1 for the project location and Figures 2 through 4 for photos of the existing project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
According to the 2001 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, Bridge No. 363 has a sufficiency rating of 38.3. It
was built in 1959 and is in poor condition. The bridge is currently posted for a weight limit of 17 tons
(15,455 kg) for single vehicles and 21 tons (19,091 kg) for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
The overall length of the three-span bridge is 75 ft (23 m). The structure consists of a timber deck on steel
I-Beams supported by two rubble/masonry interior bents with concrete caps and two end bents consisting
of timber caps, posts, and sills. The bridge has a clear roadway width of 11.1 ft (3.4 m) and has no
railings.
There is no evidence of significant scour or debris accumulation at the bridge; however, there are several
trees both up and downstream of the bridge that appear ready to fall into the creek due to bank erosion.
Although there are no records of the bridge ever being overtopped, according to local NCDOT
maintenance staff, high water levels rise to within approximately 0.5 ft (0.2 m) of the low beam of the
bridge during normal storms. These storms occur approximately every two or three years.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
SR 1331 is classified as a local road in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The 2000 average
daily traffic volume on SR 1331 over Bridge No. 363 is estimated to be 115 vehicles per day (vpd), which
includes 1 percent TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The 2025 design year average daily
traffic volume over the bridge is expected to be 300 vpd.
SR 1331 is currently unpaved and measures approximately 12 to 20 ft (3.6 to 6.0 m) in width and has 4 to
10 ft (1.2 to 3.0 m) grassed shoulders on each side of the roadway. The horizontal alignment of SR 1331 is
poor throughout the project area. The speed limit on SR 1331 is unposted. Bridge No. 363 is in a
horizontal tangent that extends about 100 ft (31 m) and there are sharp horizontal curves immediately east
and west of the existing bridge. The vertical alignment is relatively flat within the project area.
There is an 18 inch (450 mm) reinforced concrete pipe crossing under SR 1331 approximately 100 ft
(31 m) east of the existing bridge and two 48 inch (1200 mm) corrugated metal overflow pipes, one located
60 ft (18.2 m) and the other 120 ft (37 m) west of the bridge.
There is a "ROAD SUBJECT TO FLOODING" sign located on SR 1331 east of the existing bridge.
SR 1331 intersects SR 1318 (Moores Road) at a sharp skew approximately 450 ft (137 m) east of the
existing bridge. SR 1318 is a two-lane paved roadway with poor horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the
intersection. There is a 10 to 15 ft (3.0 to 4.4 m) grade differential between the existing grade of SR 1318
and SR 1331. This grade difference is illustrated in Figure 4.
3
SR 1331 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation Improvement
Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
UTILITIES
Overhead power lines are located on the south side of and adjacent to SR 1331 east of the bridge. The
power lines cross over SR 1331 approximately 150 ft (46 m) east of the existing bridge and run through an
open field on the west side of the bridge.
An underground cable box, owned by Sprint, was identified near a power pole approximately 200 ft (61 m)
east of the existing bridge.
There are no utilities located on the existing bridge.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Land use within the project area is either wooded or farm land. There is some sporadic residential
development located along SR 1318 in the vicinity of the project and some very scattered residential
development located well west of the project area.
According to Randolph County school officials, no school buses cross Bridge No. 363; however, they
indicate that replacement of the bridge and improvements to the roadway may allow them to utilize the
route in the future.
There have been no accidents reported on SR 1331 within the project area between January 1, 1995 and
December 31, 1997.
A partnership is forming between the Piedmont Land Conservancy, the Woodfield Scout Camp (a nearby
800-acre Boy Scout camp), the North Carolina Zoological Society, and local community groups to buy and
preserve Ridges Mountain and surrounding lands for tourism, research, and recreational purposes. Based
on discussions with the Piedmont Land Conservancy located in Greensboro, North Carolina, the area is
currently being utilized for recreational purposes. A local landowner (Mr. Ben Crotts) has indicated that
numerous out-of-state vehicles are parked on his land, which adjoins the future park, on a routine basis
(see letter in Appendix).
According to publications received from the Piedmont Land Conservancy, Ridges Mountain is located
between the Uwharrie River and Caraway Creek, south of US 64, approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) west of
the project site. The mountain is approximately 136 acres (55 ha) in area and has a 20-acre (8.1 ha) wide
summit elevation of 840 ft (256 m). Land surrounding the mountain and the Caraway Creek floodplain
area were used by the Keyauwee Indian tribe, who were part of the Siouan nation, during the 1600's, until
the area was settled by trappers, traders, and travelers in the 1700's. The mountain was named for
Godfrey Ridge who is thought to be one of the first permanent settlers in the area. Mr. Ridge established a
trading post (Ridges Trading Post) between the base of Ridges Mountain and Caraway Creek by 1740.
The Keyauwee tribe is thought to have perished due to outbreaks of measles and small pox after the
settling of the area. The surviving tribe is believed to have moved to South Carolina to join another tribe.
4
III. ALTERNATIVES
A "Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project; however, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. The "Do-Nothing" alternate was eliminated from
further consideration.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge was considered as a study alternate. Due to the deteriorated
condition of the bridge, the "Rehabilitation" alternate was eliminated from further consideration.
Four construction alternatives were studied (see Figures 5 through 8). Each alternate consists of replacing
Bridge No. 363 with a new multi-span bridge approximately 76 ft (23 m) in length. The new structure would
provide a 26 ft (7.8 m) clear roadway width that would include two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes with 2 ft (0.6 m)
of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The roadway approaches would provide two 11 ft (3.3 m)
travel lanes with 6 ft (1.8 m) grassed shoulders. The roadway approach and bridge grades would
approximately match existing bridge and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of 0.3% and minimum
cross-slope of 2.0% on the proposed structure and roadway approaches would be maintained to facilitate
deck and roadway drainage.
Alternate A (Recommended)
This alternate consists of replacing the bridge in-place with an off-site detour. Realignment of SR 1331
within the project area and a new intersection with SR 1318, approximately 120 ft (37 m) south of the
existing intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318, is proposed with this alternate. Refer to Figure 5 for
illustration of Alternate A.
SR 1331 would be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Traffic would be detoured via SR 1332, US 64, and SR 1318. The maximum detour length is
estimated to be 7.9 miles (12.7 km). Refer to Figure 9 for illustration of the recommended temporary off-
site detour route.
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is approximately 900 ft (274 m).
Alternate B
Alternate B involves replacing the bridge on new location approximately 45 ft (13.7 m) south (downstream)
of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. A new
intersection with SR 1318, approximately 200 ft (61 m) south of the existing intersection of SR 1331 and
SR 1318, is proposed with this alternate. Refer to Figure 6 for illustration of Alternate B.
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is approximately 924 ft (282 m).
Alternate C
This alternate involves replacing the bridge on new location approximately 35 ft (10.7 m) south
(downstream) of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The eastern construction limits of this project would end approximately 100 ft (31 m) west of the existing
intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318. Refer to Figure 7 for illustration of Alternate C.
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is approximately 782 ft (238 m).
5
Alternate D
Alternate D involves replacing the bridge in-place with an off-site detour. Slight realignment of SR 1331 is
proposed with this alternate. The eastern construction limits of this project would end approximately 100 ft
(31 m) west of the existing intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318. Refer to Figure 8 for illustration of
Alternate D.
SR 1331 would be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Existing traffic would be detoured via SR 1332, US 64, and SR 1318 (see Figure 9). The
maximum detour length is estimated to be 7.9 miles (12.7 km).
The total length of the roadway approach work for this alternate is approximately 758 ft (231 m).
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of each alternate, based on current dollars, are shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A
Off-Site Detour
New Intersection
Recommended Alternate B
New Location
New Intersection Alternate C
New Location Alternate D
Cuff-Site Detour
Structure $128,500 $128,500 $128,500 $128,500
Roadway roaches $211,600 $225,300 $178,500 $178,700
Structure Removal $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $157,900 $163,200 $143,000 $142,800
Engineering and Contingencies $93,000 $99,000 $91,000 $91,000
Total Construction Cost $600,000 $625,00 $550,000 $550,000
Right-of-Way/EasemenUUtiilities $27,250 $28,125 $27,500 $27,250
Total Project Cost $627,250 $653,125 $577,500 $577,250
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP, is $455,000 ($420,000 for
construction and $35,000 for right-of-way).
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The preferred alternate (Alternate A) consists of replacing the bridge in-place with an off-site detour.
Realignment of SR 1331 within the project area and a new intersection with SR 1318, approximately 120 ft
(37 m) south of the existing intersection of SR 1331 and SR 1318, is proposed with this alternate. Refer to
Figure 5 for illustration of Alternate A.
SR 1331 will be closed for approximately 12 to 18 months while the bridge and roadway work is being
completed. Existing traffic will be detoured via SR 1332, US 64, and SR 1318. The maximum detour
6
length is estimated to be 7.9 miles (12.7 km). Refer to Figure 10 for illustration of the recommended
temporary off-site detour route.
The recommended alternate will provide a new multi-span bridge approximately 76 ft (23 m) in length. The
new structure would provide a 26 ft (7.8 m) clear roadway width that would include two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel
lanes with 2 ft (0.6 m) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge. The roadway approaches would
provide two 11 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes with 6 ft (1.8 m) grassed shoulders. The roadway approach and
bridge grades would approximately match existing bridge and roadway elevations. A minimum grade of
0.3% and minimum cross-slope of 2.0% on the proposed structure and roadway approaches would be
maintained to facilitate deck and roadway drainage. The design speed of Alternate A will be 60 mph
(100 km/h).
Alternate A is the recommended alternate because it will utilize a significant amount-of existing NCDOT
right-of-way and will improve the existing alignment of SR 1331 within the project area. Alternate A will
also improve the intersection of SR 1331 with SR 1318. Refer to Figure 5 for the preferred alternate and
Figure 10 for the proposed roadway and structure typical sections and design criteria.
The Division Engineer concurs with the preferred alternate and the recommended off-site detour because
the proposed construction will be safer and quicker without having to maintain traffic on the existing bridge.
VI. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
For the preferred alternate, a design exception will be required for SR 1331 east of the bridge due to the
proposed horizontal alignment. The curvature of the roadway just east of the proposed bridge was
decreased to allow the bridge to remain in a tangent section. The current (statutory) speed limit of SR
1331 is 55 mph (90 km/h).
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of natural
resource features within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from
construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
METHODOLOGY
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic mapping (Farmer,
NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) draft soil mapping (USDA unpublished), and recent aerial photography
(scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features on June 01, 2000. The
project study area evaluated is approximately 600 ft (183 m) in width and 1200 ft (366 m) in length.
Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, streams, wetlands,
and water quality protection.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classificatio stem utilized by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). bVhen appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat 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 (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel
1992, Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DEM 1989, DWQ 1997, DENR 1999). Quantitative
sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Randolph County
was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province. Topography is characterized by
strongly sloping to very steep uplands with narrow floodplains along drainages. Elevations in the project
study area range from approximately 430 ft (131 m) above mean sea level (MSL) at Caraway Creek to
approximately 470 ft (143 m) above MSL along SR 1318 east of Caraway Creek (USGS Farmer, NC
quadrangle).
The project study area crosses three soil mapping units. All three soil mapping units are classified as
nonhydric soils, but two of these mapping units have inclusions of hydric. The mapping units that contain
inclusions of hydric soils are Chewacla loam, 0-2% slopes (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) and Riverview
loam, 0-2% slopes (Fluventic Drystrochrepts). The hydric soil inclusion within these mapping units is
Wehadkee loam which is typically found on the outer limits of the mapping unit. These soils are all
classified as frequently flooded. The remaining non-hydric mapping unit is Badin-Tatum complex, 8-15%
slopes (Typic Hapludults). This soil is classified as eroded (USDA unpublished).
WATER RESOURCES
WATERS IMPACTED
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030709 of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin (DEM 1994).
This area is part of the USGS hydrologic unit 03040103 (USGS 1974). Caraway Creek originates in
northwestern Randolph County and flows in a southerly direction through the study area to its confluence
with the Uwharrie River in southwestern Randolph County. Caraway Creek, from its source to its
confluence with the Uwharrie River, has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 13-2-3 by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). A small, unnamed intermittent tributary to Caraway Creek is
8
located approximately 150 ft (46 m) upstream of the existing structure, in the northeastern portion of the
preliminary study area. This unnamed tributary lies outside of the proposed right-of-way and serves as a
confluence for runoff from Asheboro Country Club Lake. No separate SIN has been assigned to this
unnamed tributary.
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Caraway Creek is a perennial stream with swift flow over substrate consisting of silt, sand, and bedrock.
This creek is a single channel stream with a bankfull width of approximately 34 ft (10 m) at the existing
bridge. Pool depths at bankfull stage within the main channel range from 5 ft (1.4 m) upstream of the
existing bridge to 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) downstream of the bridge. Unstable instream bars were noted
upstream of the existing structure. No rooted aquatic vegetation was apparent in the channel, but some
organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was apparent. A geomorphic characterization of the stream
indicates the segment of Caraway Creek within the project study area is an "F" channel (Rosgen 1996).
This designation indicates a stream with an entrenched, meandering channel, deeply incised in gently
sloping terrain. The "F" stream type exhibits riffle/pool bed features, and has high width/depth ratios.
