20072087 Ver 1_Application_20071212

J ~~
\r
1~

a.,a AI17Fo~
y ,,,..
,,4
•l~..~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~ ~~',~
JF~ . F .~.r
r ~ t
~~ti s~N'`•'•,~~, ~ ~l~/1
~0~°rq~h,,: ~
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
November 30, 2007
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
072087
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 for the replacement of Bridge No. 140
over an unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek on SR 2215 (Henley-Country Road), Randolph
County. Federal Aid Project Number BRZ-2215(1), WBS No. 33587.1.1, State Project No.
8.2574201, Division 8, T.I.P. No. B-4244
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 140 over an
unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek. The project involves constructing the new bridge at the existing
location, while maintaining traffic on an off-site detour during construction. The existing bridge is
currently in poor condition and in need of replacement. The new bridge is intended to provide a safer
bridge structure consistent with federal and state bridge standards.
The proposed bridge is a steel plate girder structure with a single span of 80 ft. It will convey two 12-
foot wide travel lanes with 6-foot wide shoulders for a total clear roadway width of 36 ft. Consisting of
only one span, it will have no interior bents. Please find the enclosed permit drawings, design plans, JD
(Rapanos) Form, Pre-Construction Notification, and letter of concurrence from the USFWS for the
subject project. A Categorical Exclusion (CE) and Right of Way Consultation were completed for this
project in July 2005 and July 2006, respectively, and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of
these documents are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin 03-06-09). This area is part of Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit 03030003 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The unnamed tributary to Gabriel's
Creek is the only feature designated a Waters of the U.S. within the project area. There are no wetlands
in the project area. The unnamed tributary receives the same Best Usage Classification as its receiving
stream, Gabriel's Creek, which is Class "C". No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply (WS-In, or 303(d) Waters occur within
1.0 mile of the study corridor.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTI~NT OF TRANSPORTA~iION TELEPHONE: [phone] O~ 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SURE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPN<ENT AND ENVIRUNIu~NTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONN~NT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
" WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Permanent Impacts
There will be no permanent impacts to any Waters of the U.S. in association with this project.
Temporar~Impacts
A temporary rock work pad will need to be placed in the unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek to
facilitate removal of the existing pier of the old bridge (Site 1, Sheet 6 of 8). Detail of the temporary
work pad is shown on Sheet 4 of 8. The total area of temporary impacts is < 0.01 ac. After construction,
the work pad will be removed.
Utility Impacts
Two telephone poles on the south side of the bridge will need to be relocated during construction of the
new bridge; however, this will not impact the unnamed tributary. There will be no utility impacts in
association with this project.
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge, built in 1950, consists of two spans which total 36 feet in length. The deck is
composed of timber with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of a timber pier and
timber abutments. The existing structure will be removed without dropping any structural components
into the creek. The existing pier in the unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek will be removed down to
the streambed. A temporary work pad will be necessary to facilitate removal of the pier as described
above in the Temporary Impacts section. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be
implemented during removal of the bridge.
RESTORATION PLAN
Following construction of the bridge and approaches, all material used in construction will be removed.
The impacted area from temporary fill in the unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek is expected to recover
naturally, since all fill material will be removed upon completion of construction down to the original
streambed. NCDOT does not propose any additional planting in this area. All temporary erosion control
devices will be removed upon completion of construction. Pre-project elevations will be restored.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the removal and disposal of all material
off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment for removal of any earthen
material. Heavy~iuty trucks, dozers, cranes, and various other pieces of mechanical equipment
necessary for construction of roadways and bridges will be used on site. Temporary fill placed in the
unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek will be removed upon completion of construction. The contractor
will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of
project. After the erosion control devices are no longer needed, all temporary materials will become the
property of the contractor.
Final B-4301 Permit Application
Page 2 of 5

MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Miti ag tion
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
• Temporary construction impacts will be minimized through implementation of stringent erosion
control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented.
• The new bridge will be approximately 44 feet longer than existing bridge, thereby restoring a greater
area of the floodplain in the vicinity of the crossing to its original grade.
• The bridge will be replaced in the existing location with no bents in the creek, thereby resulting in no
permanent impacts to surface waters.
• An off-site detour will be utilized during construction.
Compensatory Mitigation:
The project will result in no permanent impacts to surface waters. Mitigation is not proposed for the
temporary impacts of <0.01 ac to the unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists 2 species for Randolph County. Table 1 lists the species and their federal status.
Table 1. Federall Protected S ecies in Randol b Coun NC
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status* Biological Conclusion Habitat
Present
Cape Fear shiner Notropis E No Effect No
mekistocholas
Schweinitz's Helianthus May affect, not likely to
sunflower schweinitzii E adversel affect Yes
*E= endangered, T=threatened
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for Cape Fear shiner due to lack of suitable habitat. A
biological conclusion of "No Effect" was initially issued for Schweinitz's sunflowers in the CE (July
2005). Due to the discovery of a previously documented population of Schweinitz's sunflowers in the
NCNHP database and located less than one mile from the project site, the conclusion was changed to
"May affect, not likely to adversely affect" in the Right of Way Consultation (July 2006). Surveys for
Final B-4301 Permit Application
Page 3 of 5

Schweinitz's sunflowers were most recently conducted on 9/28/2006 and 9/11/2007 by NCDOT
biologists. One cluster consisting of approximately 15 stems of Schweinitz's sunflowers was observed
within the original project area on 9/28/2006 (near Station 15+00.00 on the southwest side of the road;
Site 1, Sheet 6 of 8). On 9/11/2007, this same population was again observed consisting of 26 stems, 1
flower, and 2 buds, and exhibiting signs of drought stress. No other specimens have been found within
the project area. The project construction limits have been revised to avoid the Schweinitz's sunflowers.
The specimens are now approximately 20 feet outside of the construction area. Due to the close
proximity to the construction area, the biological conclusion of "May affect, not likely to adversely
affect" remains valid.
To further protect the Schweinitz's sunflowers, NCDOT has agreed to implement the following
conservation measures:
Prior to let, a protective fence made of highly visible polyvinyl fencing material will be installed 2
feet outside the boundary of the cluster of Schweinitz's sunflowers.
Lezpedeza and tall fescue will not be included in the seed mix used for erosion control in the project
area (hard fescue and Kentucky bluegrass will be included in the seed mix).
Concurrence was received from the USFWS in the enclosed letter dated 5/2/2007.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of July 15, 2008 (review date of May 27, 2008) with a date of availability
of August 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in September 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by Nationwide Permit 33
(72 FR 11092; March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate Section 401 General Certification number 3688 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of this WQC will be met, therefore no written concurrence is required. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200 we are providing two copies
of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their notification.
Final B-4301 Permit Application
Page 4 of 5

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Duncan Quinn at 919-715-5524.
Sincerel ,
~~Greg ry J. horpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Wade Kirby, PDEA
Final B-4301 Permit Application
Page 5 of 5

Office Use Only: Form Version Mazch OS
2007208
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No 140 over an unnamed tributary to Gabriel's
Creek on SR 2215 (Henley-Country RoadZ
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4244
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Asheboro
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From the intersection of
US-64 and E Presnell St approximately 2 5 miles east of Asheboro, turn onto E Presnell St
heading west toward Asheboro Make an immediate right onto Henley-Country Rd (SR
2115) and travel approximately 2 miles north to bride site It is located between Old Cedar
Falls Rd and Randolph Tabernacle Rd (It is the bride closest to Randolph Tabernacle Rd.)
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.7393 °N 79.7630 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Gabriel's Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: SR 2215 (Henley-Country Road) is classified as a rural local
Page 2 of 9

road by the statewide functional classification system. Land use includes wooded azeas with
six sin lg a-fami~ residences located neaz the project corridor.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including-the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves removal of the existing structure and construction of a new bridge on
the existing alignment while maintaining traffic on an off-site detour during construction.
The proposed bridge is a steel plate girder structure with a single span of 80 ft. It will convey
two 12-foot wide travel lanes with 6-foot wide shoulders for a total clear roadway width of
36 ft. Consisting_of only one span it will have no interior bents. Heavy duty excavation
eauipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various eauipment necessary
for roadway construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing_bridge, built in 1950 and having a
sufficiency rating of 32.2 out of a possible 100 (for a new structure), is considered
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The new bridge is intended to provide a
safer bridge structure consistent with federal and state bridge standazds.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed sepazately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed sepazately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporazy. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and cleazly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Page 3 of 9

Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Permanent Impacts
There will be no permanent impacts to any Waters of the U.S. in association with this project.
Temporary Impacts
A temporary rock work pad will need to be placed in the unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek to
facilitate removal of the existing pier of the old bridge (Site 1, Sheet 6 of 8). Detail of the
temporary work pad is shown on Sheet 4 of 8. The total area of temporary impacts is < 0.01 ac.
After construction, the work pad will be removed.
Utility Impacts
Two telephone poles on the south side of the bridge will need to be relocated during construction
of the new bridge; however, this will not impact the unnamed tributary. There will be no utility
impacts in association with this project.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
s aratel list im acts due to both structure and floodin .
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.00
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.00
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
Page 4 of 9

construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans .and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
.Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
~
Intermittent. Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
Site 1 UT to Gabriel's Cr. Temporary Fill perennial 15-20 feet 34 <0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 34 <0.01
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavation, dred~in~. flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) ~

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): <0.01
Wetland Im act (acres): 0
en Water Im act (acres): 0
Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 34
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Page 5 of 9

Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Expected pond surface area:
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Temporary construction impacts will be minimized throu h implementation of stringent erosion
control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented. The new bridge will be approximately 44
feet loner than existing bridge, thereby restoring a greater area of the floodplain in the vicinity
of the crossing to its original grade. The bridge will be replaced in the existing location with no
bents in the creek, thereby resultin ig_n no permanent impacts to surface waters.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the .aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Page 6 of 9

Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http:!/h2o. enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strm~ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation is proposed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at h~://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
Page 7 of 9

It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone I .
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Cleazly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-dischazge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
Page 8 of 9

XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
ti~-3v- ~o ~
Applicant/
Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: NCDOT TIP# B-4244, Replacement of Bridge No. 140 over an unnamed
tributary to Gabriel's Creek on SR 2215 (Henley-Country Road)
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
State:NC County/parish borough: Randolph City: Asheboro
Center coordinates ~f site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 35.7393° 1~, Long. 79.7630° W.
Universal Transverse Mercator: Zone 17 N
Name of nearest waterbody: Gabriel's Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: Deep River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): Cape Fear 03030003
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s): USACE has not scheduled site visit; NCDOT consultant field evaluation: 6/2/2004, JD request letter
sent by consultant 8/27/2004
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Arena "navigable waters of the U.S" within 12ivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required]
Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
1. Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t
^ TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
[~ Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 150 linear feet: ] 0-20 width (ft) and/or acres.
Wetlands: 0.00 acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: )lie~tl #-y OIiIWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable) 3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section ltl below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
~ Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.I.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
ldentify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for sll wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pidt List
Drainage area: PIC)t List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through Pkk List tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Picli;Liu river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pkk L,mt river miles from RPW.
Project waters are I?lr#t IJst aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pk# L1At aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
`Note that the Instnrctional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the and
West.
5 Flow mute can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all tnat annlvl:
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/rifllelpool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: pick List
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: pick List
Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year. Piek [ast
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: pick List.. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick Lift. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Q High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum;
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings;
^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
~A naturnl or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent tonon-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: Pick Li><t. Explain:
Surface flow is: Pick List
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain:
(d) ProximitylRelationshipl to TNW
Project wetlands are Litt river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pkk Liat aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: P'tek Liat.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pk3c Litt floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown,. oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: P'~drL~t
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that bas no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY):
1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
[] TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: aaes.
2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: The unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek is a second order stream that exhibits the geomorphological,
hydrological, and biological characteristics typical of a perennial stream.
Q Tributaries of TNW where Mbutaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check ail that apply):
Tributary waters: 150 linear feet 10-20 width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters: Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek.
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
© Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
^ Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters 9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
[ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
[f Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-fi), or
Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WH[CH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):lo
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
.: Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
Other factors. Explain:
RSee Footnote # 3.
v To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Menrorandunr Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
~] Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
® Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl7:
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
[~ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
^ Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply):
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Q Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicandconsultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
Corps navigable waters' study:
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
[,~ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
[~ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/FIRM maps:
Q 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
^' Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Applicable/supporting case law:
Applicable/supportingscIentific literature:
[] Other informafion (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD:

CC.A ~_ ~..~ teams
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
May 2, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
~,~~rnb
RECEi~/~ED
MAY 4 ~~
tOFI~
~~flal An~o
This letter is in response to your letter of Apri130, 2007 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over an unnamed
tributary to Gabriel's Creek in Randolph County (TIP No. B-4244) may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
In addition, NCDOT has determined that the project will have no effect on the federally
endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to information provided, plant surveys were conducted at the project site on August
18, 2004 and September 28, 2006. During the 2006 survey, one clump of approximately 15
stems of Schweinitz's sunflower was observed within the project area. Subsequently, the project
was redesigned to avoid the sunflowers. The sunflowers are now approximately 20 feet outside
the construction area. Due to the proximity of the sunflowers, NCDOT has agreed to implement
the following conservation measures:
• Prior to let, a protective fence made of highly visible polyvinyl fencing material will be
installed 2 feet outside the boundary of the clump of Schweinitz's sunflowers.
• Lespedeza and tall fescue will not be included in the seed mix used for erosion control in the
project azea (hazd fescue and Kentucky bluegrass will be included in the seed mix).
Based on the information provided and on the commitment to implement the two conservation
measures listed above, the Service concurs with your determination that the project may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect the Schweinitz's sunflower. Also, based on the lack of
habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the project will have no effect on the
Cape Fear shiner.