The unnamed, intermittent tributary channel to Caraway Creek is not depicted on the USGS quadrangle,
but is depicted on the NRCS soil map. This channel is small, with a bankfull width of approximately 4 ft
(1.2 m) with a sand and gravel substrate. A geomorphic characterization of the stretch of channel within
the project study area indicates this tributary is a "G" channel. This tributary is an entrenched gully system
with typically unstable step/pool morphology. No rooted aquatic vegetation was apparent in the channel.
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATIONS AND WATER QUALITY
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or stream segments in the basin. Caraway Creek, from its
source to confluence with the Uwharrie, has a best usage classification of C (DWQ 1997, DENR 1999).
The designation C denotes appropriate uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with
waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The unnamed tributary to Caraway Creek has not been
assigned a separate best usage classification, so it shares the classification of its receiving water, Caraway
Creek.
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS-II Waters occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the
project study area. Caraway Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor as
a national Wild and Scenic River.
There are no permitted point source dischargers on Caraway Creek or any tributaries to Caraway Creek
(DEM 1989, DEM 1994). No significant non-point discharges were noted in the project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water quality at
monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). This program has been
replaced by the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring program associated with the basinwide assessment
for the Yadkin River Basin (DWQ 1997). Species richness and overall biomass are considered to be
reflections of water quality. One BMAN sampling station is located on Caraway Creek. This station is
located at Bridge No. 363 in the project study area. In 1996, this sampling station received a
bioclassification of Good-Fair (DWQ 1997).
9
Another measure of water quality being used by DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community; however,
no fish community structure sampling has been reported for the Caraway Creek or streams to which it is
tributary (DWQ 1997).
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled Removal of
Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal (BMP-BDR), as well as guidelines for calculating maximum potential fill in the creek resulting
from demolition.
The superstructure of the bridge consists of a timber deck with steel I-Beams in the approach spans and a
girder floor beam system in the main span. The substructure consists of rubble masonry interior bents with
concrete caps, and end bents with timber posts, sills, and caps.
Although it is expected that components of the superstructure and substructure will be removed without
dropping them into Caraway Creek, there is the potential for the interior rubble/masonry bents of the
substructure to be dropped into Caraway Creek during demolition and removal. The maximum resulting
temporary fill associated with the removal is approximately 22.0 cubic yards (16.8 M3). After construction
activities are completed, abandoned existing approaches associated with the existing structure will be
removed and revegetated in accordance with NCDOT guidelines. Bridge demolition activities associated
with this project will strictly follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. This proposed project falls under Case 3 of the BMP-BDRs.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-
related activities. Best Management Practices of Surface Waters (BMPs) can minimize impacts during
construction, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, and
avoidance of using wetlands as staging areas.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of increased exposure to
sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridges, and changes in stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to
the stream channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited amount of
overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from any of the alternatives being
considered. All alternatives call for spanning structures across Caraway Creek, which will allow for
continuation of present stream flow within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream integrity.
10
BIOTIC RESOURCES
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area: Piedmont Alluvial Forest,
Successional Pine/Hardwood Forest, and Maintained/Disturbed areas. These plant communities are
described below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
In the study area, this community dominates the active and historic floodplain of Caraway Creek and its
unnamed tributary. Evidence was observed during the field visit suggesting that much of the current
mature forest has regenerated after a period of intensive utilization of this community for agriculture. The
current canopy in this community is dominated American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), box elder (Acer
negundo), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). A few widely scattered
loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) were also observed. This community also contains a well established
understory that is dominated by species found in the canopy, but also includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera) and American holly (Ilex opaca). Dense stands of shrubs found in this community were
composed almost entirely of the invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Herbaceous vegetation was
dominated by a mixture of Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
false nettle (Boehmeda cylindrica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Areas not densely vegetated by the aforementioned species contained
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum) and river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium).
Successional Pine/Hardwood Forest
In the study area this community encompasses all of the forested areas along the slopes and hilltops along
Caraway Creek and its tributary in the study area. Hilltops and other successional areas in the study area
have a canopy composed almost entirely of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and loblolly pine. These stands
typically have a dense subcanopy of pine but also includes hardwood species such as blackjack oak
(Quercus marilandica), flowering dogwood (Comus florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
winged elm (Ulmus alata), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and water oak (Quercus nigra). The
Caraway Creek floodplain is bordered by well-drained mesic slopes. These slopes are characterized by a
hardwood dominated canopy with few scattered pines. Hardwood species observed in the canopy include
willow oak (Quercus phellos), red maple (Acer rubrum), red oak (Quercus rubra), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), American beech, and mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa). The understory and shrub layer
includes many younger individuals of canopy species, as well as flowering dogwood and American holly.
A limited amount of groundcover was observed in this community. The groundcover present was
dominated by fast growing vines such as poison ivy, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and grape (Wis
sp.).
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
This community includes roadside shoulders, pastures, and agricultural fields that occur in the study area.
Also included in this community are several small stands of trees that are effectively isolated from the
surrounding forested communities. These tree stands most closely resemble the community structure of
the Alluvial Forest Community. Pasture land found in the study area is actively grazed by horses. These
areas support a limited diversity of species such as fescue (Festuca sp.), broomsedge (Andropogon
virginica), horsenettle (Solanum carolinense), wild carrot (Daucus carota), and purple clover (Trifolium
pratense). Other areas that are grazed less frequently provide habitat for a higher diversity of opportunistic
plant species such as wild cherry (Prunus serotina), blackberry (Rubus argutus), smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra), eastern red cedar, and sour-grass (Rumex crispus). Agricultural fields are currently under
cultivation in feed corn. Species composition of roadside shoulders is similar to that of other disturbed
areas in the project study area but also include herbs such as horseweed (Erigeron canadensis),
lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), and an assortment of composites (family Asteraceae).
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the acreage of each community within
the proposed 80 ft (24 m) right-of-way. Alternate C contains potential temporary impacts outside the
proposed right-of-way. A summary of potential impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES
ESTIMATED IMPACTS
PLANT
COMMUNITY ALT A
Recommended ALT B ALT C ALT D
Impacts Impacts Impacts Temp. Impacts Impacts
Piedmont
Alluvial Forest 0.38 ac (0.15 ha) 0.48 ac (0.19 ha) 0.29 ac (0.11 ha) 0.17 ac (0.07 ha) 0.14 ac (0.6 ha)
Maintained/
Disturbed Areas 1.06 ac (0.43 ha) 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) 0.84 ac (0.34 ha) 0.21 ac (0.08 ha) 0.76 ac (0.31 ha)
A riculture 0.21 ac 0.08 ha 0.05 ac 0.02 ha 0.00 ac 0.00 ha 0.07 ac 0.03 ha 0.08 ac 0.03 ha
Successional
Pine/Hardwood
Forest 0.09 ac (0.03 ha) 0.25 ac (0.10 ha) 0.00 ac (0.00 ha) 0.06 ac (0.02 ha) 0.00 ac (0.00 ha)
Total: 1.74 ac 0.70 ha 1.78 ac 0.72 ha) 1 1.13 ac 0.46 ha) 1 0.51 ac 0.21 ha) 1 0.98 ac 0.40 ha
Total for ALT.: 1.74 ac 0.70 he) 1 1.78 ac 0.72 ha) 1 1.64 ac 0.66 ha) 1 0.98 ac 0.40 ha
*Note: Temporary impacts are based on the portion of the construction easement not included in the construction limits.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are generally limited to narrow
strips adjacent at the existing bridge structure and roadway approach segments. All alternatives limit
fragmentation of natural plant communities with alternative placement either in or in close proximity to the
existing facility and by concentrating impacts within the Maintained/Disturbed community.
Permanent community impacts range from 0.98 ac (0.40 ha) in Alternate D to 1.78 ac (0.72 ha) in Alternate
B. The largest relative area of potential impact is located within the Maintained/Disturbed Areas.
WILDLIFE
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Although little
evidence of wildlife was observed during the field effort, expected wildlife species are those adapted to the
ecotonal gradient between the maintained roadsides and the adjacent natural forest.
12
TERRESTRIAL
Bird species observed in the maintained/disturbed communities within or adjacent to the project study area
include indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), turkey vulture
(Cathartes aura), and Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis). Forested habitats in the project study
area provide a wider range of microhabitats. Bird species observed in forested habitats include common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), bluegray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), and northern parula (Parula americana).
Mammal sign (tracks, scat, etc.) observed within the project study area included white-tail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Other species expected include Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), red bat (Lasiurus
borealis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
No terrestrial herptiles were observed during the course of the field visit. It is expected that
maintained/disturbed habitats in the study would provide suitable habitat for highly adaptable species, such
as black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), American toad (Bufo
americanus), and Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouset). Forested communities offer access to a wider variety
of resources and increased protection from predators for herptiles in the project study area. Species
expected to utilize forested habitats in the project study area include slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and eastern hognose snake (Heterodon
platyrhinos).
AQUATIC
Limited kick-netting, dip-netting, seining, and visual observation of the stream banks and channel within the
project study area were conducted. Fish species documented within the project study area include redlip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus), whitemouth shiner (N. alborus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). There are
no anadromous fish within this system.
Limited streambank surveys did not reveal any evidence of freshwater mussels or middens. Kick-net
surveys and limited bottom sampling were conducted within the channel. Organisms collected were
identified to Order and were limited to snails (Gastropoda) and crayfish (Decapoda). Surveys conducted
by DWQ in 1996 at the benthic monitoring station within the project study area at Bridge No. 363 on
Caraway Creek provide a more complete list of species and their abundance (DENR 1999).
Limited surveys did not result in documentation of any herptiles in Caraway Creek. Species expected
within the project study area include aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and eastern musk turtle
(Sternotherus odoratus).
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, completion of this project should not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife movement
corridors are currently limited within the project study area and are not expected to be significantly
13
impacted by the proposed project. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by
bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-
stream work to an absolute minimum, except for the removal of the interior bents. BMP-BDRs will be
followed to minimize impacts associated with anticipated bridge demolition activities.
SPECIAL TOPICS
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters within the embankments of Caraway Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters in
Caraway Creek within the project study area exhibit characteristics of riverine, upper perennial, streambed,
cobble-gravel, permanently flooded waters (R3SB3H) (Cowardin et al. 1979). The unnamed, intermittent
tributary exhibits characteristics of riverine, intermittent, streambed, cobble-gravel, permanently flooded
waters (R4SB3H). No palustrine or emergent wetlands were identified in the project study area.
All alternatives for this project are expected to bridge the open waters of Caraway Creek, negating the
need for direct encroachment into riverine waters.
Anticipated impacts to open water areas are estimated based on the area of each jurisdictional area within
the proposed right-of-way. No impacts to open water areas associated with Caraway Creek are expected
due to the use of channel-spanning structures. A summary of potential jurisdictional impacts is presented
in Table 3.
During bridge removal, NCDOT's BMP-BDRs will be utilized, including erosion control measures; therefore,
it is anticipated that removing the existing bridge will result in no permanent fill into surrounding surface
waters. Potential temporary impacts associated with bridge demolition are not expected to exceed 22 cubic
yards (16.8 M3).
TABLE 3
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO JURISDICTIONAL SURFACE WATERS
ESTIM ATED IMPACTS
JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS ALT A
Recommended ALT B ALT C ALT D
Impacts impacts Impacts Temp. Impacts Impacts
R3SB3H (acres) 0.08 ac (0.03 ha) 0.07 ac (0.02 he) 0.06 ac
0.02 ha 0.01 ac
0.004 ha 0.06 ac
0.02 ha
TOTALS FOR ALTS: 0.08 ac 0.03 ha 0.07 ac 0.02 ha 0.07 ac 0.02 ha 0.08 ac 0.03 ha
Stream Channel Impacts
linear ft 80 lin. ft (24 m) 80 lin. ft (24 m) 80 lin. ft (24 m) 80 lin. ft (24 m)
TOTAL FOR ALTS: 80 lin. ft 24 m 80 lin. ft 24 m 80 lin. ft 24 m 80 lin. ft 24 m
Note: Temporary impacts are based on the portion of the construction easement not included in the construction limits.
14
All of the alternatives have approximately 0.07 to 0.08 acre (0.02 to 0.03 ha) of open water (R3SB3H)
within the respective construction limits. Alternate C may have an additional 0.01 acre (0.004 ha) of
temporary impacts associated with the construction easement. The existing structure has caused the
stream to widen substantially at and above the existing crossing. All alternates cross approximately
80 linear feet (24 m) of Caraway Creek. The unnamed, intermittent tributary to Caraway Creek is outside
the right-of-way area for all proposed alternatives and is not expected to be impacted by construction
activities.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the
presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or
near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three
parameter approach no jurisdictional wetlands are present within the project study.