We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete Benj ~ in
Field Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Polly Lespinasse, NCDWQ, Mooresville, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
David Hams, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

220 0~ ~'l , ~ 22o i . ( / / 1
~Z :,~ ~ ~ ' =BEGIN ~J~ i
~~s_,
~~ ~,~_',~,~ ~ i~ JS ~PROJEC ~' ;~ ,J ~~ rr
_ ~ l _ ~ END ~_,.
~ ` ~ 2z1ai- 2 ~ r;! PROJECT ' _ ~" f
Qa,
~o,
a~~
-~ -- ~ ~_i i ' 213 `
~" 1
`; , _
~ /~1--
_^'1 d l 1 2217 ~~'
I ~~---~
.1 t ' ~ ~ 2183 2,~1
~~~~' / 2
j ; -S ~1`~-- J , 1
~~ ~ (,t ~.1~~ ,-~ 234'5 ~
1 G ~ 1 ~ ~' ~/ h. ~ ~l
ASHE~O • I
42 1 E ~ .- ~'
\_, ) ~ 1 1 I, y~
~__ ~ ens " .~ -~ ~ ~I
' 220
220 ~ 7~ ~ ~ _ ~; `\_
~~~~~~~~
~~~
~~~~ i
SHEET 1 OF 4 9 / 7 / 07
~J' 1
1 ~, ~-1 ~'
o-' o-/ Pugh
22
21 - ea -~ 1
~~" ~ ...~
'49 ` ~ 1
~ ' • ~l ~
1 _.'L~ `\
~' ~: 9'J~
.~ ~ `.` ~
' 2604 ~ ~~
'` I_ ~ ~~
Y ~
t ~~ ~~ 2T_
n ~= '
NCB®°7C
DIVISION OF ffiGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT:3358711 (B-~2~~f)
BRIDGE UO OVBR
GABRIEL~S CREEg
ON SR 2215
N~R7C]FI CAl~~]LINA

--bJLBr~ WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES PERMANENT
-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
~~ TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
-- ~-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--NG-- NATURAL GROUND
- -P~- - PROPERTY LINE
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
DENOTES PERMANENT
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER IMPACT
* * * * DENOTES MECHANIZED .
** ** * * * CLEARING
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
. . _ .. .. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE ~ GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
-EAB-• EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-• E PLANT BOUNDAR ~
--- ~ ------ WATER SURFACE
X XXX X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
N~~® JL
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT:3358711 (B-~2~~)
BRIDGB UO OVER
GABRIEL'S CRBBg
ON SR 2Y15
SHEET R OF $
s~
oa
~m
.<
~~
9/7/07

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
N I A T URFA E W ER IMPACT

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 -L- 18+10 (LT/RT) Temp. Rock Access -- --- --- -- --- -- < 0.01 -- 34 ---

TOTALS: < 0.01 34
I~
i-
Revised 3/77/05

IDlE7CAtI]Cs ®]F 7C]El~l[~®]E$AL~$~ I$®~~
A~~~]E~~ ]F®~ ]~I$I~~IE ~$]E~®~~]~ i
12" CLASS "A" STONE
~ I
RIVER BED
EXISTING PIER
TO BE REMOVED
CLASS "I" RIP RAP
VOLUME AND AREA OF TEMPORARY FILL
(CLASS "I" RIP RAP) BELOW NWS
AREA = 0.007 Ac
VOLUME = 18 CY
0
a
U
d
E
0
E
n
0
E
a°
0
a
b
U
d ~
O
r v
om
GLI
TOP EL = 593.9
~~
~~ ~
~~
~ ~
~~
~~ ~
~~

v
L
N
T
L
i
Q
Q
N
P
OJ
i
a
E
l
a
,a
co
a5
~+
~~
oc
'~
p0u
p L<
N~
\~
o=
\~(
may

See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets ~T
' c~.,. R.,,n,,,R,~Q,,,~ •~* ~,
See Sleet 1-B Far Canventloral S mils ~~~~~, ®~ N®~
~~ ~~~®~~N~
• -
~, i ~ roc / ~ ~ '~ ~ I 1
r~ y
~y ~7 ~[]~T
{'~~[g~y •~• 8 -4244 1
; ,
~`J- vc - I ~4~ 1. ~ / ~ /'/
~ ~
,
~~ 6' ~~~®1V ®~ llJIA'L7[ll1L VV' ~ ll
.rte
ra~roxw
~eav+lon
1, -~ )
~ ~ ~.- F RpJEC ~ ~ r \ x l\ j 33587.1.1 BRZ-2215 P.E.
,
-~ ! ~ ~ "1- ~ ;
~
• •; -" ` 33587.2.1 BRZ-2215 R / W d UTIL
E
"
,
~ ~'
'
~
X11( s / PROJECT • :
~' ~ ~ 33587.3.1 BRZ-2215 CONSTR.
~
~
,
~
~ 1
T
T
1, I
;
L~ J
\ f
/
/
~ 1
~-,
/ ~
_
,
\
,1 ~
~
^~
"~`
" ~
~
- ~ - ` '
~ I
`
'4 ~ ~ /
r ,
i
~ LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.140 OVER GABRIEL'S CREEK ON SR 2215
~
, zt
r
w
/ '~ ~,

r'-y 1
~
,`~ ' `~~~~ ~ '
. TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGFy PAVING, f~ STRUCTURE
~-- rur
t-~ ~ / 2r 5 r
uo
W
I N / -- 1
~ ~ / ~~ ~ ~
`
f
1
/ ^I
I
~ J
2er5
~
sac
) - .~
0

~ 0
VICINITY MAP a
•-"--*--+-+ DENOTES OFF-SITE DETOUR
END T1P PROTECT B-4244 ~

~ STA.23+20.00 ~c
~~
BEGIN TIP PROJECT 8-4244
-L- STA. 1S+00.00
~f
c
~
END BRIDGE
-
~
N
~
-L- STA 18+50.00
TO NORTH ASHEBORO 9
~ I ~ `~~^
\\~h j ~ couN7Rr ROAD TO US 64 ~
I1I' I ~
I
~~
I
~ BEGIN BRIDGE 3
I
I~ ~ -L- STA 17+70.00 PRELIMINARY PLANS

~ ~ ~, ~,~, ~,,,,,,,~N
,r
II~y
NCB®~°
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT:33587.11 (B-ARM)
* DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR VERTICAL CURVE BRIDGE 1~OOVER
K FACTOR, VERTICAL SSD, BRIDGE WIDTH AND MAX. GRADE. GABRIEL'SCREEH
ON SR EY1S

~ NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY ROUSER P.E.
ENG
G COORDINATION
O
W
S
~
.
• R
AD
AY DE
I
N -
INEERIN SHEET 5 OF 7 9/10/07

GRAPHIC SCALES
DESIGN DATA
PROJECT LENGTfI P/rpaas In fh ~1ce dr
IaKO h ASSOCIATES, P.C. HypIQAIJyI~ gKGp~g DIVISIOA' OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
50 0 50 100 ADT ¢007)= 4,320 LENGTH ROAD WAY I7P P&0J6CT B-11N = 0.110 Ml. , +oC~sa~n~axE~~iceasa
19191 ~ Fro
p
ADT (2027)= 7
910 ~~ ~~~~ T~ PROJBCT &1241 = A0/5 M/. yK yy~D ~ ,
~
PLANS ,
DHV = 12 % 7'OIAL L6NGiH OF 17P PRO~cr 8.4244 = alss AIL
MICHAEL A. YOUNG, PE
rs
50 50 1 o D = ~ % RIG9T OF WAY DATE: raul~r s+~
SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 ~~jA ~ `
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) T = 3 % *
' ""
O
10 10 20 `V = 60 MPH LE11WG ~Tg; BRIAN A. WILES, PE
`~ °~"
r , JULY 15, 2008
~=1% + DUALS=2%)
`/ PROFILE ERTICAL ~8
PS
SlG~1L17U16 S7A18 ffi(a9NAY DB81GV BNGG~1

N
0
z
ti
W
oN
.1 O
~~ W
W~
O
W
~~
o~ ~
U ~
O
2i W
~~ W
~ W
~~
¢a ~
~~
~ii~
N Mi
m
a
r
a
P
N
a
m
Ixer t, scael
sw.
Nh D IFt.
Ilmt. d• LS Ft.
F~ W 5 FT.
ODE ~ 151 C.Y.
Typ~suof Llner=. Gave 'B'Rp-R.M..
Q

u
~~ -L-
s
Pl SIo 15'l~4?J4
1 - _~,. v - Qsgl58rv~
D ~ D - a~3ss
Nh D• IFt. (- ~~
b= S Ft.00N
DDE - u cr.
~ -
-
Rtarw a. srA 16+DD ro Su 17+ee U
FADM k SiA 17+II TO STA M+17 ID -
.

S~TpI ~ \ ~`,
I
,A \ \C
~ v.
ta'aw , ~ C
~~.:
Wn. D•IFt. ~ ~\;
Mml rk L5 Ft. ~
tyw of Lime PSIY ~ 11
FADM •4 STA 10+00 TO STA 11+10 U _ ~- ~EIR
r-
-~.,-I---------

1s' aP -
r~
ROD AIA
--. ___ __ _ .., ...... .......~. ~ - _ e
-- __ --
INV 63SI/" ~~ NV a 63l%' ~ '
~ ~ -~ EriSiN6 M ~ ... yi v' v. ~~~~
,~ ~~~ ~ ,.LL16 CDRAVE1i n ~ nTONY
~~ 1 , '~~.
t ~n1
... ;;> I ` ~` ~L- S7A 6+21.69 ~ D
' 4173 RIGHT ,i SONFLOWERS ,r- =~ _ _ ~ R
\~~ ., ,~ t~EV 63184 ~::: ~ ~ ..r! ~ ,~,"..._"_ ---
. z ~ ~ y ~.."~~ ~~/~ } ~ :'y~ ~`~ r ~ BEGIN APPROACH
~ ~; 'l l '{ ~'S ~ 1 ~
' Q s1~ r?!; EIIB PoTTS BEgN
~ , ~ ~~\, f' -i f
~.i
"t/ i
loo 0
50 100
SCALE:I"= 100' HORIZ.
l~IL~N ~IIEW
TIE I

I
I
I
I>,
5 I
I
I ~, I
I EIR
~t { :i

s I ~ ~ ~' 1~~.4 ~- ~ I~~JrT
i It
?i ~
'~? c ~r ,
'~~+J
"~
<
o
DOLPT -
1 caumr
RAt
+~k
',, ~ k
a ~
' ~ ~~
i I ~~

I '
`
~.1 I
~' , it

"~ I ~.
I ill
~` DRCH
~ LATERAL N
r. sEE wrcx DEru e
`.
-.
'
4
I ~ _ ICLASS
'8'RF RAP, ~
X.~"u5
.~' LLATERAL N DITCH
•
~'' ~~ '
`~
~ SEE DRCH DETAI. B
' ~~ '~ ` ~. ~o<
4B N/ELBOWS aASS IRIP RAP
,
qOp ,gyp LUG LP TO ELEV. 600
,1+~ CONNECTORS ~?
doss B I~1 RAP
EST 2 TON
'•ESi T SYFF
~f~l
OPOSED BRIDGE
A llf7
~'Y

RO & ASSOCIATES, P.C. "°~T " "° ~`
a Coneullin~ Ea=ineere 8-4244 4
yu eoeua omen m eusaa,xamw
~ ~~ AW sHffr No.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDrAUIIC

{- BiG01®t D4GI1J®t
GLI
PI SM 22i0YJ0
~ - O'A7'!45'fLTJ
D + O'1P'll3' PRELIMIN RY PLANE
-5959' oo nar on connxurnau

R - PKilllf,
~
~y
~~
~
~
~~
'c'PQ
$ END PROJECT 8-4244
-~ POT STA 23+20.00
TEMPORARY ROCK ACCESS
TO ELEV. 593.9
o
Dalw
TEMPORARY IMPACT IN '~- ~ ~+3110
SURFACE WATER
~_ ~ ti+T151
ENO PRQ~RSED BRIDGE
- q sPEC. alr Drta
w/PSRµ SEE DRCH

END APPROACH SLAB DETA1. D
5ara~eR
~L- SlA 8+7 Lr A Rr
uTERU v' orrvH
wiaASS a' RP RAP
sEE DITCH DETAIL c
c ~--- _-~
i
~_ ~ C
- ~ r~L - ' ~
_.. $ 4018' 1
~ .; ~s --
_.; a i;
-; r..~ ~ ~
F E.~- ~ I ,C EI x '1
_,
~ ~ EI i ~ ,;..., EIP , ....,
1 ! ,.
~~ 1 1 ~ T~ TO I I ~._
~, y II EX.DITGI I1
~ ~ , t 4 , ~=' I I
~ r y, ,c tl ~ -BL- 9TA 13+78.99 ~ I • i" DONALD SNENLEY
, ~ 75.18' RIGHT AE7A1ry I I ';
ELEY = 6D7.35' ~' CONL~ I i ~ `~~-
^Z ~. ~ I TE TO EX. DRCH
a.. L, _ --
.iI~A _ a I ,'.
° rr .r ~ ~ it i
L' I' ! - . + I BEALN L LAwSdI ..
I~ 4 Y w I
w ~ ~-~ )I ,~~ I I
4 ~I ~ I I
i I :!
I ~ EIP
I ~
J
I
~~ N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PR07ECT:33587,1.1 (B-~Yl~)
LEGEND BRIDGE 1~0 OVER
GABRIEL'S CREEg
® DENOTES TEMPORARY ON SR 2215
IMPACTS IN SURFACE WATER
SHEET 6 OF 7 !

REVISIONS
1. K)-236 REVISED BEGINN/NG OF PROJECT TO AV010 SUNFLOWERS.
2 11-13-06 PROPERTY AVNER CHANGE ON PARCEL 2
44_hyd_psh_04.dg 3.3 /9-07 LENGTHENED END OF PROJECT PER DN/SION REQUEST TO REMOVE ROCK CUT.

O
O t ~ ~
1 s \I 1
~ ~ 5'~ ilk ~ ' .. I
I I„
f ~"I I l u
'I I / \ ~'
I I {,= I ~' 11 `
II I I I' `' ~;~` /
O i I I > a, t !~_
O
O I 1 i ' - 1 .- ~,
Z7 I 1. ~ f~
3...
_ 1 ,
O n r r rrtt .. ~' ......
;awF~ ~ ~ -~~ ~.
O - ~ ~ ~- _. _ , ,,
_~~ y , L.
... , ~ r~
m
~ u.. ~ <wy~ /\ ..
~ :; ~~r +. F.. J~ I
Lo --IN ~~
~~ ~ ~``
.. ~~~\ yRX.~ ~ tII ~~
/
~~ r
,k ~ ,
'~ __ ~' ,
~ ~ ,~
~ '~ i r , ~
~I } ,. ~, .r. 1> j(yy ~ 4.,..
r I I~ ~.> > tsl. ~ ~,
It` Oi, `~{`-~ \ ~l~ lit/~ ~r~....u. ~,'' ~.
\+/ l is ~ }I~ I ti~ .~~ s II , ~ ~,,
F> ~ r .
I~\ 4h. .i ., ` ...
i~ I~ < i I r' ~/ ~~ ~'T j ~
`:;
i it r/f ~~,.i> .rlf ~1
jr its. _
i,
~~ ~INfA ~/ ;
~ .E, O ,I~-pp~ao, o~=~! t
3N3553tl7Ntld;`V Z~=~~~ ~~ .
r"~ .,~
~ "'~ ~~ ,
~...~~

._
,_..
~~~
~' I .
,
,
,
,.:~a.LON ~rrj
11**
11
P~
4
~ I ~ x
+~
~ \'

2„ i,
5~
0
~
~~
~. ;
j`, ,'

_ m 'i
;
~
~ r i
i ~ I
_ 1.
~ /~ ~ -'Y

~-- ~.
--~ ~ ~ ° ` ,-, ~= I ~~ ~ 1~ '~ I
'
`__ { / .
~~.
r -~ ~

~^"' m :A 1f/ °°n;
al
*
d
.
C O [, W
`
~z ..
1~ ~ _ ~ ~ I '~I~mPb
~D .
\Y 1~ / /: ..
n 11 ~~ ~~Al ~ ~I ~~~
\
~ 1~
\~! ..g~ / /re
j
~ _
r
~
'
-
m / i
~ I
- ~ Cr
~
~~

,;.. _
t
~ ~" I
~
~~
'
'
~
I
x ~
~.
~ ~•
\

G1 ~ ~, Y I ~. F;,
~
~ ra ~ ro " 4
~ ~ `' , `•'' i ' i\
c I
~~0 ~ Ox ®
~ \~ ~~ - ~" I Ili'
I

x I~ ~ r
~; /
'°'~
~! iD ~ y
y , 1 r ~
~~
,~
1
r ~;
.
I I
. . , `,
, I •~ i .
r \ ~r: ) ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ , /~ r/ l~ Ib
~ (i ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ [ r ~
' ~~~ ~ ~ / ~ r ... ~ .C~I % ~ C 9 ~ >
i ~ o
~, ~ ~/ r ~ / / ~ ~ }
t r
r~~t'~~ ~' ~ r ~ / / 1 a ~
E~ ~ ~ , v~ ~ ,`' ` ~, ~ ~~, ~ ~ /.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4
ICI ~:.`~~ ,., ~ , r ~ g {q4
+ ~,
.,.~~ 1 ~ - . -~~ ~' / ~ / / / ~~1 ,,
v ~ ;/ I ~i ~ ~~v
1:'
~ !; ~ ~ ' / ~
4I / I l ~ I ~,~ ! ~ r
j/~ ,, 7 ` ,' 'i t ~~ `~ ~ >r ti's I 4
( u.
r
"' ~ !, \ ,x \ ~'' ~ 3
~ / ,\ ~ w0Z
~o~` , <:1
~ t , ~ ~O
.- r
,.
};' m a ~..
-•
~. m
+ r rr~
;'
~ ...~~ :.__ ~"'`: ',.: ... 1.'i i~ .: 'i/4{-rr -cam
,C , rA .. - .. ~. r~ f;:....' ',.cam' ~~
~„
v.
w I .Y ~ _.---~'
..~ ..-
-.,rr,b^ ~~~ .-.z _ ~-... fJ
.-r y~-
. ~ .N 1 '
t J~~. .~
J'
1 ' f fi it _ Mar ~c ad ~ ~ ' '7. ~ ~'^"~ 3_~~ _----~ ~-
/
- ., II/d Ak.A.~~3rtd r~ / --
. _.
'I
¢ ' ~ _~~~ _ .... Jac ,. ~.,~'
•~! ',r ~~ SINN ~. ,.t ..L
~~ ~ ~ ~
f ~~
y. -..~ r.
.~`" '.~~
. , ... .. .
~...,
.:
~ ,..
'~: -,~`

` V1 --I
~' . __ mz
-
r~in < D
c
z
n
}r ~ ~~ ., ~ ~o c

`" ~ D
'~ ~~~.s
r
~ ~ , O ~
~
~- / i~ '~
~ ~
z-*
~ I
Q U

~ / i
i
I / r
/ r

t ~ F9f
/ r ~ 1. .

\

/ / Q° '.
$ ~
/
r ~
~ ~
~~
/ ~
\
/ \ !; /

1
iI ~l / ! /
/ / ~
~~ '
~ f I i
~
I `Y
t 1
1 1

I ( \ ~.
'
~'
I I \
,
~~ ;
~ I 1 ~~_
/
'
'~
/
, ~ ~ _..
.:I I
\.~
80
r Z
1 O
~ Q
~ t.
D "'
IJ
W
'~-
O N
o~
O
ti9oc
~~~oD~
rrrrr~
qq
~~
~ 0
~
~~ ~ O
0
ry
~% >'~
o

gg
3~~
0
~~C
H
r ~~ ~
o
~
n
a
z •C
~~
~z

REVISIONS
1. b-23-06 REVISED BEGINNING OF PROJECT TO AVO/D SUNFLOWERS
2 3-19-07 LENGTHENED END Of PROJECT PER DNISfON REQUEST TO REMOVE ROCK CUT.
ggno/2oo7
R:\H draulics\dgn\Parm~ts\84244_hyd_pfl_05.dg

5/!4/99

r
1~

W

r ~ Q?~
A
r
~i

/ a

+
~~
~

E

~ BE DIT
p. +
INV. 98.00

~~
~~
C
~

' r rr r
l
v
'17 ~ ~
70 ~ s~
~ BEGN! DITC
STA. 7+~ I T ~~ BE P D
Z END DITCH EL
~ A +
W
m
-
END
P
0f3E

y
c m TA. I
v. s +OS
.so
EL
1'17 D 0 ST
INV. I8+ I
93.5 RT ~ O
mD

~ ~
sr
. I
o LT
EL r
m
.o
0 _
m ~ ~
~ x .
cn
~ ~
~ ~
rr ~
r w
~
z ~
n
~ ~.
N = A.2 00 L
O ~~

~ \
~
A ~~
~~ E ~

\
A EL
I ~ ~ r
N ~ fL
I
~ , ~ ~ I
\ 1
~ ~ Lv o, a~
S . 21+ 0 LT `
~ ~

N ;o
yi ~
~
N im
N N
f/1;
c ~
END
DITCH ~
nsp ~~ ~ CCC~~
,Q~~ INV. 28.35 (11
~1
m~ ~
~~~
~
W m
~ _
~Q Q
~
~~~~~ "~
~~ O
~ ~ m
~
~~
rn ~~~~ ~~I
11 ~
`! I
~ ~ C
~'
x r r rrrrrrrrr C
V
~
~ ro o ~~ii
~ ~ 2j~~$~'~~'~ ~
~
~ ~ c ~ ~
~~ ~ zo ~.,~ y
~ i n
I b
s~
~ ~
~
o
~ ~y ~y ~y ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~
~ V
H (2J C ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~"~
~ ~ ~ ~
y ~ ~'"
£~
y
r ~
0
V

0
r
m
T
D
tr
P
P
N(;
Qa
m
,v.
as
Lt
ac
i~
T~
tidy
o3u
o Qa
N O
~~d
O
~Cc
O1~Y
See Shelf 1-A For Index of Sheets ~*

See Sheet 1-B For Conventional S mbols ~~~~~ ®~ ~T®~~~ ~~~®~~~T~ R,>: R,n ,~„R.~,r:„ ~
~;,

' ,~ , . . -
izo l ~ 'im ~ i i ~ i' l 1, ~ =t
,~~ ~ ~ • / LV 1~

$II
~H V $~~®d \ ®~ ~~ V• ~ / Y ~ Il V
.C.

SIR
8-4244 1

R~llbL1Y 04gVIW
1sa ,~ ~ h !P a~ _ ~`~ 1
~
~ 33587.1.1 BRZ-2215 P,E.
~~ ~ r j
-, ' : Np --,
` 33567.2.1 BRZ-2215 R / W & UTIL
zz1e~ ~
~ / PROJECT • : ~~ ~-i
i J ,1 ~ 33587.3.1 8RZ-22151 CONSTR.
N •
. ~ . r ~ . <; . -. X63 . 1{~~ _ - ~ ~ ,~.~f- ~~ RA11 tDOLPH C~ UKT'Y
l •L ~ 1,
~
~
V'-
~
/
'T1 z~n r ,, ~ ,
1 ; ~ 2183 2, r 1'
?Z4[
s5
a .. `l
.
;
x
i!
`
, -
~ , ~
ti
~y
/
~ ` LOCATION: BRIDGE N0. I40 OVER GABRIEL'S CREEK ON SR 22I5
'`
, 2811
.I `' ~~ • ^ - ~J . ~
l j
r•-y~.
~ ~ 1
~
~
I
~
-~
~ ~
~,
.
y~ ~~, ~,~ .,~,
~
`
'~
~ TYPE OF WORK GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, f~ STRUC TURE
~
tto ~G,
~
~~ /
`J ~/
- i 0.
'
1
I
2665
,/
.t
ts,
J
~~
0 0
VICINITY MAP a
~
--~---~--~-+ DENOTES OFF-SITE DETOUR
END TIP PRO 'CT 8-4244 ~

STA. Z3+20.00 ~c
C~,1
'~O
`, BEGIN TIP PROTECT 8-4244
~1 ~ STA.15+00.00
~s
o
END BRIDGE
~~
N
-L- STA 16+50.00
TO NORTH ASHEBORO ~ ~
~ zus
NE.NLEY COUNTRY ROAD y TO US 64
__~
a ~~
a
3~a
BEGIN BRIDGE
~
N
-L- STA 17+70.00
{
p
y~~

* DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR VERTICAL CURVE
K FACTOR, VERTICAL SSD, BRIDGE WIDTH AND MAX. GRADE.

NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY ROUSER, P.E. PRELIMINARY PLANS
~„~.~,,,~,~,~,,,,,~,,,N
„•• ROADWAY DESIGN -ENGINEERING COORDINATION
V GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PRO CT LENGTH
IE
P•C
IKO &~A3SOCIATES, IIYDRAULtcs ENG111~ER D717SIOx OF [JTGHR'AYS
STATR OF NOR11Y CAROLINA
50 0 50 100 ADT (2007)= 4,320 LENGTH ROADW AY ITP PROJECT R-4144 = pllp ML a ioCo a~'wm~w~~~enee aws

ADT (2027)= 7
970
LENGTH STRUCTURES TIP PROJECT 8-4144 = p,pl5 MI.
:ees srAamuD sracrFrc+rroxs 191 I
PL4NS ,
DHV = 12 % TOTAL LENGTH OF T7P PROJECT B-4114 = A.155 ML
MICHAEL A. YOUNG, PE
P~
50 50 loo D = 60 % J21GIT1' OF WAY DATE: PAOJacr ~vr~slz
ROAD
IGx
W
SEPTEMBER 15
2006 ~
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) T = 3 % . E r
O
l0 0 l0 20 'V = 60 MPH
LETTJNG DATE:
BRIAN A. WILES, PE
PRD/6Cf DESA2Y arrcD~a
V (1TST=1% + DUALS=2%) JULY 15, 2008

PROFILE (VERTICAL) PIs

SIGNA7VRP: P8

SiA7E HIGHWAY D&VGN 6YfdNH6R

NOte.' NOt t0 SCQ12
sum = s ~ u~ E, ,;,,,g S1'A~°E ~F NOIdT~I CAR~~.INA
Y9IVISI~N OF YIdG~-IW,~y~
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES A11~ PROPERTY.•
Sfate Line
~_~
County Line
Township line
Cit
Line
y
Reservation Line - . - . _
Pro
erl
Une
p
y
Existng Iron Pin
Properly Comer .~K
Properly Monument p
Parcel/Sequence Number
Existing Fence Une -x-x--x_
Proposed Woven Wire Fence --~-
Pro
osed Chain Unk Fence
p ~-
Proposed Barbed Wire Fence -g--
Existing Wetland Boundary ----..____
Pro
osed Welland Bo
d
p
un
ary
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary -
Existing Endangered PIaM Boundary -ar-~
BUILDINGS AAD OTHER CULTURE.•
Gas Pump Vent or lYG Tank Cap p
Sign 0

Well
Small Mine ~,
Foundation O
Aron Outline ~~
Cemetery
Building ~1]
S
h
l L
c
oo _
h
Ch
urc C~
Dam
HYDROLOGY
Stroam or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir I-----~
`----J
Jurisdictional Stream
-a- -
BuHer Zone 1 _~ r
Buffer Zone 2 _~ Z-
Flow Artow
Disappearing Stream ,
Spring ~~
Swamp Marsh ~
Proposed lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
RAILROADS.•
Standard Gauge
RR Signal Milepost
0
Switch ~A
RR Abandoned "701
RR Dismantled
RIGHT OF WAY
Baseline Control Point 0
Existing Right of Way Marker --~ ~
Existing Right of Way Une ----- -
Proposed Right of Way Une ---__
Proposed Right of Way Une with
___
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Concrete or Granite Marker - -~~
Existing Control of Access ~- _ _
-
Proposed Control of Access -~_
Existing Easemonf Une ______
__

Proposed Temporary Canstrucfion Easement-
E --
Proposed iemporory Drainage Easement-
.
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- _~__

Proposed Permanent Ufiliiy Easement _~__
~PUE-~
ROADS AND RELATED FEg~S.
Existing Edge of Pavement---- _ _-_-
Existing Curb

Proposed Slope Stokes Cut ---- _
Proposed Slope Stokes Fill ---- F
Proposed Wheal Chair Romp --~
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Romp -
Exisfing Metal Guardrail
Proposed Guordroil ~i
Existing Cable Guideroil ---~-
Proposed Cable Guideroil------ ~~
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
T'EGETATION
Single Tree 4
Single Shrub
0
Hedge
~~
Woods Une
Orchard D Q 4 Q
Vineyard
rr»rve
EXISTING STRUCTURE'S.•
MAIOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Cuhrert -~_
coxc
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ cac n
MINOR:
Head and End Woll
Pipe Culvert ~_
Footbridge ~~
Drainage Box; Catch Basin, DI or JB ~~,
Pavod Ditch Gutter _____
Storm Sewer Manhole
Stone Sewer
UTII.IT7ES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole ~
Proposed Power Pole 1
Existing Joint Use Pole ~
Proposed Joint Use Pole ~,
Power Manhole

Power Une Tower ~

Power Transformer

l6G Power Cable Hand Hole---- 0
H-Frame Pole
•---.
Recorded U~G Power line---- _,
Desrgnated USG Power Une (S.U.E.') --
--•----
TELEPHONE:
Existing Telephone Pole
Proposed Telephone Pole ----
-0,
Telephone Manhole
6
Telephone Booth ~
Telephone Pedestal m
Telephone Cell Tower ~
USG Telephone Cable Hand Hole
Recorded U~ Telephone Coble T
Designated UIG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.h- - - _
r
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit
Designated U'G Telephone Conduif (S.U.E.'f - -
--n---
Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable ,
Designated USG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.'r - -
WATER:
Wafer Manhole
Water Meter
0
Water Yahre
Water Hydrant ~
Recorded lYG Wafer Une ----_
Designated USG Water Une S.U.E.
Above Ground Water Une ~_
ucrmw
N:
N Satellite Dish
~
TV Pedestal
TV Tower

lLG TV Cable Hond Hole -----
_
Recorded ltG TV Cable ~--
Designated UG TV Cable (S.U.E.') _ _ _ -„_ _ - -
Recorded lVG Fiber Optic Cable --
rPo-
Desrgnated l4G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.'}- --
--TM~---
GAS:
Gas Valve
0
Gas Meter
~
Recorded U~G Gas Une
'
Designated USG Gas Une (S.U.E.'}- - _ _
Above Ground Gos Une ~~ _ u_~
SANfiARY SEWER:
Sa"dory Sewer Manhole ~_.
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout -~
l4G Sanita ~
ry Sewer Une -~_
Above Ground Sanitary Sewer R
Recorded 5S Forced Main Une-___ ~_
Denigrated SS Forced Moin Une (S.U.E.') - _ _
--~----
MISCELLANEOUS:
Utility Pale
Utiliy Pale with Bose ~
Util' L
dy orated Object ~
Utility TrafTic Signal Box ~
Utility Unknown U~G Une
~--

U~G Tank; Water, Gas
Oil ~_
,
~__
AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil - 0
~_
IJ~G Test Hole (S.U.E.')
Abandoned According to Utility Records ~
-
End of Information AATUR
E.0.1.

d
z ~ ~
_~ ,
i
~ 3.bS,£.z I I ~i ~~, /
~ ~ .90'g£Z N ~ rl I ~ c;
I I ~4 yy
C z I ~ I of ~ ~ ti ~g96AAE
Z r y i C" A
h = 5 O 713LL
~~~~~ a~ ~ ° oo~
~ m ~~ a$ N N I I I r~~. ~~c /
N } /
N P f t
I
f ~r:~ ~ ~ ~
U ~ f" ~ N ~ . ,, / ~ C
~ ~ OL H ~ ~ ry°-1
W ~ ~ d. O W ~ W Li i3 a fS F ~S
a
U Z J 1 ~ ~ ~ 5 .S ¢ ., '2'99+ ti~:r:a
ep W I ¢ ,:.ar c3.tvnt it .rr, sdd~ia v~_ _ __- - ~ 3.£I,££.OSN
C/1 I~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- __~-- ---M:£I.~ZZSS - - _... W ,5£'09
~' ~ ~ ~o I U W ~ .
~ N O
C% f'. P
°U~ ~ r
1 ~~ ~ S ~ I f!\.„
R /
~,
ppbb I ~ z '" m l~ ~~ r''
of i 1 ~ `1 IOC i4i ~ i rM-' I {{) yt ~ Li' (~ •
~QO~1^` ~~ G5 ~ MAO I 'l~ .~) `~
~tp 1i1; ..n
~~ M t ~~~ ~ ~~ mNm ~~ ~ ~ ~
~Jg w vi> W
1
~ ~~ ~ 3.£S.b6.09N '~~.~
s£b, s ,.
~ _, ttSi N ~ ~ N r ~ G~Z. \ q~~L
'- ~yi .q1'6 m N v v° w ~9~ 3
~' T~ + ~
P P W ~ P
~ ~: v ~ 11 O~ v
v ~ 1"~f
GP~ ~ Z } }y 1
im
~ '
~ ~ ~ r~
e ~
~ ~
W~
y
~R ~
~
~r^~F~

o~T ~a nni
s+ N ~
"rte Ems- ~~~nN=;......... _, -"~
...~ _aaW'. a
{~ ~w / F: ~ ¢ acv. rv
J ~yJ ~ i r`/ w .~-~--~~ 547ry4'S5'W
.. ,r i~ <~
bb~ r~', r c ~:~
~Qo~~~ tf ` ~j ~ ~
O `~~' ~`}
z ~ M ~ t. rv,
~Z, ~... ~- /r.ti
I , a~ ~m a~
~ ~E G~ tTS ~3 ~ ~ ~
~~ ~Q ~ ~ ~$
J ^~ O chi
~` U FF ~ t ~~ CJ
is YIVI ~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ s
p ~~
~ _
292.95'_
b~~ n N46'39'9'E

'~~
~~ s,
I
8 Ja
'' ~ ~
u (n
~
Y r~ '~ rr j ` s..~ rr ~~ ~ F
~ d.~
~~ ~3 ~ ~j
~r ~ %~x
~
a ~
i i~
s'' 1 ~,
`-,..
I;
:
/
a ,
~
iS raoc~s °E
' +'"~°~~~"O
F ~ ~Q 7•C
~ ~ ,
FFF pp /
I s O t I ~ ----e ~ t 4 t --.
d ,y ~ ~ ~ j/~ ~ s ~ ~r
F
R I / I tS
a ~ K j ~^ ~ I ~~ I ~/ I ~5
"oP I .b l Z / ~ I I
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 5~ I ~ Y ~~ ~$ I ~'
' ~ t ~SZ+.t 1 ~~ ffi~ ~ t Y'
t
D ~ ~„~
I ra
5~ ~ ~ w rv ~
.<< sr i
~ I I
I ~ ~ ~;
4;3
+xm G'.1 X L'Y
M'~VN
(~ I I Y Y
~> _ __
.V I I ~ ~~' ~~~ ^~\~ 540''13B~
x'111 I I .' - ~ ~' ~,
_-
..
_._..._...__...._ caz ~i.
r~rrn~ri~r ._--
I --'
_.._
...... _
x~ ~"I
i
I~ , ~? I ~
rhl - i
~ e+
I"r' I 4.r _. ~ ~~ I
r i~ I ~ ~ ~ ~
F I ( ~ W~ <a 1 1~ ~ 1
1 / ~
1/~ XOOH 3AOM3!/ O1 153/103!! NOVSINO l13d 1~3/'ONd d0 ON3 03N3H.lJ~W31 LO-6hF '£
a 73aNYd NO 391W1~J !/3NM0 A12/3dglAd 90-£I-N a
'S7/3A07dNRS 0/OiM Ol 103/+OHd d0 :AV/NN/938 03S/IL311 90•-£3-01
SNOISW3L
F
}
a L
s
u6p•b0-ysd-fiptl-bb
g ~i
~~
>_

. .
~~

North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROJECT ENVIl20NMENTAL CONSULTATION FORM
I.D. No. B-4244
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
a. Consultation Phase:
b. Project Description
c. State Project:
Federal Project:
d. Document Type:
II. CONCLUSIONS
v ~,n~T
~:'~
~s do ~~j~ ~2~ '.;~'
.,~,si~
Ri ht of Wa O ® V
g Y
Replacement of Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over an
Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek, Randolph County
33587.1.1
BRZ-2215(1)
Categorical Exclusion July 11, 2005
Date
The above environmental document has been reevaluated as required by 23 CFR 771. It was
determined that the current proposed action is essentially the same as the original proposed
action. Proposed changes, if any, are noted below in Section III. It has been determined that
anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts were accurately described in the above
referenced document(s) unless noted otherwise herein. Therefore, the original Administration
Action remains valid.
III. CHANGES IN PROPOSED ACTION AND ENVIItONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
DESIGN PLANS
The design plans have been reviewed in respect to the preferred alternative in the Categorical
Exclusion (CE). The design plans have not been revised since the CE was finalized.
WATER RESOURCES
The project study area is located within the Cape Fear River Basin subbasin 03-06-09, hydrologic
unit 03030003. The project study area contains two unnamed tributaries (UT) to Gabriel's
Creek, UT1 and UT2. Water resource classifications have not changed since the CE was
prepared. The unnamed tributaries receive the same classification as the receiving stream,
Gabriel's Creek, Class "C." Class "C" waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
protection, agriculture, and secondary recreations. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating,
and other uses not involving human body contact with waters on an organized for frequent basis.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I: undeveloped watersheds or WS II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.0 mile of the project study area. No streams in the project area aze listed on the DWQ 2002 303-
(d) list of impaired waters.
8-4244 Right of Way Consultation
July S, 2006
Page 1 of 3

PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and .animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1979. As of March 8, 2006, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) lists 2 protected species for Randolph County (Table 1).
Table 1. Federally protected species in Randolph County
Scientific
Name Com~ari Name Federal,
S~t~~ ~
Biplogical`Concl't~sion ~~~ Habitat
Notropis Cape Fear Shiner E No effect No
mekistocholas
Helianthus Schweinitz's E May affect, not likely to Yes
schweinitzii Sunflower adversely affect
-endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range
The species listed and the associated biological conclusions are provided in the referenced CE
document. A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for the Cape Fear Shiner. An
evaluation of potential habitat within the project area for the Cape Feaz Shiner was performed by
NCDOT biologists on October 14, 2004. There is no potential habitat for the Cape Fear shiner
within the project area. The North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicate
that there aze no known populations of the Cape Fear Shiner within one mile of the project area.
The biological conclusion of "No Effect" remains valid and no further surveys aze required.
A Biological Conclusion of "No effect" was issued for Schweinitz's sunflower. There is potential
habitat within the project study azea along roadside shoulders, utility corridors, and forest edges.
The most recent survey was completed on August 18, 2004 by EcoScience biologists. No
specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were within the project area. However, the NCNHP
database documented a population of Schweinitz's sunflower approximately 0.5 miles southeast
of the existing bridge. According to NCNHP botanist, Misty Franklin, specimens were confirmed
at this site as of October 2005. Due to the presence of this species within one mile of the project
study area, the biological conclusion will change to "May affect, not likely to adversely affect."
NCDOT will seek concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional surveys will
be required in 2006 during the appropriate survey window (late August-October).
TV. LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
D.O.T. will implement all practical measures and procedures to minimize and avoid
environmental impacts.
See attached "Green Sheet".
V. COORDINATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch personnel have discussed current
project proposals with others as follows:
B-4244 Right of Way Consultation
July 5, 2006
Page 2 of 3

Design Engineer: Malcolm Watson May 7, 2006
Date
FHWA Engineer:
Felix Davila
July 5, 2006
Date
Permits Section: Erica McLamb
VI. NCDOT CONCURRENCE
June 14, 2006
Date
Project Planning-Engineer ~' Da ~
i
Project Developme and Environmental Analysis Branch Date
Manager
B-4244 Right of Way Consultation
July 5, 2006
Page 3 of 3

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Randolph County
SR 2215
Bridge No. 140 over an Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2215(1)
State Project No. WBS 33587.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4244
In addition to the Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, NCDOT'S
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities, General
Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments
have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Proiect Develoument and Environmental Analysis Branch (PD&EA)•
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database documented a population of the
Schweinitz's sunflower approximately 0.5 miles southeast of the existing bridge. The presence of
this species was confirmed by a NCNHP botanist in October 2005. Due to the presence of the
species within one mile of the project study area, the biological conclusion will change to "May
affect, not likely to adversely affect"from "No Effect." NCDOT will seek concurrence from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
An additional survey will be completed in 2006 during the appropriate survey window (late
August to October) to confirm the Schweinitz's sunflower will not be impacted by the project.
Construction Office. Division 8:
Randolph County Emergency Services has requested NCDOT to give 2 -3 weeks notice prior to
the closing of the bridge.
B-4244 Right of Way Consultaion
July 5, 2006
Page 1 of I

`~~~ ??~ S
Rric~~c~ ~o. I~(~ o~~~z- a~~ {,;r~raaa~~c.<i "t'~~~~sitar~° tc> CxaE~:-i~I's {°rc;ek
~c~f~ral-{ti~:~ l~rc,:je;ct '~~. G ;R~-?°' ~ ~~ l }
~tstt~ F'rc~j~;ct i`4c7. '4~'C~~ >:~~~.1.1

1:.~.~. UFP~~~~: I'1V(~T' C~)~= TR.~"~TS~'C)K"I':ATIC)'
(AP,I~I~~I~r~I.~ I-1It~;;}I~;l't~~r" i'~:I7'l,~Iti1:S"~F~R'~'t"IC)
~1.~I)
'.~i.C". ~~P,~,.~' S"M~;~1"I" C~' .T"Kr'1?4xSi'C~I2Tx~`I-ICJ`
~ PP's C~°~f ~;I°~
-~--..v..__
Bnvironmer~tal Man~a~ement Director
Project Development anci. I;nvirotzix~ental Anal~~sis Branch, IRiGI7Ca~~
~~~ ~;~
_.__._.~
D;~TB .,.~'~~ °". :ioht~ ~'. ~ullivaza TII, F',~.
` I:?iv=ision ~dtninistrator, F 1~',~1