PERMITS
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the USACE
for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will
not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District. Notification to the
Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
MITIGATION EVALUATION
Avoidance - Due to the extent of surface waters within the project study area, avoidance of impacts is not
possible. Each alternative contains open water areas which will be subject to impact. Wetland and stream
impacts for each alternative are previously discussed.
Minimization - The alternative corridors presented were developed in part to demonstrate minimization of
wetland and stream impacts. Preliminary jurisdictional determinations within these corridors will be used to
further minimize stream impacts during the design phase of this project.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding
placing staging areas within wetlands. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could
be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of temporary fill material upon
project completion.
15
PROTECTED SPECIES
FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed (P) for
such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). The following federal protected species are listed for Randolph County (current list dated May 31,
2002):
TABLE 4
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Cape Fear shiner
Schweinitz's sunflower Notropis mekistocholas
Helianthus schweinitzii E
E
Cape Fear shiner - The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow that is pale silvery yellow
with a black band along the sides and the moderate-sized eyes are located on the sides of the head (FWS
1988). This species is distinguished from all other Notropis by having a coiled alimentary tract that is visible
through the wall of the belly (Rohde et al. 1994). Food items probably include bottom detritus, diatoms,
and other periphytes (FWS 1988). Habitat of the Cape Fear shiner is generally slow pools, riffles, and runs
over gravel, cobble, and boulders (FWS 1988). Little is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life history.
Present distribution (November 1988) is limited to the Cape Fear River Basin including portions of
Randolph, Chatham, Lee, Moore, and Harnett Counties (FWS 1988). As of December 10, 1993, the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission has designated Critical Habitat for this species in the Deep River, from its
confluence with the Haw River (on the Chatham/Lee County line) to the NC Route 42 bridge (also on the
Chatham/Lee County line).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Cape Fear Shiner is endemic to the Cape Fear River Basin which includes parts of eastern
Randolph County. Caraway Creek is located in the Yadkin/Pee-Dee River Basin in western
Randolph County. Streams located outside of the Cape Fear River Basin are outside of the native
range for this endemic shiner. In addition, the reach of Caraway Creek present in the project study
area is heavily entrenched and contains a high sediment load from the surrounding agricultural
areas. Substrates present contain a high percentage of silt, sand, and clay mixed in with the gravel
and cobble. Rivers and streams that exist under these degraded conditions do not provide
suitable habitat for the Cape Fear shiner. NHP records do not indicate any occurrences of this
species within this subbasin of the Yadkin/Pee-Dee River Basin. Therefore, construction of the
proposed project will not affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
Schweinitz's sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb
that grows to approximately 6 ft (1.8 m) in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but
sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem but alternate above; in shape
they are lanceolate and average 5 to 10 times as long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a
few small serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually pubescent with soft
white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from late August to frost; the yellow flower heads are about
16
0.6 inch in diameter. The current range of this species is within 60 miles (10 km) of Charlotte, North
Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture.
The species needs open areas protected from shade or excessive competition, reminiscent of Piedmont
prairies. Disturbances such as fire maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS
1994).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The roadside borders to the east of SR 1318 and the open disturbed areas adjacent to the
intersection of SR 1318 and SR 1331 provide potentially suitable habitat for Schweinitz's
sunflower. These areas occur on dry, rocky soils similar to those on which this species is known to
occur. In addition, these habitats show evidence of infrequent mowing that maintains the open
nature of the habitat.
Potential habitat identified for Schweinitz's sunflower within the project study area was surveyed
for the presence of this species on September 20, 2000. A reference population located
approximately 2.8 miles (4.5 km) north of the project study area was visited immediately prior to
conducting the survey to verify the flowering status of this species. The survey of the project study
area consisted of a systematic search of all potential habitat and identification of all yellow-rayed
flowers encountered belonging to the family Asteraceae. No individuals of Schweinitz's sunflower
were encountered within the project study area. Individuals of one other species of sunflower,
Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), were documented along with such other yellow-rayed
flowers as beggar ticks (Bidens frondosa and Bidens aristosa) and verbesina (Verbesina
alternifolia and Verbesina occidentalis); however, none of these species are federally listed or
protected. Based on the apparent absence of Schweinitz's sunflower in the project study area
indicated by the systematic survey of potentially suitable habitat present, the proposed project will
not affect Schweinitz's sunflower.
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
The February 27, 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed.
The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall 1999) within the project study
area has been evaluated for the following FSC species listed for Randolph County (see Table 5):
TABLE 5
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Potential Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC Y
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp. 2 SR N
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T (PE) Y
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod* Dactlocythere peedeensis -- N
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T (PE) Y
Carolina creekshell Villosa vau haniana T Y
NOTE: T-Threatened; sc-special concern; sK-sgnmcanuy hare; rt-rroposea r noangereu.
* This species does not have a state status assigned for ft.
17
NHP files do not document any FSC occurrences within the project study area. NHP files do document the
occurrence of the brook floater, Atlantic pigtoe and Carolina creekshell approximately 3 miles (4.8 km)
upstream of the project study area in Caraway Creek at SR 1412. Three additional state listed mussel
species were also documented at this location: squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus), notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta), and eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbis). No additional FSC occurrences have been
documented within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area. No individuals of these species were
found during in-stream aquatic fauna sampling and streambank surveys. The reach of Caraway Creek
present in the project study area is heavily entrenched and contains a high sediment load from the
surrounding agricultural areas; these mussel species area not expected to occur within the proposed
project right of way.
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
NHP records do not document the occurrence of any state-listed species within the project study area,
Records from the project vicinity include only the previously discussed mussel species found in Caraway
Creek at SR 1412. No other state-listed aquatic or terrestrial species with the designations E, T, or SC
have been documented within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the study project area.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission requests that no in-water work be performed between
April 1 and June 15 to protect sunfish egg and fry stages (see letter in Appendix). The NCDOT will
observe this moratorium. The NCDOT will also be replacing the existing bridge in-place, with traffic being
maintained off-site during construction, which should also help to minimize potential impact to the sunfish
population.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
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 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given reasonable opportunity to comment on federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects that have an effect on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places.
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by Montell Irvin and Lisa Warlick of
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. on May 17, 2000. Photographs of all structures within the APE were
submitted to Ms. Mary Pope Furr of the NCDOT in a meeting on May 25, 2000. In-house NCDOT
Architectural Historian staff surveyed and evaluated one structure within the APE, a wood frame house
located on the east side of SR 1318 approximately 450 ft (137 m) south of SR 1331, that appeared to be
greater than 50 years old. All of the photographs as well as the information pertaining to the old structure
were reviewed by the NCDOT, FHWA, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on
18
November 16, 2000 and it was determined that there are no structures within the APE that are in or qualify
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of the SHPO concurrence form is provided in
the Appendix of this report.
ARCHAEOLOGY
Based on comments received in a Memorandum dated July 20, 2000 (see Appendix of this report), the
SHPO noted that a previously recorded Early Archaic and Woodland period archaeological site (31RD550)
is located in the floodplain west of Caraway Creek and south of SR 1331 and further expressed concern
that it may be affected by this project. The SHPO recommended that this site be relocated and tested to
determine its National Register eligibility prior to any construction activities. The SHPO further
recommended that the archaeological investigations include deep testing due to the likelihood of buried
cultural deposits.
An Archaeological Survey Report was completed by the NCDOT and submitted to the SHPO in February
2002. The archaeological investigations detailed in that report did not identify any portion of the above
mentioned archaeological site (31 RD550) within the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE). However,
during the archaeological investigations, another archaeological site (31 RD555/555**) was identified. The
recommendations of the report state:
"Through the application of 36 CFR 60.4 criteria (a-d), the historical component to site 31 RD555/555** is
not recommended as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as outlined above. No
further work is recommended. Through the application of 36 CFR 60.4 criteria (d), the pre-Columbian
component to site 31 RD555/555** is recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP for its potential to
yield information important in our understanding of the pre-Columbian history of North Carolina, as outlined
above.
After application of the criteria of adverse effect per 36 CFR 800.5, it is proposed here that the bridge
improvement project, as currently designed, will not adversely impact the pre-Columbian component of
31 RD555/555**, and a finding of no adverse effect to this cultural resource is thus considered appropriate.
No further archaeological work is recommended. Should the design of the proposed bridge improvement
project be changed, altered, or modified, additional consultation with the North Carolina Office of State
Archaeology should be initiated."
In a Memorandum dated July 16, 2002 (see Appendix of this report) the SHPO stated that it concurred with
the finding of eligibility for site 31 RD555/555**. However, the SHPO further stated that they will not concur
with a finding of no adverse effect to the site until they are able to review the project's final design plans.
NCDOT will transmit final roadway design plans to the SHPO for their concurrence with the no effect
determination to complete compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended.
Should the SHPO fail to concur with a finding of no adverse effect after reviewing the project's final design
plans, additional consultation with the SHPO will be initiated prior to any construction activities associated
with the project.
19
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 363 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
envir--iment. The project should have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor
bridge conditions.
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands; therefore it is
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national,
state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected to result from this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral' project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable), and a
project level CO analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51
is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality, and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be
only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic
volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise
levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
No adverse effect on the overall public is expected. There will be some inconvenience to local travel due
to the closure of SR 1331. The Randolph County Emergency Services Department was contacted and
indicated that this project will not significantly impact their response time.
Randolph County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project is not
located in a Detailed Study Area, but is located within a Zone A floodplain. There are currently no insurable
structures upstream of the project that are being flooded. Since the proposed replacement structure is an
in-kind replacement, it is anticipated that this project will not have any adverse effect or impact on the
existing floodplain or adjacent properties in the area.
This project should have no impact to any existing underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites.
Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural environment, it is concluded that no adverse
environmental effect will result from the replacement of Bridge No. 363.
20
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-
87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1999. Water Quality Stream Classifications,
Downloaded from http://h2o.ehnr.state.nc.us/strmclass/alpha/new.html on 15 June 2000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1999. Biological Assessment Unit.
Downloaded from http://www.esb.enr.state.us/BAUwww/benthicbasin.htm on 15 June 2000.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document: Yadkin River
Basin. NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 338 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 91 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Allies, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The UNC Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Geomorphology. Printed Media Companies, Minneapolis Minnesota.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Draft Soil Survey of Randolph County, North
Carolina. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994. Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 8 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
21
FIGURES
1 1 t1 220 ,
try I
J i
3 ? 1412 6
B-3504 Adwb
1411 439
10. 3200
\ 3136. 416 142" A$HEBORO? I a`! ;
1 4 1418 \ , rW. 16,226 r `..1 $ r
i 1 ,_-
C4' o1417 1 r' _ _1 r r _ _
13 lit ?^ -tr I1 1
c
6 "J11) y 1422
r 5
1331, 1318 t328 .•.Clw .? .'l ((??4)? l•3 1
3 `. l
r 1329.11 1347 365 42?
? rp
1349
B ? ?< 3zo J ASHEBORO WEST
' ? . ° N1MNC.?, ? 7
1321
t3t8 1366 -? '1362 /Of. tA91. 1 I r 4 O t
l t N 1
1319
v 1348
?. V v 4 ?
166 1 t r7 1166 49 -
o / tel! SOUTH
- /t281
\ 107 ? NNINC.1
6 1- KW. 2,465
1367.1
1163 Asheboro l •'-
° N'pOft J6 1 163 ^ I j
PROJECT LOCATION
RANDOLPH
COUNTY
NOT TO SCALE
North Carolina Departments of
Transportation
4 Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
F IGURE I
AREA LOCATION MAP
BRIDGE NO. 363
ON SR 133 I
OVER CARAWAY CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3504
.
LNUTWIMUM
SR 1331 LOOKING EAST AT BRIDGE #363
SR 1331 LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #363 I f FIGUkE 2

i
Y . ik&K, -'i
BRIDGE #363 VIEWED FROM SOUTH (DOWNSTREAM) SIDE ? OOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
. I
h
h
U

`• J
kT4
0

a

C)
M

2<'
l
W k
(
j

}}

)'ref ?.S ?,' `x

'-I
w LC)
r}
crl
Q J
Ijjt=1
W
rill
C?
7? ,S
3
•T C ? ,J
?rF 3 ,
i
G? V]? y t a X
o l4
tt ? ti
r„
q.QQJF?rL s' t .? #
,1 ? d v
ti, 3` L7 _ O
i
tf
t
CJ _ tsa ?? t_ ?,?_ r
?? II ?t II .I p <L

rL

w
?1 ? ?•J 1:f ?`
C ti.3N

t 1
? S
(l F_
F- t
N
l j
41:
f

f 4
3 r
?

S LLI

L?J
? lil
???

4L
til

C.i f Y
h

l?l t(>
tY)

u1 r`?
(1

ilr ' W

s
? ri

<Y
fi..
}

m
Q
z
ti W
-ZEE
0
W
EXISTING RnV
\ M b \
SR IJ/B R O
i
\ \
EXISTING RiW
wy yNlS/?? ? \ \
1\ 1

N? / +?''NJ bWp?7\

s

I
,I
u?
1
1
1 1
1
?I ? £Z
1
1 ? g?1
1\ + ' 1
I
I
I
1? \ ? 1
II
I ? ? I
.I ?
(D
w
0
4? aE0
wg ?
a
aQ z?
a. N -7
" u
o? wz
f.
o
N ?
J
? n n II n n
o' o
?WM
I I ' ? iv?8?fii ?d
I I I I?
L I
I WI
51 I IQ
l
I I
I ?I
1 I ?I I

I ?I
I I m
ti
? I I S

I I ? d o

I I ?