Randolph County
SR 2215
Bridge No. 140 over an Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2215(1)
State Project No. WBS 33587.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4244
CATEGORICAL EX:~LUSION
June 2005
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
L. ard, P.E.
Proj ct Manager
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
~~
Karen B. Tay]. .E.
Project Development Engineer
N ~ARQ4 ~''•.
F~SStr~.s ~ 9
~y1 ~~~.~e
:;

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Randolph County
SR 2215
Bridge No. 140 over an Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2215(1)
State Project No. WBS 33587.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4244
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities, General Certifications, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Construction Office, Division 8
Randolph County Emergency Services has requested NCDOT to give 2 -3 weeks notice prior to
the closing of the bridge.
Categorical Exclusion
June 2005
Green Sheet
Sheet 1 of 1

Randolph County
SR 2215
Bridge No. 140 over an Unnamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2215 (1)
State Project No. WBS 33587.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4244
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 140 is included in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure lA. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 32.2 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2215 (Henley-Country Road) crosses over an unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek
(Asheboro, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle) in Randolph County approximately 0.4 mile north of its
junction with SR 2216 (Old Cedaz Falls Road). For descriptive purposes, the unnamed tributary
will be referred to as UT1 in this report. Bridge No. 140 is located just east of the city of
Asheboro. The project study area is hilly and heavily wooded. There are six houses in the
surrounding area. i ;;ur ci the 11ou~es are located along the nurtli roadway approachi of ~i1e
bridge, and two are along the south roadway approach. There aze no historic properties in the
surrounding azea. The driveway to a private pazk is located near the bridge in the southeast
quadrant. SR 2215 is classified as a Rural Local Road in the Statewide Functional Classification
System.
SR 2215 has a current pavement width of 20 feet with 5-foot grass shoulders in the area of the
bridge. The roadway approaches aze on tangents and on downgrades toward the bridge. The
vertical sag occurs at the bridge, but the bridge is flat. The sight distance is good on both
approaches. The horizontal alignment of the roadway approaches in the immediate area of the
bridge is good, but the vertical alignment is poor.
1

The current traffic volumes on SR 2215 at UT1 are 3900 vehicles per day (vpd) and for the
design year 2025 the estimated traffic volumes are 7600 vpd. The volumes include an estimated
1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2 percent dual-tired (DT) vehicles. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 140, as shown in Figures 2A and 2B, has an overall length of 36 feet and a clear deck
width of 19 feet. The existing two-lane bridge has a timber deck on timber piles. The structure
was constructed in 1950. There is no posting on the weight limits. The bridge has a sufficiency
rating of 32.2 compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 140 has abed-to-
crown distance of approximately 12 feet.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from May 1, 1999 to
April 30, 2002. The accident rate for the period is 134.18 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (MVM) of travel as compared to the statewide average of 347.58 accidents per 100 MVM
for rural secondary routes (two lanes undivided) for the three-year period 2000-2002.
There are overhead power transmission lines that parallel UT1 along the north side, crossing SR
2215 just north of the bridge. Overhead power service lines also parallel the west side of SR
2215. The telephone cables are underground along the west side of SR 2215, but are overhead
across the creek. A steel gas main along the east side of SR 2215 crosses under the creek and a
gas service line crosses under SR 2215 just north of SR 2217. No utilities are attached to the
bridge.
There are four school bus crossings daily over the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 140 with a new bridge approximately 85 feet long with
a clear roadway width of 40 feet. The final length of the bridge will be determined during final
bridge design. New approaches to the bridge will provide 12-foot travel lanes in each direction
with 8-foot shoulders [2-foot paved]. The proposed cross sections are shown in Figure 3A. The
design speed will be 60 mph.
2

B. Build Alternatives
The studied alternatives were: (1) Replace Bridge No. 140 at its existing location by closing the
existing roadway and maintaining traffic with anoff-site detour; and (2) Replace Bridge No. 140
at its existing location while maintaining traffic with a temporary structure and detour on the east
side. These alternatives are shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The off-site detour proposed with Alternate 1, shown in Figure 6, is approximately 5.2 miles in
length and utilizes SR 2217 (Randolph Tabernacle Road), SR 2183 (Gold Hill Road) and SR
2216 (Old Cedar Fall Road). In accordance with the NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Off-
site Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects (April 2004), the average delay per motorist is
estimated to be about 7 minutes for a construction period of 12 months, which falls under the
Evaluation (E) range of the Guidelines. The Evaluation (E) range suggests that an on-site detour
is justifiable from a traffic operations standpoint but must be weighed with other project factors
to determine if it is appropriate. Further coordination with the Emergency Services of Randolph
County indicates the detour would not cause any problems or major delays in providing services
to the area. The TIMS Coordinator was contacted and indicated it was not an unworkable
situation. The off-site detour is acceptable under the requirements of the NCDOT guidelines.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The No-Build or "do-nothing" alternative was also considered but this alternative would
eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not a desirable alternative due to the traffic
service provided by SR 2215.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of Bridge No. 140 is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition. The
existing bridge is classified as structurally deficient.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate 1, replacing the bridge at its existing location with anoff--site detour is the preferred
alternative. It was selected since it has the least environmental impact and is the most
economical. Representatives from the Division Office recommend resurfacing the off-site detour
route as a part of this project at an estimated cost of $500,000. No other structures are located
along the off-site detour route.
The new structure will be 85 feet long with a clear roadway width of 40 feet. The grade of the
new structure will be about 5 feet above the grade of the existing bridge. A minimum grade of
3

0.3% on the bridge is recommended to facilitate deck drainage. New approaches to the bridge
will provide 12-foot travel lanes with 8-foot shoulders, including 2-foot paved shoulders.
Approximately 1600 feet of new approaches will be required.
The design speed of the replacement structure will be 60 mph; however, a design exception for
the vertical alignment will be necessary. The design exception for the vertical curve with a
design speed of 35 mph is required because maintaining a 60 mph design speed will necessitate a
longer vertical curve and raising the grade approximately 25 feet. A longer vertical curve and
grade change may impact adjacent residences and will increase the estimated cost of this
alternate.
The estimated cost for the recommended proposed improvement is $1,482,390. The current
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $45,000 for right-of--way and $450,000 for construction.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on 2005 prices, are:
Alternate 1
(Exist. Loc.)
Off-site Detour Alternate 2
(Exist. Loc.)
On-site Detour
Structure Removal $ 9,480 $ 9,480
Structure $ 292,400 $ 292,400
Roadway A proaches $ 290,325 $ 290,325
Mobilization and Miscellaneous $ 176,435 $ 176,435
Engineering and Contingencies $ 131,000 $ 131,000
Detotu ;~ 500,000 $ 675,000
SUBTOTAL $1,399,640 $1,574,640
Ri t-of-Way/Const. Ease./LJtil. $ 82,750 $ 120,500
TOTAL $1,482,390 $1,694,640
i,ost or resunacmg on-site detour route.
2. Cost of on-site detour.
The above estimates are based on functional design plans; therefore, 45 percent is included for
miscellaneous items and contractor mobilization, and 15 percent for engineering and
contingencies.
4

V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Asheboro, NC 7.5-
minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping (Asheboro, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1992), N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) proposed Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats,
and recent aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names generally
follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature
(Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field
Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements
and distributions were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat and
supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Rohde et al. 1994, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Voshe112002). Water quality information for
area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (NCDWQ 2000, NCDWQ
2004a-c). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Randolph
Coanty (February 25, 2C~;3 FWS list) is considered in this rf;t.i;;t. tiIZP records documer:ting the
presence of federally or state listed species were also consulted before commencing field
investigations. In addition, Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by the
NCWRC (December 11, 1998 listing) were consulted to determine the presence of Proposed
Critical Habitats for aquatic species.
The project study area (Figure 7) was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. The
study area is approximately 300 feet wide (centered on the existing roadway) and about 1740
feet in length, encompassing an estimated 12.0 acres. Potential impacts of construction will be
limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternative. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
1) potential protected species habitat; and 2) wetlands and water quality protection of UTl .
5

B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion of North Carolina.
This ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular plains, some hills, linear ridges, isolated
monadnocks, and low to moderate gradient streams with mostly boulder and cobble substrates
(ecoregion map). The project study area is located within a moderately sloping floodplain
valley. Elevations within the study area range from a high of approximately 650 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), at both ends of the project study area, to a low of
approximately 600 feet NGVD within the stream channel. Land uses within and adjacent to the
project study area consist of woodlands, agriculture, residential lots, utility line right-of--ways,
and roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Randolph County (SCS 1992), the project study area is underlain by
four soil series: Badin silt loam (Typic Hapladults), Tarrus silt loam (Typic Kanhapladults),
Georgeville sandy clay loam (Typic Kanhapladults), and Riverview sandy loam (Fluventic
Dystrudepts). Within the project study area, Badin and Tarrus soils are intricately mixed to form
a complex. Riverview silt loam occurs adjacent to the stream, while the Badin-Tarrus complex
and Georgeville sandy clay loams are found on the upland slopes and ridges. Riverview silt
loam is considered to have hydric inclusions in Randolph County (NRCS 1997), and underlies
approximately 1.8 acres, or 15 percent of the project study area.
The Badin series (2 to 25 percent slopes) consists of moderately deep, well-drained silt loam
mixed with Tarrus silt loam. Depending upon slope, erosion is moderate to severe when the soil
surface is bare and unprotected. Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 60
inches, and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth greater than 6 feet.
The Georgeville series (2 to 8 percent slopes) consists of deep, well-drained eroded sandy clay
loam. Permeability is moderate, and erosion is moderate when the soil surface is bare and
unprotected. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water table occurs
at a depth greater than 6 feet.
The Riverview series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of deep, well-drained sandy loam that
formed in recent alluvium and is subject to frequent flooding. Permeability is moderate and
erosion is slow to occur. Depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches, and the seasonal high water
table occurs between 3 and 4 feet.
The Tarrus series (2 to 25 percent slopes) consists of moderately deep, well-drained silt loam
mixed with Badin silt loam. Depending upon slope, erosion is moderate to severe when the-soil
surface is bare and unprotected. Permeability is moderate, depth to bedrock is greater than 60
inches, and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth greater than 6 feet.
6

C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(NCDWQ 2000). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030003 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region (Seaber et al. 1987). The structure targeted for replacement spans an
unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek. The portion of this unnamed tributary that lies within the
project study area has not been assigned a Streanl Index Number by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) (NCDWQ 2000); however, Gabriel's Creek has been assigned Stream Index
Number 17-14 from its source to Deep River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The project study area contains two streams: an unnamed tributary to Gabriel's Creek (UT1) and
an unnamed tributary to UT1 (UT2). UTl generally flows northward through the middle of the
project study area. UT2 is located in the southeastern quadrant formed by the intersection of
Henley Country Road and UT1. UT2 originates from a concrete pipe which drains the adjacent
maintained residential lot, and flows west for approximately 8 feet before leaving the project
study area.
UT1 enters the project study area as awell-defined, second-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a substrate of bedrock, cobble, gravel, and sand. At Bridge No.140, UT1 is
approximately 20 feet wide. The banks of UT1 are approximately 4 feet high and are steeply
sloping. During field investigations, the water level appeared low and ranged from 2 inches to
approximately 2 feet deep. The water of UT1 was cloudy white, resulting in poor clarity, and
flow velocity was low. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the
stream, whereas benthic organisms were observed. UT1 may provide good aquatic habitat for
mussels 1r_d benthic macroinvertebrates due ±n the observation of little siltstion ~~~ithin the strum
and the channel substrate composition. Opportunities for habitat within UT1 include
overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
UT2 originates in the project study area as awell-defined, first-order, intermittent stream with
light flow over a cobble, sand, and silt substrate. The banks of UT2 are approximately 2 feet
high and moderately sloped. During field investigations, the water level appeared low and
ranged to approximately 4 inches in depth. Water clarity was good, with visibility to the
substrate, and flow velocity was slow. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed
within the stream, whereas benthic organisms were observed. Opportunities for habitat within
the UT include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen logs, and leaf packs.
7

The NCDWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list. The
list is a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is
one that does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative
criteria, and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may
be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of
impairment. The impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric
deposition. Some sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology
is strongly based on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b)
guidelines (EPA-841-B-97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting
(PS) or Not Supporting (NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list. Streams are
further categorized into one of six parts within the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list, according to
source of impairment and degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support
aquatic life. Within Parts 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Cazolina has developed a priority
ranking scheme (low, medium, high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those
waterbodies provide to the State. No tributaries to Gabriel's Creek are listed on any section of
the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list (NCDWQ 2004c).
Classifications aze assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A Best Usage
Classification of C has been assigned to Gabriel's Creek and its unnamed tributaries. Class C
waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human
body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. No designated High Quality Waters
(HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply II (WS-II)
waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area
(NCDWQ 2000).
The NCDWQ h?s initiated awhole-basin apprcach to ;•r?ter quality m~ na~ez,lent for the ', 7 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study azea is summarized in the
Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ 2000). Gabriel's Creek and its
tributaries aze currently listed by NCDWQ as Supporting their designated uses. No benthic
macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area (NCDWQ
2000).
Sub-basin 03-06-09 of the Cape Fear River Basin supports 14 permitted, point source discharges
with a total dischazge of 9.85 million gallons per day. One of the permitted dischazges is
classified as a major discharger, discharging 9 million gallons per day. The 13 remaining
permitted dischargers are minor (NCDWQ 2004b) with one having no limit set on discharges.
8

Major non-point sources of pollution within the Cape Fear River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, agriculture, timber harvesting, mining, hydrologic modification, failing
septic systems, roads, .parking lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
problems associated with non-point source discharges (NCDWQ 2000).
The WRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance
planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by WRC as being critical due to the presence of
Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitat within the Cape Fear River Basin occurs approximately 2.5 miles to the south in an
unnamed tributary to Squirrel Creek (WRC 1998).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used in
revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
~~.lteratioi~ of ~~~a~er levels and flows due to iriteiruptions and/or additions to :,urFac; a~;a
ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs). The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion
control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled Control of
9

Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These
measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control
runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-
seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct
discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation ofpre-project stream flows in UTl,
thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from construction
are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
entire life of the project.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and alluvial forest. Plant communities
were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of each (Figure 7). These
communities are described below in order of their dominance within the project study area.
Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence
(tracks, scat, burrows, etc.) during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*). In
addition, approximately 0.8 acre (7 percent) of the project study area is covered by the
impermeable surface of Henley Country Road.
a) Disturbed/maintained land
Approximately 7.0 acres (61 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by
disturbed/maintained land. This community includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields,
utility line corridors, residential lots, and a recently timbered area. Along residential and
agricultural land margins, and roadside shoulders, grasses and herbs dominate the vegetation.
Representative species include wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus
carota), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), aster (Aster
sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum offcinale), wild onion (Allium canadense), and fescue (Festuca sp.).
Vines present are limited to kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Residential lots contain scattered canopy
trees of white oak (Quercus alba), weeping willow (Salix babylonica), and eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana).
10

The recently timbered area in the northeast quadrant of UTl and Henley Country Road contains
scattered canopy trees of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and sweetgum. The sapling/shrub
layer contains canopy species as well as red maple (Ater rubrum), white ash (Fraxinus
americana), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), sourwood
(Oxydendron arboreum), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia). Vines present include
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) and Virginia creeper, and herbs present are limited to
scattered individuals of Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and ground pine (Lycopodium complanatum). In addition, a small agricultural
field adjacent to the eastern edge of the timbered area is being used to grow wheat (Triticum sp.).
b) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Approximately 3.0 acres (25 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by mixed
pine/hardwood forest. This community occurs on uplands in the project study area. This
community consists of a mature forest characterized by a closed canopy with a relatively open
understory.
This community supports a canopy of Virginia pine, sweetgum, tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), white ash, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and southern red oak (Quercus falcata).
Sapling and shrub layers include canopy species as well as eastern red cedar, flowering
dogwood, redbud (Cercis canadensis), red maple, sourwood, and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea).
Vines within this community include muscadine grape. The herbaceous layer is sparsely
vegetated by herbs such as Christmas fern and ground pine.
c) Alluvial Forest
Approximately 1.2 acres (10 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by shrub
assemblage. This community occurs in the floodplain of UT1 and on floodplain slopes. This
comm~mity consists of a closed canopy with a dense understory of shnibs, vines, ar_d herbs.
Canopy species include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar, green ash, and black
walnut (Juglans nigra). The subcanopy layer includes American elm (Ulmus americana),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red mulberry (Morus rubra), redbud, and eastern red cedar.
Shrub species present include American holly (Ilex opaca), multiflora rose, and Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense). Representative herbs include poison ivy, Christmas fern, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), slender spikegrass
(Chasmanthium laxum), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Vines present consist of Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape, and kudzu, which is encroaching upon the
forest edge.
11

2. Wildlife
Disturbed/maintained land
Wildlife which may occur within the open portion of the project study area include vegetation
and seed eaters such as meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), house finch* (Carpodacus mexicanus), and American goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis);
insectivores such as eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), Carolina
wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern phoebe* (Sayonoris phoebe), .chimney swift*
(Chaetura pelagica), common yellowthroat* (Geothlypis trichas), yellow-breasted chat* (Icteria
vixens), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomophorus sexlineatus), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), northern black racer (Coluber constrictor), southeastern five-lined skink (Eumeces
inexpectatus), and northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans); predators of small mammals, birds,
and herptiles such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis); omnivores including blue
jay* (Cyanocitta crista) and eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroliraa); and scavengers such as
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura).
Along woodland edges and the utility line corridors, the sapling/shrub layer consists of scattered
individuals of sassafras (Sassafras albidum), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora). Vines
include kudzu, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), and cat greenbrier (Smilax glauca). The
herb layer is scattered through this area, the majority of which is maintained by mowing.
Grasses present include fescue, and representative herbs consist of dandelion, microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), and poison ivy.
These ecotones provide both food and cover for eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Birds commonly found in shrubby areas and along
forest/grassland ecotones include the omnivorous northern mockingbird (Mrmr~s poh~glottos),
brown thrasher* (Toxostoma rufum), and brown-headed cowbird* (Molothrus ater), and the
seed-eating indigo bunting* (Passerina cyanea). Insectivorous species such as eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), and predators including
black racer (Coluber constrictor), utilize this habitat.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The complexity and size of this community allow for a diverse assemblage of wildlife including
forest interior species. This community should support predators such as great horned owl (Bubo
virginianus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus);
herbivores such as gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer, and northern cardinal*
12

(Cardinalis cardinalis); and insectivores such as Carolina chickadee* (Poecile carolinensis),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulia), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceous), summer
tanager* (Piranga rubra), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), gray treefrog, spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), American toad (Bufo
americanus), and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus); and omnivores such as eastern box
turtle and raccoon (Procyon Zotor).
Alluvial Forest
This relatively narrow community extends through the project study area along both sides of
UT1 and provides food, cover, and a travel corridor for wildlife within this riparian habitat.
Species utilizing alluvial forest in this portion of the state include predators such as barred owl
(Stria varia), southern ringneck snake, and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon); omnivores
such as eastern box turtle, raccoon* and gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis); seed and
vegetation eaters such as northern cardinal*, white-tailed deer*, gray squirrel, and golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttali); and insectivores such aswhite-breasted nuthatch* (Sitta carolinensis), red-
bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes carolinus), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus),
golden-crowned kinglet, red bat, five-lined skink, spring peeper, American toad, and southern
leopard frog (Rana utricularia)
3. Aquatic Communities
The. project study area includes two perennial streams, all bounded by natural vegetation. These
streams are characterized by natural channels providing diverse habitats for fish and wildlife
(riffle-pool complexes, undercut banks, rock and organic debris in the stream beds, and
overhanging branches. These waters are expected to support a fishery and benthic population
which serves as a food source for aquatic herptiles such as northern water snake, green frog
(Rana clamitans), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), and two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata).
No sampling was undertaken in UT1 to determine fishery potential, though minnow-sized fish
were observed during the field survey. Fish species that may be present in this reach of UT1
include smaller fish species such as margined madtom (Noturus insignis), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius).
Several species of invertebrates were identified within UT1. These include water striders*
(Family Gerridae), flatheaded mayfly nymph* (Family Haptageniidae), and caddisfly* (Order
Trichoptera).
13

4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Several permanent and temporary impacts are anticipated with this project. Permanent impacts
are considered to be those impacts that occur within the common, permanent proposed cut-fill
limits of Alternates 1 and 2. Temporary impacts are considered to be those impacts which occur
within the cut-fill footprint associated with the temporary detour of Alternate 2. In addition,
approximately 0.08 acre of alluvial forest will require clearing of vegetation but no fill material
for the installation of the temporary structure associated with Alternate 2. Plant communities
within the project study area were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of
each (Figure 7). A summary of plant community areas and the potential impacts to each is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Plant Communities Within Cut/Fill lines of Respective Alternatives
Alternate 1 Alternate 2

Plant Community Permanent Permanent Temporary Total
Maintained/Disturbed Land 1.20 1.20 0.98 2.18
Mixed Pine/Hazdwood
Forest 0.40 0.40 0.21 0.61
Alluvial Forest 0.10 0.10 0.23 0.33
Total
A __ _ 1.70 1.70 1.42 3.12
tuvuJ ui \, Sl Y~.111114G1 GJ.
Projected permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements
are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. Little area of natural plant community is expected to be permanently impacted by the
proposed project. Temporary impacts present the greater amount of impact to natural
communities, and although these impacts are considered to be short-term, re-growth of this
community to pre-project stand age and ecological function will require several decades.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances aze anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory
wildlife movement patterns.
No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or neaz the project study area.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures. The existing bridge is expected to
be removed without dropping components into UTI. Therefore, no fill is expected to be
deposited in waters of the United States.
14

Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topic
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3). The
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) system for classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
was used to determine the type of each jurisdictional area present (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Section 404 jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 7.
UT1 exhibits characteristics of awell-defined, second-order, perennial stream with low flow
over a substrate of bedrock, cobble, gravel, and sand. UT1 can be classified as riverine, lower
perennial with an unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of gravel and cobble (RZUB 1).
UT2 can be classified as awell-defined, first-order, riverine, lower perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand and silt (R2UB2).
Vegetated wetlands 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). No vegetated wetland areas are present within the
project study area; therefore, no impacts to wetlands will occur as a result of this project.
Both alternatives contain an identical replacement in-place component, while Alternate ?. also
contains a temporary on-site detour component. Bridge supports are expected to be removed
from UT1, which would constitute a jurisdictional area impact.
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional areas are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in
charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP)
15

23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of the U.S.
expected with bridge construction. NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP 23 (GC 3403). If temporary structures are necessary for construction
activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15,
2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366} will be
required. Impacts to vegetated wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078)
and the associated Genera1401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs
23, 33, and 3 will not suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach
improvements may qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington
USACE District. NCDWQ has made available a Genera1401 Water Quality Certification for GP
031 (GC 3404). Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general
permit is utilized.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts,
rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and dcU ee of these in:~ac~s al.d l.ructicaUle in t~~7I1~ of ~o s,, c..istinb
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of--way widths,
fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters.
16

Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h), NCDWQ may require
compensatory mitigation for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream
impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic
environment are minimal. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and
value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of
appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due
to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and NCDWQ.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed for such
lisping are prutected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.Q.
1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species"
is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Two federally protected species are listed for Randolph County (February 25, 2003 FWS list):
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).
Both species are listed as Endangered.
17

Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Endangered
Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small (to 2 inches), moderately stocky minnow. It 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). Plant material
forms the primary part of the shiner's diet. The species is generally associated with gravel,
cobble, and boulder substrates and has been observed to inhabit slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
(Snelson 1971, Pottern and Huish 1985). In these habitats, the species is typically associated
with schools of other related species, but it is never the numerically dominant species. Juveniles
are often found in slackwater, among large rock outcrops in midstream, and in flooded side
channels and pools (Pottern and Huish 1985). Little is known about the Cape Fear shiner's life
history. The NCWRC has designated Critical Habitat for this species in Fork Creek and in the
Deep River downstream from Fork Creek in Randolph County, approximately 18 miles to the
southwest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A habitat and site evaluation was carried out by the NCDOT on October 14, 2004, to determine
the presence/absence of this species within this reach of UT1. This study concluded that due to
the lack of appropriate habitat, the completion of this project would not impact the Cape Fear
Shiner. Appropriate soil and erosion control measures should be in place during the construction
of this project to insure that no additional sediment is added to UT1.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched, rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to
approximately 6 feet 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 September to frost; -the
yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch in diameter. The current range of this species is within
approximately 60 miles of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland interstream flats or
18

gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clay 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). NHP files
reviewed on April 17, 2004 document the occurrence of Schweinitz's sunflower approximately
2000 feet southeast of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project study area does contain suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower within
disturbed/maintained land, specifically roadside shoulders, utility line corridors, and forest edges.
A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted within the project study area on August 18,
2004, in which overlapping transects were used to cover the habitat area. However, no
specimens of Schweinitz's sunflower were located, and the presence of this species within the
project study area can be discounted.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed
in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species listed for Randolph County are
presented in Table 2.
NHP files list no documentation for FSC species within 2.0 miles of the project study area, and
no species were observed during field observations.
Ta61e 2. Federal Sneciec of C'.nncern