I I m
I? I

I?
I
I? I
J_
iOO
W cm
Q rjNOp??
? ? II II II II II
a' ?QO-,?-m

'
o N
~
a
p 1- J
4 ? Z

B
U
~
W 7
z o o

W O O N
X = C)
CD

J I
I
I
/ / Q ao
z
ti
EYISI?NG R/M' /
/ / CJ
_ - SR Ili9 u?ES ROaD \ ? * b ? O
t
EXISTING R/W
ti
w
CD
Ll-

z
Z,
4
E
.? a a
Q, $
< z
W? a$
.Wa Z
A .-1 z
za z8
? ? I ors
II 69+91 jd
'
115
?7 V 111 I'
.? ` ? II 1 I I? ,1 J ?
1?Q?'L nr.?Y
Clams/ ® y ?11 / 1 `n
U) Lq
Z: t?: Do ai
CC) LI-)
?y' ?Y" 11 1\ I. I uI W II N N II
I 1 \
1 1 pis
'
? I 1 £gS6+II 1d
,? II III
CL I ? ® ;. ? II 11 III
II II
II I) II
u I
I I II V ?
? I I II III ? . ? ,
I
Ln ?4 r? b
q C)
(z) Ln Ln C3
u Q C3 1n CO
I FW- V) II II II II II
I I ?' ?Qo,,ti?
i
Lu
I I Q: z
I I Wo
I W ?°
Z a o
I m0- & Cr °
I? I o e e a
I? I z O Z
Iw l a a Li
Ice I
I I I I
I? I I
i I
I
H 1 ?
r
PROJECT LOCATION'
RAIMOLPH
COUNTY
SCALE IN MILES
1 0 1
North Carolina Depamnent of
Transportation
_ sF®®®® OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTE
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
FIGURE 9
0
Ir-
W
W-
M
('
LL.
N v X%
I ?
?Q
0

i
Q
E

cv of E O
iD

L F)

o f N
i O
- N
V

Q
•
? N `-
OZ
O ...?
a. Q

C_

o f
E
N
N
(-4J
Z.
O
F--
V
W
N
N
O
L.2L
V
W
O
m
V
C..

NY/
11
APPENDIX
IY'.J 1'V II '?L LI\I II 'll..l l 1 N/\'J1J I ?l.J JI J"'f I IUI J v1 iv ?v
O? VG Governor
?i
r William G. Ross, Jr., Secretory
? y , Department of Envlronment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
. February 26, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore,-PZ',;1Vlaniager
NCDOT, ProjervDevelopment &.,Environmental Analysis
Through: John Domey, NC Division of Water.Quali
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Seoping comments on th6proposed replacement of Bridge No. 363 on SR
1331 over Caraway Cr.eek;,.Rand6Iph: County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1331(4),.State Project No.. 8;2572301, TIP Project No. B-3504.
Scoping continents on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 162 ou SR 2832
oven North Buffalo Creek in:13 iilford..County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP -
2832(l), State Project;No.. 8 249434-1.,TT Project .B-3464.
This memo is in reference, to your rcorrespondencir'dated February 20, 2001, in which you
requested scoping comments for.the-.abovc.prdject:.`-.
TIP Project B-3504 over Caraway Creek strea>Fn.index number 13-2-3, is located in the Yadkin-
Pee Dec River Basin .(hydrologic-unit 03070).;,the...streatn is classified as C waters.
TIP Project B-3464 over North Birffale Creek,.,stre&m,humber 16-11-14-1, is 'located in the Cape
Fear River Basin (hydrologic unit.030602);.•the streath:is. classed as C Nutrient Sensitive
Waters.
The NC Division of Water Quality prefers that both bridge projects be replaced in-place with an
off-site detour. We agree that, both projects.qualify_for.theCategorical Exclusion.' NCDWQ
requests that NCDOT. conside.r..the.following cmviron.mental issues for the proposed projects:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with.*idges. However, if the new structure is to be a
culvert, it should-be countersunk.to allo*viiit>ttpeded fish and other aquatic organisms
passage through the crossing. Please,be.aware.th.at..,floWplain culverts are required under
Nationwide 14.
B. The document should provide a detailed -and -iteatized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with correespond ng.mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plaits for.unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present:.a,conceptual (if, not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation.. While the'111CDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects, requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
North Garorina Dhdelon of Water Quality, 407, Wetlands Cart Ration Unit,
1650 Mall Service Center, Rallaoi, NC 27699.1850 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27504-2260 (LoeAtion)
919-733-.1786 (phone), 919-733.6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.5tate.nc.us/rvcwetlands/
i 1+..-a-l I - -1"111-11 1 "^ - .LI I._ JI _'-+ 1141 J Vl Iki-40 1 . Vl
D. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/.Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. If applicable, DOT should, not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicaile.
F. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (in eluding sediment and erosion control
structuresh,ne-asures) to the maximum exteapractical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts shoula be.choseir..Utigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
G. Borrow/waste areas should not be Iocated.Jb- wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary.; it shoutd,be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved. under. Genera1-401 Ceitfflcatioa Numbcr 3027/Nationwide Permit No_ 6
for Survey Activities.
I. In accordance with the-NCDWQ, Vethmds Rules{ 15A, NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)), mitigation
will be. required for impacts of greater thai?150.linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes°.rNirired, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions..and.VdU.e&:: ha, accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506 (b)(3.)j..the::Wetlatid:Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
7. Sediment and erosion control measures shotld not beplaced in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality .Ceruficatiowapplicatiod W417. need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater.manaigement. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into; the creek.- Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwate'r detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wethnd.Inve"Jy:(NWb. snaps and soil surveys is a useful
office too], their inherent inaccuracies .require [hat qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at:tllis time.:he DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires.that•appropri.ate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are-not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Whle at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Held Office
Tom McCartney,..1JSFWS Raleigh Field Office:
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
G Federal Aid Counq I,
CONCLMRENCE FORUM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL. REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Irief Project Description -? plc e 1 \QPl ae?u,,.?-? pye? CLVC'??.?G?l C V l?
)a
representatives of the
?- North Carolina Department (por)tion (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
_ Other
:viewed the subject project a-
A scoping meeting
Historic aretutectural resources photograph review sessioniconsunatiot.
Other
di parties present agreed
were are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterior.
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential cf fe.c ,
but based on the historical information available and the photoggraphs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligi ie for the National Register and no turther evaluation of them is necessan*.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area, of potential effect.
igned: %
i
ll l? ?oa
',epresentaave, N OT / Date
I
'Hw,7, for the Division administrator, or other Federal agency Date
epresen ive, SHPO Date
r'
e Historic Preservation Office: Da e
ff 1 Sur,--/ reporr is precared. 1 :final ;-op,: ,)r this COrrn and ?? .ittached list w1il be Mcfuded.

September 14, 2000
S EP 18 Poon
D?', ; r l OF QV
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 363 on S.R 1331 over Caraway Creek,
Randolph County; Federal Aid Project BRZ-1331(4),
State Project No. 8.2572301, TIP Project B-3504
This is to inform you that the North Carolina State Conservancy Department and Piedmont Land
Conservancy are in the process of buying up the land on Ridges Mountain that is located
approximately one mile west of the above-referenced Bridge No. 363.
The land on Ridges Mountain is to be used as a park. Therefore, you may want to consider the
latest developments referenced above effecting Bridge No. 363 and S.R. 1331 before you finalize
your plans as outlined in your letter dated August 28, 2000.
Your proposed plan to replace Bridge No. 363 on a new location adjacent to, south (or north) of
the existing location, is the best proposal. Also, this proposal should include finishing paving
S.R. 1331 because of the recent sharp increase in traffic because of the increase of public interest
in Ridges Mountain. The mountain has been advertised on two TV channels: CNBC
(business) and CBS (news) over the past year. It is not unusual for me to visit my place on the
southern end of Ridges Mountain and find 10-12 cars parked on my land (uninvited) with
out-of-state license tags on them.
If I can be of any help to you in land right-of-way acquisitions, etc., please do not hesitate to
write me at 2223 Canterbury Drive, Burlington, North Carolina 27215 or call me at
[phone].
Sincerely,
A"V? I-Xq, 0"'L'?
Ben F. Crofts
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Missy Dickens, PE
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project CrtL???
Habitat Conservation Program /
DATE: A
ugust 8, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Guilford, Randolph, and Scotland counties of
North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3464, B-3504, B-3515 and B-3516.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridg:s allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure,. does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than l 0'x 10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 2 7699-1 72 1
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]
Bridge Memo
2 August 8, 2000
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the
culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If
multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their
bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This could be
Bridge Memo 3 August 8, 2000
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3515 - Scotland County - Bridge No. 46 over Big Shoe Heel Creek. Big Shoe Heel Creek
is fairly small at this crossing and likely does not support anadromous fish. There is a good
fishery for sunfish. We request that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and
June 15 to protect sunfish spawning. We request that bridge No. 46 be replaced with a
bridge at its existing location with road closure. If any additional widening is necessary, it
should be done on the North or upstream side of the existing bridge. We are not aware of
any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3516 - Scotland County - Bridge No. 59 over Gum Swamp Creek. Gum Swamp Creek is
small at this crossing and likely does not support anadromous fish. However, we do request
that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and June 15 to protect sunfish spawning.
We request that bridge No. 59 be replaced with a bridge at its existing location wirh road
closure. If additional widening is necessary, it should be done to the Southeast or
downstream side of the existing bridge. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered
species in the project vicinity.
3. B-3504 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 363 over Caraway Creek. Caraway Creek is a
medium sized Piedmont stream with good water quality and good aquatic species diversity.
We request that no in-water work be performed between April 1 and June 15 to protect
sunfish egg and fry stages from sedimentation. We also request that High Quality Water
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to protect freshwater mussels in the
Bridge Memo
4 August 8, 2000
project area. At this site, we have found the following state listed mussels, Atlantic pigtoe,
Carolina creekshell, Brook floater, and creeper.
4. B-3464 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 162 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
concerns at this site.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
QtN' N R ly
r
Q 9
v
?,ACH 3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 83726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 4, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
/ RECF?4?o
V 4&C 8
o
7C OPMcNt r.?
ALYSIS
Thank you for your June 28, 2000 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) on the potential environmental impacts of proposed bridge replacements in
Scotland, Randolph and Guilford Counties, North Carolina. This report provides scoping
information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for
this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the following
bridge structures:
1. B-3515 Bridge No. 46 on SR 1612 over Big Shoe Heel Creek, Scotland County;
2. B-3516 Bridge No. 59 on SR 1614 over Gum Swamp Creek, Scotland County;
3. B-3504 Bridge No. 363 on SR 1331 over Caraway Creek, Randolph County; and,
4. B-3464 Bridge No. 162 on SR 2832 over North Buffalo Creek, Guilford County.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to
facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and region should be
avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Johns, McColl, Farmer, and Greensboro
7.5 Minute Quadrangles show wetland resources in the specific work areas. However, while the
NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in
lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an acceptable wetland
classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to the above guidance, we recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action.
1. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 o s f
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be
replaced on the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed lists identify the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Scotland, Randolph, and Guilford Counties.
The Service recommends that habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the
available habitats at the respective project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action
area of the project, biological surveys for the listed species should be performed. Environmental
documentation that includes survey methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations
based on those results, should be provided to this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we encourage the NCDOT to be
alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species
under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
'-k dj-
64kZ'-'