Common Name
Scientific name ~at~
Status** Potc;Iltial
Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma Collis lepidinion SC Yes
"Carolina" redhorse Moxostoma sp. SR (PE) Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa E Yes
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana E No
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod* Dacrylocrythere peedeensis * * * * *
...~.~.,., ......,~., - u.c ~N~.,.c~ waa ~a,~ uwc~ vcu m ute county more than x- years ago.
**State Status: E =Endangered; SC =Special Concern; SR =Significantly Rare; PE =Proposed Endangered
***Information unavailable (Amoroso 2004, I.eGrand and Ha112004)
19

VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated: March 10, 2004, the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(HPO) determined that the project would not affect any historic structures. Accordingly,
NCDOT architectural historians did not initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of this
memorandum is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
A memorandum from the HPO dated March 10, 2004 states that they are aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project. Accordingly, NCDOT archaeologists did not
initiate a survey of the project area. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact by replacing a potentially unsafe
bridge.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulations. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from replacement of the bridge.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle
route; therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
20

No residential or business relocates are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project is excluded from the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) since the
project is located within the Asheboro Extra Territory Jurisdiction. (7 CFR Part 658)
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. If vegetation or wood
debris is disposed of by 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 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental
Policy Act. The replacement of the existing bridge will not increase or decrease traffic volumes.
The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environment Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The results from apre-scoping geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigation performed by
the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit showed that no underground storage tank sites or
hazardous waste sites or apparent landfills were identified within the project limits. The
geotechnical pre-scoping report is included in the appendix.
The project will have an impact upon the utilities in the area. The impacts will be minimized by
close coordination with utility owners as required by NCDOT's standard specifications.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environment
effects will result from implementation of the project.
21

VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A "start of study" letter was distributed to local officials and agencies requesting information and
concerns relative to the proposed project. Their responses are included in the Appendix.
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project and the absence of any expressed
concern from public officials, no formal public involvement program was initiated.
IX. AGENCY COORDINATION
Letters requesting comments and environmental input were sent to the following agencies:
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington District*
US Fish and Wildlife Service*
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Division of Water Quality*
County Manager, Randolph County
Chairman, Randolph County Commissioners
Superintendent, Randolph County Public Schools*
Randolph County Emergency Management Services
Director, Randolph County Planning and Zoning Department
Sheriff, Randolph County
Mayor and City Manager, City of Asheboro
Planning Department, City of Asheboro
Fire Chief, Asheboro Fire Department
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from which written/oral comments were received. Scoping
comments and corresponding responses are given below. Copies of the comments received are
in the Appendix.
1. United States Department of Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinities for [the Cape Fear
shiner], surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species".
Response: A survey of the project area concluded no suitable habitat exists in the project
area for the Cape Fear shiner.
22

Comment: "The Service recommends surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower at [the bridge
site]".
Response: A survey of the project area concluded this project will not affect the
Schweinitz's sunflower.
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge".
Response: A new bridge will replace the existing bridge at its current location utilizing
an off-site detour during construction.
3. Randolph County Emergency Services
Comment: "We do request that we be given 2-3 weeks notice prior to the closing of [the]
bridge so that a more strategic and detailed survey can be taken of the immediate
residences and/or businesses in those areas. At that time we will also notify each Fire
Department, Rescue Service, EMS, and Law Enforcement".
Response: A recommendation to contact Randolph County Emergency Services prior to
closure of SR 2215 has been included in this document.
23

REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2004. 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.
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.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEN). 1996. A Field Guide to North Carolina
Wetlands. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004a. Basinwide Information Management System
(BINS) (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reportsWB.html). North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004b. List of Active Permits (online). Available:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/docurnents/BIMS_031604.x1s [April 8, 2004]. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2004c. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
- Draft (online). Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General 303d.htm [April 14,
2004] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2000. Cape Fear River Water Quality Management
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Fish ar:d Wildlife r^rvice (FV~~S). 2002. Randolph County Endangered Spcci:;s, Tluc._tened
Species, and Federal Species of Concern (online). Available: http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/Randolph.html [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (online).
Available: http://www.nwi.fws.gov [March 29, 2004]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1994: Schweinitz's Sunflower Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA.
28 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1988. Cape Fear Shiner Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 18 pp.
24

Kartesz, J. 1998. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Biota of North America Program.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2004. 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.
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.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 1999. List of Significant Natural Heritage Areas. North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hydric Soils, Randolph County, N.C. Technical Guide, Section II-A-2.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Pottern, G.B., and M.T. Huish. 1985. Status Survey of the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract No. 14-16-0009-1522.44 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, 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., K.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Yarnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 222 pp.
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•
25

Snelson, F.F. 1971. Notropis mekistocholas, A New Cyprinid Fish Endemic to the Cape Fear
River Basin. North Carolina. Copeia 1971: 449-462. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Species
Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Cape Fear shiner. Federal Register,
52(186):36034-36039.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1992. Soil Survey of Randolph County, North Carolina,
USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey.
Voshell, J. R., Jr. 2002. A Guide to Common Freshwater Invertebrates of North America. The
McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Va. 442 pp.
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.
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 1998. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitats. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh
26

Figures

i I l -~i ' k
~ l , ~ Gist ` ~ I, D 9 w. I ~'~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
I i r.. ~ s r~. --.
-' - L
~I. 1~ q ~ 2218 '~ -
-~_ ~ f ~ a
. ~.,; -
.i ~F ~. ~' ~ _ _ r 6 ..y `22
_ ~ y i a
~~~~'~ i/~ 2183 2218 2215 °
~.
h.` ~--'F .S ~ a' ~
s y
$~ d
v~! 231s ~ r
~ Ur~s~ ~~b 2216 ~ ~!~
°' ~ I ~
` '° 215 ~ r
I 2182
j i _ 2183 ~ ,1=" ~
~',;,,t'~s o ~ ~ ° 2222 ° `_ i
I ~
~ ~m~/ ~
u p 2215
f ~ 2183 2217 2216
~ e -y t~z
~ i
1 ,, s} ~ 9 .5 ` RIDGE ENO. 0 ~ `,,,f ,;
l ~ ~ r
- ' F ~1'1\ ~ uu
s ~ +- f a .° ~ 2221 ~``'~
~n s .m y 49 '°
is ' Fi s
w~~ .w ~ • !
84 r x j
r "~.
f' - ' ~ - ~ ,/ ~ 2345 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ w«., „
~ ~ _~ s
=-~-- ~ 34 2183 i mss,, 2215 "u ~~ ~~
..w 345 v .~ ~ `~, ~ vs~ o r3a
~R , ~ Dr_ ~ 421 s~n"~
S O n
,~
H ~
ra.a
~ 0
u ~ 0~5 ~
•'- _
GRAPHIC SCALE (ApLESI
~ -
r ~ r~ e'.
~ „~,,, ~~ ~`~~ NOR1S CARfOf~iA BRPAATI~I'P f)w TA17801~i
P!w)io6 Drw~1~rM~E u1 B~ A.J. BrraaL
BRIDGE N0. 140
SR 2215 OVER UNAMED TRIBUTARY TO GABRIElS CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4244
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE IA

K ~' s~'-W.~^-;:fie 5 1 k...i'~r, ~~ ~ t k~,~ ~~, ,, ' ~,,~ ,..r"~ ti • { ~,tt --•, ,,".;,.~_
~ x ~~ i+~ ~~~ ~,~;-.~ ;;: ~~' 4 sir ,,;`~~~~"~~_~; ,~,` ~ ~'f' '` _~, ~ `~ ~`i~tr"`-~,~°
r
~~ ~.,'~ ~ ~~:.~ t .. • ~ i ---'~'r;% ~ ~ ~. ~ r. n ~'~r r ~,~r i ~ ~ ~ f '~ t { 'k.. ~ ~ r "°~ ~''e ~ k
~ _i: ~ ~~~ -rte r __ ~r.~d t 't: .~~ a~J' lfi 1. '^'R. ,+ ~ ~ ~,P '~ ~-.
F P 1 y~r
"+'~ 'yd' ~ . .' ii' t tl4 `+s'~, x`~ ~{~ ~'" + ~h~,~yt ,~~~Jfp tk y_: }L~`y,~ 1~r~~~'r~ ~''~.~ 1 !t r.
~~ ' ~ "_ ~.? . ~~ '' f . ti j ~ } ~ S ~ 1.~ .`'~.. ~ ~y q ,,~ ~ 4. f~ ~ ~ ~,t+` r~,~. ~jf(j~~: '`ti....,r , s'. _ ~:
'' f ,~ _._.~. _ + j ~ ~.4 ~~ ~ ~ `~. E it } ~ AF k+`? 4 , ~ t ~':~ `"~ti rf+'j; ty~.,+ 1~ ~ J
1 i n,. _ ~ ~ `: ' ~r , 1 ~4. ~ t 1 '` J ' ~ 1~~t~~1 ~ `1 } ~ f ~ nom. " ~ r
r f r~ i i , ; _,.., •' =~.~+ rr~ ~'%` Sti~4 j ~`,Jr '' 'Ai _
"'~' t ~ I ~ ~~"
-~ '~ ~ ~ i } f.. ~ `~ d r 3 ~ s ~ - ~ f.:~..-
t'r'{' ~ r 3 t it ' ~ 6 _ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~' / -
Y; ,r 4 • w t '' ~, ! f ~~s.,.-m,t~~ ~ ' ~ , - - r ~ - f - `''~ ~ w~~~
° k ,t~ ~ ~~, I ~ ,~ ~ f °,,~ .' ~ ~ r ~ ~ ,~. 4,,, , . ~~ r '~ ?
~~ 4~~ _,~ tf ter` ,~ }+- `s ~ ~` r* y~s~ ~ ;~ 1,(~ -~ .~-_.,~. I i=; ~ ~~~~
I~ ' ~~ ~ S '_x (4~+~1 ~ ~ ~ r f f ~ ~y j'ft f ~~r ~~'~y~+~ ~ # f~'r _ff
-fi ~~, ~ ~--~ .rte +~ ~~! ~ .k ~t',= '`+r"~ i - ~ r i J~'F' s
` +' ~ ~ <' +
,• ,.. ~ 17
} _.ti ! "'- it r~ I j r r i ..~i 1. E ~ ` , ~,~-..--' ~ f 1= .
!_,""" ....-° _1- y .--. }ri~'w:~-, ,~ r~ .f ~ '`,~ _..r'v r. ~ _ ' .} ~ i 4 ~ ~.~°-~ ! r'~ j t I ,~'n l ~.' jl rfi~f Z~rYdf
~--- ~a, ,
tt-.3~~s ' ~ y
TMs, ,~--n~'~yy. -; Bridge No. 140 '`','~~...._: f; ~~ ~ . ~~ - _ ~~~` ~ ,~:'~~;`~~ ~' ~ ~"`'I~ .
` / X+1 3
~rW.,,,,,,.?r ~ !.I ik
,~+ _
tit 1~t~s.m '{ ~ ° ~'' s~ ~~J"~~!'fr ! r ,~~ f 1 ' +` ~''~ ~..,...~.y.~`,, "~'""~ f .- « r +~-
'~ { ~ "y~~.~~ ~ ~~~ fry E ~~. ;„i ~ ~1 ~t,. ~~ ~ ,~ y ~s`*~~~. ~~.~~~ / ,dF{' :l'~,. ~'°''~
.. --_.+ F ~ .._ _
.,} Yl t '4.. p"~ ~~^ ~ ~~ y'y f ~ f ~ , r y t~1
f ~ _
!¢ „`
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
• T.I.P. B-4244
~ Bridge #140 Over Unamed Tributary to Gabriel's Creek
On SR 2215 - Randolph County, N.C.
Quad. Map: Asheboro
FIGURE 1B

~kuae:y ~
r, ~` `~ A II .RY.I TLI. L2IRLJL#.1®1'ffi DEP.LS.ASTEL®~ ~.X.$'
'
I
~•~
;$ A1~
~PUR'TATIC3IV
~l,A ~ ' r€~`~ l
~"
R
:(
.
L?E
~
~
E
+
~
~
`
~
'
?t
I..
~
~
P'
~V
l
~
T1`
1~N

\~"~~#. i¢xx~, ~~77~J
g
g
q
(
y
~
j
~,
y
7
~
q7
p
~^
$
}~
~
~
y
y
,
~v
g
p
/^egg
~A1 Y 1AR.V 171.YLS
W
L
V Tt
"SL rii'[Hte 3Tl71~ D 4... ffi.7_

'
'
t
'
id 1. *f f
~~~