ccCOE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
COE, Wilmington, NC (David Timpy)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
NCDNR, Northside, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
Ecological Services Supervisor
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:07/31/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\4brdgssc.otl
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
PITT COUNTY
Vertebrates
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii FSC
Bald eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
Invertebrates
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa FSC
Tar River crayfish Procambarus medialis FSC*
Vascular Plants
Savanna cowbane Oxypolis ternata FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia glabra FSC
POLK COUNTY
Vertebrates
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma Jloridana haematoreia FSC
Invertebrates
Wyandot (=grizzled) skipper Pyrgus wyandot FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiJlora FSC*
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Bigleaf scurfpea Orbexilum macrophyllum FSC*
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
RANDOLPH COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Cape Fear shiner, Netropis mekistocholas - Approximately 1.5 miles of Fork Creek, from
a point 0.1 river mile upstream of Randolph County Road 2873 Bridge downstream to the
Deep River then downstream approximately 4.1 river miles of the Deep River in Randolph
and Moore Counties, North Carolina, to a point 2.5 river miles below Moore County Road
1456 Bridge. Constituent elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder
January 15. 1999 Page 37 of 49
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and
side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively low silt loads.
Vertebrates.
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas Endangered
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
RICHMOND COUNTY
Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC**
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC*
Robust redhorse Moxostroma robustum FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC**
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC
White wicky Kalmia cuneata FSC
Sandhills bog lily Lilium iridollae FSC*
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Conferva pondweed Potamogeton confervoides FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC
Carolina asphodel Tofeeldia glabra FSC
Roughleaf yellow-eyed grass Xyris scabrifolia FSC
ROBESON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis FSC
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis T(S/A)
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 38 of 49
SURVEY/PLANNING-NCSHPO TEL:[phone] Jan. 05'01 16:59 No.001 P.02
lot. Is
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Staty Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
James S. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Rav \1cCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Grav?, Director
July 20, 2000
INMMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmem al Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook aJ,;,?r^?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
'ZE: Replace bridge No. 363 on SR 1331 over Caraway Creek, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(4),. State Project \o. 8.257230 1,
TIP Project R_33 S04, PER 01-7006
Thane you for your memorandum of June 28, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over
a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
Early Archaic and Woodland period archaeological site 31RDS50 is located in the floodplain west of
Caraway Creek and south of SR 1331 and may be 4ffected by the proposed bridge replacement. We
recommend that this site be relocated and tested to determine its National Register eligibility prior to
project implementation. The archaeological investigation. should include deep testing due to the
likelihood of buried cultural deposits.
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.
0 cc: Thomas Padgett, NCDOT I
1
Lararloo Maniac Address Ttlephant/Fas
An'61lNTATRATION 507 N. Illnrm St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Santee Censer, Raleigh NC 2't64V•4417 lulu) 731.4763 731.11611
ARCHAEOLUC1• 421 N. Illnum St., Raleigh NC 4&19 Mail se•rree CMier. R.ingh 14C 2'644.41,110 (v1•>) 713.7342 • 71!t-2671
HENIORATION 314 N. Ilhranl }1., R41e10 \C 4613 Mad sentee Censer, Raleigh NC 2'(04.4ri13 [phone] - 715.41101
%URVE.Y ` eLANNINC SO N. Uh.uni St., RAc.Nh NC 4(,IN Mad Sentee Cemet, Raleigh `C 2'•649.4a1h (uj4? 731.14545 • 713.41(01
SURVEY/PLANNING-NCSHPO TEL:[phone] Jan, 05'01 16:59 No.001 P-02
r -
e - 1' O a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation office
David L. S. Bmak. Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr.. Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretan Jeffrey I. Crow, Director
July 20, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE. NUnager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
r IN x.
FROM: David Brook ,;,?r, `,„
Deputy State I-Iistdric Preservation Officer
.01
'•'tE: Replace bridge No. 363 on SR 1331 over Caraway Creel;, Randolph County,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1331(4),. Stu*ProjectNc. 8.257230 1,
TIP Project B-3504, ER 01-7006
Thank you for your memorandum of June 28, 2000, eonaertting the above project.
?Ve have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over
a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
Early Archaic and Woodland period archaeologieal.site 31RD530 is located in the floodplain west of
Caraway Creek and south of SR 1331 and may be affected by the proposed bride: replacement, We
recummend that this site be relocated and tested to determine its National Register eligibility prior to
project implementation. The archaeological investigation. should include deep testing due to the
likelihood of buried cultural deposits.
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 Giedhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/7334763.
cc, Thomas Padgett, NCDOT V , Cj 1-
t-Peell6e Melling Addeetaa Telephunt?Fn1
An%11NKTRATION 717 %. Mount U. Raleigh NC 41' Mall Senng Cenlel, Raleigh `(' 21694-461! [phone] • 731.11131
ARCIIAVOLUCY 4:1 N. 111nYil1 St.. Raleigh Se Ahl9 M311 SeftleeCenter. Rile,=h S-T 21'•649..11,14 full)) 713.73421 - 70-21671
KENIORATION 313 N. Blnenl St.. R.11clo \C 6613 Moll Senlee Ctlner, Raleigh `C :'1644460 [phone] • 713.41101
AL PLANNINC 50 N. U6.unt St., Raingh NC 461M 161611 3knlee Center. Raleigh NX :7(o')•4f lh [phone] 713.401
S?A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisheth C. Evans. Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
ollice of Archives and History
July 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matthew T. Wilkerson
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook llcr k
Deputy State Hisr S Preservation Officer
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 363 on State Road 1331,
over Caraway- Creek, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1331(4), State Project No. 8.2572301,
TIP B-3504, Randolph County, ER 01-7006 and 02-9203
Thank you for your letter of March 4, 2002, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Jesse
Zinn, Shane Petersen and Caleb Smith for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our
response.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under
criterion D:
31 RD555&555**
The prehistoric component of the site contains intact subsurface artifacts and features dating from
the Woodland period that are likely to yield information important to lithic technology and ceramic
traditions in the North Carolina piedmont. The historic component of the site consists of the
remains of a gristmill, but does not contain important information.
Since the final alternative for the bridge replacement has not been selected, it is premature to
conclude that the prehistoric component of 31 RD555&555** will not be affected by the project. We
request that final plans for the bridge, indicating the boundaries of the site, be forwarded when thev
are available, so we can address the issue of effect. Since it appears from the map included in the
report that the site is located within the right-of-way for the bridge project, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation needs to develop plans to insure preservation of the site. We would
like to review those plans when available.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. Specific concerns
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 51)7 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mad Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 9733-8653
Restoration 51; N Blount St. Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 3 [phone] .715-4801
Glrrnc C. plnnnino C I S 1' RI...inl CI R •L•,., 1. ?:?' 11,14 11, 1 C- "... ("-f- R11.•ioh 77h0U1A1 R IQ 101 711_S7k: -71 G-1RA1
Page 2
Matthew T. Wilkerson
July 16, 2002
and/or corrections, which need to be addressed in the preparation of a final report, are attached for
the author's use.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
D B:Kgc
Enclosure
cc: FHwA
Jesse. Zinn, NCDOT
Specific Comments, Archaeological Survey and Testing Report
Bridge #363 on SR 1331 over Caraway Creek, B-3504
ER 01-7006 and 02-9203
1. Page 35, paragraph 2, line 4: 31 RD55** should be 31 RD555**.
2. The updated site form listed the research potential of the site as none, although the site
has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. We have
corrected this omission.
3. The recommendations section of the site form should be made in terms of the
significance of the site itself as well as how the site may be affected by the current
project. Consequently, we have re-coded the form to indicate that preservation by
avoidance of the site is recommended and no further work is necessary for this project.
-.4
RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
R ;NO30 o`s2222-C South Fayetteville Street
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone] or 318-6019 WORTH HATLEY
E-mail: [e-mail] Superintendent
Auxiliary Services Jerry W. Shackelford, Assistant Superintendent
Gerald H Knott, AIA
Section Chief, School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
301 N Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Monday, July 10, 2000
Dear Mr. Knott,
?L
I am writing to you in response to your letter of July 5, 2000 regarding Bridge 363,
located on Ridges Mt Rd in Randolph County.
This is a dirt roadway and buses do not cross the Caraway Creek on this roadway.
Replacement of the Bridge 363 on SR 1331 (Ridges Mt Rd) would not have an
immediate impact on our bus transportation program, but would be viewed as a positive
future step.
Please contact me if further information is needed.
Sincerely,
L
J Shackelford
- TOLL FREE NUMBERS

'- PR
j\b
Ihe _ AT
FC-0.

Q
31 N
0 C 0 a
m O n

o

o J J
$ 8

? N N

? ? u u u n n u
?
Il a. o 41 o ° w ?

O
Z it T
N 0
0
Q V?
m A
m 1
n
o a o
0 0
K r- ;
'c
N y °
14,
g PPOo ?
-o a
m

y
CT: C200907
TIP PRO
i
Z
O
Z
v
0
v
z
?z
?r
m
I
?mn
--1
Zroi
O
z
1

09
CT: B-3504
11II
-ell
o b ?®
o ®'t
b N ??
b
x ®?
0 t
? O
n y
w
W

vftwft.L? i_
? ? ? w w w _
NAD sa Ate'

a
1. Oo
E. h
4
p
M O

n

?F

QF 07:00
13-APR-20
?7;\pro?\b 50 .typ
5/28/99

?
J
L

z=

N
4
?
?

D

23-APR-20 4 07A0 ,,, ...-
5/28/99
m; a o =**D °o ?'
7m 0 v
3v°
a Co
n
3
°-° - X o
' 3 D o ? g
N

rn

c
:3 :3 D

w ° 3•
7. 0
O O'
IL :3 :3 m
cc s

_ 0 cn 3 rb
° n CL " h

s
vJ N "r

I

rn 1?
M w
-p -p -v T 'o ? Ste. ° t5 t5! °
O O O 25 O O O z O M
'p V -U . 'fl ;L O U M !Z is
rn a 3 o
o n o . ?° ° - to a go 3 3 3 ° w 3 ° -Ti 7C• s -. n
0 :3
Q o• boo
m rn 0
YI 44 > > 3 ?_, ° O
3 =r
0 n -gyp _° -moo L
rt y
C 7 :3 0 0
ED 0 0
O ° C p q
a CL °-
O
I
I
ss 1
?f e9i ?^ m ? ?+ ID C?1 D
-p M
n -p
" T n -0
-
1 -0 -p -o -p --0 n
c
o
- 0 0 C,
N N ; O•
N ° ? n
a a- 3 g
°
O
; tl. .
1 O 7
o °

3
O :- C 13. a
N
0 -n -n
M :3
a
? n W

Q

3

I I
® ?
O? I
I?
I I
I^ I
I

I
? I I I I ' I I i I I I
u 1 I
.p .p .p m -p p -n '_O = T
m C o : 7! n o A Q m 4 v N ?' c? ° ° a a a# N a• o
o o ort. O o°. p
:3 C3 ca a 0 .0 CL
m O.c I. a
s
?,• n, v
o a- - a ° 0 0 0• ° o 0 o p
r "p p N -1 N -?i :3 r° O ' 7> n ° rt i O O 3_ a CD n ° _« ° `S] ( m
A ' ^ > >C- ° ` Ncq o a -, ° W O -0 O 7 ° ° O C s 3' '+ p s o © o.
n c. o °- 0 0 o o o © v s S o O o s' o u o on. A°© v°° 1 a
91 a o 3- v 0 2 Q f 1 b o_ -o b° o o °
© a O ca 2 -, ° °
on °• w a QTR ' o ? I =:3 a - , °
?0 X ° wN 0o ax ° ?i
ox :r rL
<3 O ,
° CL
n
4 I I r°z
®O? 0O?mO®Oo®I 3 0?'???®CS400?213 t o- a
I I ..
-p 3 = -n -a -p -p -p v M M n -1 n w
My ? n avvvu o4 o,.c o
m o
co = c
rn3 A r;Z o ?'
m
a. C
a O N 7
n W °- O= w 7 O-
°- °- w :3 ° :3 O -' o
0 CL CL c
° 3 O 4
:3 ?• O C O- C 7.
w 7. O C7 7 N y
C C3 N 0 O °- ,
C
O C pN• O.
CL 93
I I I I,?' ? (i l!I ??
>? o o? ?vI ? N ?] ?Q? I I I I 1
W W W W W W Wx W c- I I I I I 1
? ? i=I I I I
?? III?? IIIII
N CA
n N
[L
s O Q.
°
a c
0 4

l O Z N N
O a
:r 0 ° m m
CL 3 O O
s
2 0
cr
y
O ?
O
M g,
p Q C= C3 ;a a ;o A w co a d D o c w o p p :3 12 CL 3 o Co. o a co a
0 U3 a. m a. I a °• a.
a. -n °. ? C 0- ? a -4 o- -p ? °- Cl °- N ? a
• ,> m rss o °° _ a o n°
C 7 O O?
f+ - - -? S• ca =. 1 --1i to
C. -?
7
a; C ?_ p' C w ° 0 Q C o o ° u! C o
=r 0
=3 n
Ll O-. O O p O O T ?S O a m
444777 ° N O d N y (? O .3
0 H C n- c °
C in c , C °
0 in in
I I I I I' I ? I j l j'?
]1
O O < < ` ^ A ti y 9 N ? N y,
f D I O f < ? I ^ I N N N
I I I ? I I I ? I ? i t I T
r
T
-4.
O
to
° 9
a.
-
O
-
s -n
o
?-
O.
O n

o
:L -n
° w
x
C

O' w
a
m
O -0

4
°-

?. 0
o
Q
0 v
m
T
0
y'

N n

?- n
p
°
to

O 2
°
a.
N

O r-
0
o
N

c o
°-

p
_ o N

c
s

?
I
I 1
I I I

?
' ,
I I I

I t?
t
W c?+? I I I I
?
°
l o W R7 ( 1 I I I
1 11
p
o
?
I I
I 11

J
?
?
? I
I I I
I I ?l I
O
O

N
m
00
0

o I
I
I
;D

CA Lj!
o W °^ S o c ° -n w
c
3 o o n
-V O o .
s C
tri
7 3 ??

•
a
O :

?•
N
co
3
0

a,

0
0
3?
W
0
C!
V
y
r
k EO NO I? I I c ,\I I
L..
in
H
N
C
ED
N
c
M

cl
m
M
70
v
f
:T
C
T

23-APR-20040 07:3504_ls-lc-.dgn 5/28/99
nHF •h nr
_ -?
ro n C/l w= -? - x
C7 -n m cn m -? m
-r, m C) co
o -i n rm mz ti
z= r N N z n --4 a
m !5 1 z-4m
n X n-? LZ O cy
zp Z o o r
-z-I° app
70
m 0? I fl /...
C z O
Z r m p 0 D
m D1 n OCp .mm
O
O
N Z N D D 7
m
z N ?m z?N A V)
-4 > 70
? = N N r-p IV
m N m o0 y
0 0 oom n
ro r m -4 C-) O r
o
m z o ? --- p7 / 00 C
cil CA)
z m cr)
o m Ul
d
z -0
70 -n
-ni z S???pN 914 ?5 0
o
m = 0 ab ?+
-? p D m m
m m m
o 0 "o
p z
o m
Z D
N (7
O D
o
L 710
m p ..
(7 C-
--l m .,
o
. %4
4
a C42
x? p,
y ' m
-[
t3 to h , c, i
x o y ,? n
y ° ° it o 0
.Si z
C ?ti ' y =
o y ?? 1 m
y p i W
I
N 4 y 0
°
?xb
Bic
1
I
y
x ?x
V
H rn \ „fc'
rn
Y \ x
u
In ki
r7l :-,z
zc O rn x
rti y 2 2 r v O ?? ?. ?? "tAC
rim r- -rnrn `c3 i'g rl 11Z -4 no ILA sz.
111
NooLVa?oc4?v `'?^ 1? 9 tax ty?
?gc-3 Eno :cnv o >
Q3
`f Nmo ?q p ? wo Z
o ^?'rn^ ?;
z
.- ? •v ' ? ti v ' v
A ? ` m 'ti ? H
., n Z
0
13-ArK-CUVy U!:
puc hRor pro \b 504_11_Id_.d9n
A
-1 H m
rn
maw o?
?10 P4
rn?x
ftz
C
ri _ co g ? C-3
NNW-4wzrnbD
(.n Co Z:t
-1 -'Jo rn
°? rho o?gri u brn O
-0 ??L-1 rn
c? ?
?,c?ornrnmR'?T
rn Z,
O ~ i O N <
°9 ccix"' ~I
;Q Ez E,-
?o :t: o
? rn warn ?y Z
V1 ,,, N r S
s O
H ? ? n
ti
n

Z
Z 0) a 0 W
K a W N
'-' r 0
F- =
V1 CO ..._1 _ 3
3 . r
.? -. O O z
n
O -1 2
W
m . N . n
-
?

- Ulm ? 0 N J
-0 NJN + Z
-
O
C)
n m o
1 -P (n
m - -+ --
m
; D

'
_?x r) 2 ' O
r mDCa
M m...?M r
o=r rm m
Z wNm m(
D?< ?

z
ncn -t -
z c
i •
"z O
m? ; ? -?. o a D
D ?7 C? _1 g Z O Co 1V M J - m W
co W co N
W W CO
Z D 00 C) r
0 . LA 0) . N• Z OJ • W. W (-)
p Z --1
m 0 Z
IW 0
0
- m W N++ W ©r UI
: 01 A Uf A W N '-+

L/) 0
70
?Om 0 D
=
O 70-4 o J W a J w
• mJN + N• rl)
C
?K rm O O0 D ?a AW moW
<DZ
m I O
O -I
m 0 m UI O m
r J : -n D
m -? C 0
0 Z7
V O "'t -i
7 r- -n
: Z y J J
J
1 > N 0
f li 14 -4 0 .
-. O
mom

D
N
D
m O
=
4
':9

D7 Q7 J -4
M
m
Z N -4 Q1 Z
7 = m
r = V
_
-1 O
-1rn
Z ?V1
. m 3
aJN D 4
W Uta.D
z
m XD C)
mw
w
*t
f
2
V1 C 0
- -4 --
03 m.
i??

>

m
U) r
o

p . m

TI

N
m
A a
w
m61~Om '
QN O 0
D m
o
m
Z r c)

m
-
o > -4 m
m o D C-) c/)
? (n ?Z
? NNNN D
m
m .. NNN D
A A a A W V7
Z C m B J 4 J 01 W U1 -1
0
O
'0 C7
N 0) UI
o
07 N W Z,
yam
Z ?
-n wUlc
-1
O O (p a J A Ul N
D S C A A ,D ' A Ul © B'
19 W J 0) '
C7
'?F O Z A m a'
Oca CD ©©©m '
Fri 2 O
?
-i o
D m

M
r-
m m
m
70 r <
?7 --1
D D
D
O '
2 03 L71 A' O UI b. a W
O
Z
U7 n .D UI 'D Z UI G O co
- O
z D p:
N J(JJIor) '
p .
j
0
o - r
7u -<
m O
O

(7 J W N N m OJ O N
-4 -0
.D N m D © W O D D
UI,D
'X C) N - CU
N I Z
O
Z
C-
m

r
_
3
N -1 O ()1 UI O
-
,D UI U) n
n n
(n
W CD
m
mUl
A.
+ '
M DD
.
J '

ZI D r 17 r
'
-4
7/Ltl/`I'
C
m
C7
O
Z
O
r
N
r
m
m
co
w
Ln
O
.a
5/I4/99
23-APR-20?4\O7o0Ji\63504.typ
C
z
0
m
v
t

1

N 0

rn
m

In
w
(i m
11? C C °
r
TTt
m I a >
< r°n
m
o O V V
N u
s N m m
y x
O
m
M N V c
5 rn >
-0 m m
L L A M m
k ? 5 Y
TTTt

m o,
I? j
J a

=

V
' C z
.
p V 0
?
O a
++++ m

y
o o
m
ofioo
ovuo
p
C M
'm
1 m

at

O
O
O

O
•
L
V
_ O
r
O
a
u
N O N
m m
0 n n
?

Z
i
Z
IF O
Z
i

0
z 0 Z z
O O g O
`
' O u r
CA)
O
N
O
O t I
s

?a i
r? N
?rn
m

p •OU ?
} t 11??
N V N -
t '
S N 0 0 ???jN111 O
?Z zo 00
Z o z
?z
O
Ru N•
,,ajN O
O '? O U
L ? V
r ?.•-O
O
O
T n
r
u
yZ

?
Z
Q
S Oa ? `
O ?
n H
1
e. 5"

b
N

'•? ? L
j

J

C = ?
i m v

rn
m >
>
G v
o
N
9 9
A
Z
A Q

r a yN
' ?a
? ? m m
' C

a m
o
m
9
m ? ? .
j m
N
? m
A a 9
C O O F 0

• y m ? o N
°z L7
v. ?
m a ? ?

O ? O =

9
m T

0
n C
a m r
-

?
w? m
v O C
m
p
0
N m
'
O
m F1
=
-AYR-'C'Q4©7;01
RF' u? s5 .sum
5/8/99
CO)

J

1--1

w
o
?x

w?
Z
0
23-APR-2009.07:01
6/21100
n:?pr o??ts»Av,sum ZZ

O UZ C + LOCATION ILF.". OR W
V
0 ~
-+

' o
A r
O W
4 .O
G
> 1 0.
s'
a
a
N
fIWA

j111IM N0.

C, O
cc F V P N {Rr

V

p

Y TO

9
o
I
JI ?y?

?'

?
TOP B"ATION
7Q
t>i p
>
lfl
v u P N T g ?i E
i
l E
g
? ?
f
to= nr[ATnN
1

r1
?
1
? ?
<?m
? ? "
?
?
?
R1YQ7 Fl2NATION
p ELM CDTICAL

un N P w q
u v ? V IV ? ?'.
f i0. u $ 6

?? a e
JIM i1

} iS G JW G

u +
+
Q ?
.a11
?
q

N .079

1of
?
P P P N 14?4
f?l?
.10!
,O .O .O `? 1a? ?
lY SL! fMW1 ffi •_J
y cn
V

U
N « a 19• SIDE DMN ?WE M I.y
•_,

O
u
W = MAN tTf V
I"1

o
$
6
g tcr.
1
6

-
csr.
`+ § g
R
®
'TI
Z

JI?
?Ot ?AOI (o' nsL a fffn
?JAN
I'm 09A91AO! Z
a0.' nfu IOJY >
? ? • TOTAL LF. FOR MY
? ?
'" lOJ?MO AROV! ouA++mT sllAU r wL.
W + l % COL

g
CA sm "0.0 OR STD. BOO ? z z

Ell F?1
D ii z
?

CI c
L - DLST0.910.U OR M910.13 -
rr
vJ
01 IRAN! a CMiR STD
90
16
.
1

o o
y
Mnt TTr! •A• tTa Sal.? a s1aU V
MDJ, nn •r zTD. slLU oR 940.27
I 1 MD.L TTTE •D" SID. 940.19 OR {1025
1
N p
$
Z
iE
MDl 0134 FMMR Wf H TWO CMTB STD. 940"
u an
N
"J. FMM! Willi TWO CMTTS SSA 640.22
"I P434 MAMA WRH OMTI STD. SQ.M
M J. P.SJ FMMI WDN TWO CAM SID. M024
1LSTD.940.31 OR 91031
T."1 STD. 94=

o -1

nm CYAN Oln

t!
G 1?
M CORt S= OIOWS NO.9 S=
CON-=LAU Q. r C.Y. STD 94Mn

axle & = Ire FLm GT. SiD &10.71
v r L a AR "NOVAL LWT.

n
7 r 8
?

S

>t

n

o
R3\'PR-,a35,0 sOm 6/16/44
8 O? ZO qz
o
0;;
m
aROM .. ClA
Cl n
a ino
?m?C w
i s Gl
q0
z
t" CO
c;vZ ?c
?
> O
?o
DZO -0 rn
rn Z Z !^ O w
m :<
z II
n
pp o
n_
rn T C
O
O 1.?
? z
o Z
?z
Q3 f1 C
O
m ?2?
pZ
Cw
Z
"UP
N
+
14
C C17
h?-1
0
xz
00
xx
z
th cc
R
$
L4
m
.o
+

N v
+
W v?

D
?
O
N w Z
O O O
?
V V

O
O 0 Z

ryy
O O
r Z
I

V
u

?
u I

N
?i

P
u
z

? LL
5 L
1

? ?

N N

+

? O -' v a
O
Gl

? I
N
w Z

w
Z

° ?
o

z
S
=1 En
O
Z m
p

P w
p,

_ W W
O
V O d
1--1
REVISIONS
?b»uy.p
nT
h.$ ? O
;+ N
P?
N
I + ,
? 0 1

N
I 1 I
, ?1 ?
1
x I ' ? 1
I
1 1^i
r
?
1 ,
?
o
x^ I
,
fC R/R ? : 10

k I ? i ? ?
I I I ?
I I 1 .?'
I I
I? 1
I I
G IY I
k ,8 I
? +
N
I I I? I
g
?
gl? ? L? i $ 1
?
x
I I I
I
I
?°
m?
c° x

II
nx I
mu ? I

' I
O I

m
? ?
cam

I

II °: n
C
C
T , C
I?

5

313
r 'r
.? j ?.
t
M M u u"u ?v?
y
3?l bE S9L

I v
m
a s r
D

A A O
Z
In

v
O
ri
Z

O W
?

"I G-)
m
O u.I
0
N
n O
D

r ?
m o

v
O
N
m
0

i D
m

F
m
z

P-2
rn m
A?
Q
V Z3
-1
Wo Q
P ,I =
° s=
?mN ?I
?_ o G
I
1
1
1
\I
10
A
a

N '
+
O
O
n
°
PP
F? F3
m 8S ? ?vl
I o
C I ?? 20
9 s o?_n .?y °2n
I ? a w rr O O v'? f
N G r ?r ,•,N $vm
I N N
I r =n yy 2
?vrcpi o 7C P P
1 y p N Z3
°"' O ti O .1
D u O
I i`+-S ? O V N r. `O y y ~
15
A? (il u?o ? P P ? 3 ?I a
a
Al
mmo
•p'' dim $ c I €°m yyo
I O ° 6°= ? ? A_ pdn
14 LA
1 I aLO P o ° n -rr{ °
9
P
Sri _ = pA Z ?9 0
I ,0 _ RL (5 -1
?? \ ,t? Na MA W $
° SD I r i i N
?',t?? 1'1 +I'9 N N r m O
r ? ? a ??? > y y o
I u ?\ y ?~y?j Nth
W
D? ? vA n /
-1 > ?4
S

RDf•I
..11
ppy? Mi
_ ?AA P
A •O ± N
O
V

rl?
I?
r
?o
w
H
N
r

VK?
2 ? < N
nZ
??
` ?0 tr H5
u
O n
°
* o$
r

3 n
w ?
3
o
,Tx? rn
V
Z
1 1 R 1 R (?
w
II II " II " N
(7)O 1
(?pv VY?r '
y
`tf?N
1

N
H
P
N
O
A
0
O

gl+
U
O
1 ? O
1 O r'?
rn
vA
117
?y
{

QSCRN /
I1'? ??. .CVSCL
ma m? ? ? O
v,
y? O
A _ O L
I ? p\ \ y?H y
p
`1 N \ AV^
1 ly5Q \
?DsN r? 4
1 3
\ Th\il vKn?i <
8 ` you \ "N°° :i?°1
K gg A
\ ([?
N \
5 FA7
r? q?Y
m? \ a
Ws ;J i
ti r
_ +
A
C M
2O
r-
Vr
P
?^P N
Ql N
QW1 O?+
O

O y
°mP
"a

?
. M
y ? 1..

N
N O O
O YI ?
71
y ??
Y eO
q
a
n ? i
?
I

1

1 ? DO
Z
- ?
+ 8 I
0 m
"?n
? z ~ ir-
n 2 ??O
N OI
?o
I O j

V
Z
y
I
?ar s/r/ a$ _.c_ ?.3 1U
O ? ' 171
(n ? ? O
rn ? N
ID 1/ 6
8
N
S? ? I
NAD 83
s
N
P
8/17/99
b
< w
8t7l
? 'r a
0
2-4FR-2004 07:03 "
23-APP-2004 07:05
AHF?s?er "AT R0203054
27-APR-2004 07:07
.-sc?L.. of A/71/AQ
ti eT1fj,??"e.
STA'KE'Of NOI rti CAROLINA
oq6? 09
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NIICI IAEL. F. EASLEY P.O. BOX 25201. RALF"IGI1, N.C. 27611-5201 LYNDO TIPPETT
Govt. r?olz sivi I,\ In,
October 13, 2004
Project No.: 33118.3.1
TIP No.: B-3504
Contract No.: C200907
County: Randolph
Description: 'Bridge over Carav:ay Creek and Approaches on SP.-1331.
R. E. Burns & Sons Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 7168
Statesville, NC 28687 OCT 1 9 2004
Subject: Preconstruction Conference
Gentlemen:
DENR - WATER QLUWTY
V,7E W@3 AN4D STW., -'ATER GLiFrU
This letter is to confirm that the Preconstruction Conference for the referenced project will be
held on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. at the Division 8 Office in Aberdeen, NC
located approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of US 1 and US 15-501 in Aberdeen.
Please advise if further information is needed.
/Sincerel
o
n . G. Olinger, PE
Division Construction Engineer
cc: E. C. Powell, Jr., PE
J. L. McDonald, PE
J. L. Picklesimer, PE
L.D. Caddell
A. C. King
Barry Harrington
D.W. Jernigan, PE
Billy Trivette, PE
File
Aydren Flowers, attn: Audrey Thompson
J.V. Barbour, PE
Nate Sanders
Richard Spencer - USACOE
Gerald Lee - DENR (Land Quality)
John Hennessy - DENR (DWQ)
Dennis Mabe, Randolph EMC
Sprint
1067. Abrrdccn, NC 2831 i Phone[phone] Far [phone]