T~
~~
e ~[
~"F~
F+'I

. `. L - ~ .,
~~~ s', ,. ...~tn~ nrF. ~~ "'c~"+r- C.1.:..s~' 1FS~i, .Y.fcvi~Y; ~ ~ 3 3 k t~,. 4
?.
.J
f /t~J ~y
'+ s ~ ~
~S
~~ ~~ ~~~ ~
A, t
~~ ~~
,:
~~ <<
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~1r~~ +
~: ~" .f, ~.~ '~ .
F,¢ :{4
7: ~ ~ ~~
~'~ ~~ .y : ~~~ z ~wc Vf art 1 ~t ~.,~ ,psi _
yGz' ti ~
r
,,,. a r,
` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `_
~t~~ t r '~~ ,f Fc ,
,< - ~~ ~r
_ ~. -.~ 'i ~r l
iV!~~ ij ~~ ~:
KING SOTJTH & UPSTREAM

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.140 ON SR 2215
OVER UNAMED TRIBUTARY TO GABRIEL'S CREEK
- RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4244
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH (ASSUMED )
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 3.900
2025 ADT = 7,600
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV = 12%
DIR = 60%
DESIGN SPEED: 60 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 fit/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:4°I5'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 6%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 136 Kcrest = 151
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 2.0 ft FDPS 8.0 fit TOTAL tll.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: 12.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 40.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 85.0 ft
FIGURE 3A
10' 6' 12' MIN. 8' 12' ~ 12' ~ 8' 30'
VAR. SLOPE 18' DES. GRADE
2. 2' , POINT 2' VAR. SLOPE
.i
_ A2 .02 ~ .08
~ q:/ 6:1
s:r s:~
.•i
~ I I' WITH GUARDRAIL
n
APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
40'
** IF 1=1NAL DESIGN LENGTH
OF BRIDGE IS OVER 100',
8' SHOULDER MAY BE
REDUCED TO 3'
NOTE:
A VERTICAL DESIGN EXCEPTION
MAY BE REQUIRED.

BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
APPROVED BYe DATE:
I
•*8' 12' ~
12' **8'
GRAD
~ POIN

.02
.oz
_.

r •
PROPOSED DETOUR CRITERIA
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.140 ON SR 2215
OVER UNAMED TRIBUTARY TO GABRIEL'S CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
8-4244
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL
POSTED SPEED: 55 MPH !ASSUMED )
ESTIMATED ADT: 2005 ADT = 3,900
2025 ADT = 7,600
TTST = I%
DUAL = 2%
DHV 12%
DIR = 60%
DESIGN SPEED: 45 MPH
MAXIMUM RATE OF SUPERELEVATION: 0.06 ft/ft
MAXIMUM DEGREE OF CURVE:8°40'
MAXIMUM GRADE: 9%
MINIMUM DESIRABLE K FACTORS: Ksag = 79 Kcrest = 61
SHOULDER WIDTH & TYPE : 6.0 fit TOTAL (9.Oft WITH GUARDRAIL)
LANE WIDTHS: II.0 ft
BRIDGE DECK WIDTH: 28.Oft CLEAR
BRIDGE LENGTH: 85.0 ft
4' 6' II' ~ il' ~' 6'
~ ~
.y
2,~
~ 9' WITH GUARDRAIL
DETOUR APPROACH ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
~~-

PO
NT
i
A
.08 _ .02 A2 _ .08
A ~ .....
DETOUR BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
FIGURE 3B
NOTE:
A VERTICAL DESIGN EXCEPTION PREPARED BY: KO & ASSOC. DATE: 02-04-04
M4Y BE REQUIRED. APPROVED BY: DATE:

3' II' ~ I
li' 3'
PO
N
i
I
T

~
.02
__

~ y
/ 1~ ~• ,~ 2218 ,.,,I
.J ~ K' ~ ~%_~, .. y. BRIDGE NO. 140 _ "~
~~~,""~~~ 2183 amve 2218 2215 °
h1= 4 - $
~` i S~ ° `
I ~ Ups ~~a
~~
~ i
1 - ~ 15 ~,1
., I.
. ~ 1 ` ,~ r
'~ t ~ 12182 2183 , +j-' '°
>~ ~ =1''~ ~S / ~ q
uas '~+
u ~ b
~" . .-~ "` ~ 2215 ~m~
. p mm 2217
Jt 2183 2218 +
r uy. ~ ~
A
i .,; ~ ' ~ ~
a• ~ F
°~~ - ~ a ~ a ,~ /
l
e. ~ ~` c \
,) e ~
..~
84
1
`~ _~ `° ~- 2345 .r t
~ 2215 ~e
....__
34 2183 ~s^, / _4 e
ip - /
7
~~ ~ ~, ? 345 e
-.Y, r l~ m r ~ mz r ~ ~ ` o. a ~t ~I .w
z
~ _ ~i li
d•-
O A R1~~i
s
- K f.

r
,•e
J~~
~'
1 ~'
s i
2319 b
~ 2216 f 1'
_.
~ ~ '
I
2222 '
I

t ~~'~Rnh ' ~ t

~ ~
s
y

' 11
~~ _
~

t A ( 2]
S ~
,,,,w a >
i
D ~
~ ~''°~
_
, ~ a m¢

~ !
F ~ .._~ liil n
11 0 \ ~`
l`\
~ ~ 0~5 ~
GRAPHIC SCALE IMN.ES1
• .,~
. f 1~OR1'S CARCf~TA DRAAY7QlTr 0! 7>RANlCRTA170~i
R~oE DbwdV~~ ~ Brdr~r~irl Aa.)sd~ Br..aL
.`
...r .r n~~~f.
BRIDGE N0. 140
SR 2215 OVER UNAMED TRIBUTARY TO GABRtELS CREEK
RANDOLPH COUNTY
B-4244
DETOUR MAP
FIGURE 6

Appendix

REPLY. TO
ATTENTION OF:
Regulatory Division

~',
Sub'ect: Action ID No. 200400429 (B-4243
J ) ~{ Jh~rL ~ ~ R~:xq is ~ fO
200400431 (B-4244) - Fe ~ `~;~~~;;- ! ;: ` • ~~~t.~~~,~
. 200400432 (13-4246) 4nG5u~~~c~ ~Yl (J ~~~,+~ ~ =`~~~ ~'~
v ~f {At. P.~'~`
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RECEIVED
APR 7 2x)04
~ CEOF jil~ll~8
I am responding to your letter dated February 10, 2004 requesting scoping comments on
TIP Projects B-4243, Bridge number 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek; TIP Projects B-4244,
Bridge number 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek; and TIP Projects B-4246, Bridge number
228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek, Randolph County, NCDOT Division 8. Based on the
K ___ information provided and GIS, it appears that jurisdictional areas as defined at 33 CFR 328.3(a)
c are located within the proposed project scoping area. In accordance with Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, Department of the Army (DA) authorization will be
required for the discharge of dredged, excavated or fill material into waters of the United States,
including wetlands that aze identified in association with this project.
Your letter specifies that Categorical Exclusion would be prepared for this project.
However, to qualify for nationwide permit authorization under Nationwide Permit #23 or any
other form of general permit, the application and/or project planning report should contain
sufficient information to document that all proposed activities associated with the project do not
h;we more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact ~n the a!lt!atic environment. All
activities, including temporary construction, demolition, access, and dewatering activities, should
be included in the application and/or project planning report. A copy of the project planning
report should be included with the application subriiittal. The report should contain an adequate
description of all proposed activities; both permanent and temporary. The amount of permanent
and temporary impacts to waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that
will be affected by the proposed project should also be included in the report. In addition, the
report should provide a reasonable estimate of the linear feet of adverse impacts to streams and
acreage impacts to verified wetlands. The type of DA authorization and any specific permit
requirements will depend on the crossing design, extent of the fill work within jurisdictional
areas, construction methods and other public interest and environmental factors.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 - ~.
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 rf, +,,~ ,,,~
~_.e-
Apri12, 2004 ,~~'
Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results in more than
~j minimal impacts on the aquatic environment and the proposed project would therefore not be

eligible for authorization under a general permit. These impacts are generally associated with
alteration of hydrologic pathways and hydraulics, disruption of the free movement of aquatic and
terrestrial organisms indigenous to the area, and increased impacts to aquatic habitat. If a bridge
is proposed for replacement with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate that the work will not
result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment, specifically addressing the
passage of aquatic life including anadromous fish, if applicable. The work must also not alter the
stream hydraulics and create flooding of adjacent properties or result in unstable stream banks.
In some cases, a hydraulic analysis (HECRAS) may be required and should be included with the
application. In addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation and natural wildlife corridors, if applicable.
Lengthening existing bridges can often benefit the ecological and hydrological functions of
the associated wetlands and streams. In addition, longer bridges where there are large adjacent
contiguous forested floodplains could enhance existing wildlife passage thereby creating a safer
roadway. Most bridge approaches are connected to earthen causeways that were built in
floodplain wetlands and streams. Replacing these causeways with longer bridges would allow
previously impacted wetlands to be restored. In an effort to encourage this type of restoration
effort, mitigation credit for wetland restoration activities can be provided to offset the added
costs of lengthening an existing bridge.
Off-site temporary construction detours should be fully explored in lieu of on-site detours
constructed in wetlands. If an on-site detour is the requested action, justification should be
provided that demonstrates that alternatives, including an off-site alternative, with lower aquatic
resource impacts are not practicable. On-site detours, unless constructed on a spanning structure
or on a previous detour that was used in a past construction activity, can cause permanent
wetland impacts due to soil compression resulting from the on-site detour fill placed on
compressible soils and associated heavy equipment compaction. Substantial soil compression in
wetland systems may in turn cause a subsurface hydrologic barrier in the wetland, which would
alter the hydrologic regime of the wetland and impair its ecological and hydrologic functions.
For proposed projects and associated on-site. detours that cause minimal losses of wetlands, an
approved wetland restoration and monitoring plan will be required prior to issuance of a DA
Nationwide or Regional general permit. For proposed projects and associated on-site detours
that•~cause substantial wetland losses, an individual DA permit and a compensatory mitigation
proposal for the unavoidable wetland impacts may be required.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) federally listed species maybe found within close
proximity to the bridg:: p;o~ct. ~~~' vrcrc:.ela,;,d to federally li~icil ESA`. species as rcquired'uy
Section 7 of the ESA including copies of all correspondence and meeting minutes with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAA Marine Fisheries Service associated with the subject
projects should be coordinated with this office.
If concrete structures, such as bridge piers and footers, are a component of these projects,
methods must be employed to avoid any contact of "live" concrete with surface waters and all
instream construction should be conducted in the "dry" by use of stream diversion methods. If
temporary stream diversions are to be utilized, a plan and description should be provided
showing the proposed structure and method of diversion. A restoration plan will be required
showing how the diversion area will be returned to pre-construction conditions following the

completion of the project. If restoration involves revegatation of the disturbed area, the plan
should include a planting scheme using only endemic vegetation. Bridge piers and footers
should be located outside of the waterway whenever possible and where not practicable should
~,_ be keep to a minimum.
Based on the information provided for the referenced project site, the apparent level of
wetland impacts, and scope of the project, the referenced project does not appear to warrant
coordination pursuant to the integrated Section 404/NEPA-merger agreement.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our scoping comments. Should you
have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further, please call me at the Wilmington
Field Office at 910-251-4172.
Sincerely,
_ . ~!,`
Richard K. Spencer
NCDOT Project Manager
CF:
Ms. Karen Taylor, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
_ North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
. Mr. John Dorney
'NCDENR-DWQ
Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Mr. Travis Wilson
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1141 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Gary Jordan
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
-3-

Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. EPA
Raleigh Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Mr. James J. Rerko
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 6
P.O. Box 1150
Fayetteville, North Carolina 28302
Mr. Art King, DEO
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 8
P.O: Box 1067
Aberdeen, North Carolina 28315
E

United States Department of the Interior ~~GE~ ~
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Fcld Od'ice
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North CaroGna'I7636-3726 ~j~R ;. ~ "C~~
ox
March 4, 2004 fiti ~ ~ of ~~' "
o~~~FkT vE~G ~~SS~
X41 ktbfi
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
three bridges in Randolph County:.
B-4243, Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek
B-4244, Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek (W. Branch)
B-4246, Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U:S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or mliimi~e environmental impacts. to fish-and wildlife resources:
1. ~ Wetland, forest.and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should 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 via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour azea should be
entirely removed and the impacted azeas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;

4. Wherever appropriate, construction insensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
comdors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of.the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
There are two federally protected species listed for Randolph County -Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitziz~. Although the
North Cazolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of Cape Fear shiners in the vicinity of any of the project sites, use of the NCNHP
data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs neaz the project
sites. The NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of federally
protested species ar:cl does ret nc~essarily mean thai such :;~eci::~ ~:~~ .iot pr„seni. It may simp~y
mean that an azea has not been surveyed. Information about the habitats in which this species is
often found is provided on our web site http://endangered.fws. ov/ . If suitable habitat occurs
within the project vicinities for this species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence
or absence of the species. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and
results.
Although federally endangered, the Schweinitz's sunflower is locally abundant in the Asheboro
area. The NCNHP database indicates a known occurrence of this species approximately 0.5 mile
from the B-4244 project site. There is a reasonable probability that the species occurs neaz the
other sites as well. The Service recommends surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower at all three
bridge sites.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for these projects, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in

. . i
project implementation. 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. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. 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 (NWT. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources; and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish.and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and duect loss of habitat;
7. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed,. project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting fife unavoidable impacts.
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 our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~'rr,~,~,'
~jt Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Beth Barnes, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Karen Taylor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ~ ~ ~~~~
Habitat Conservation Program s/- i~/~---'~
DATE: Mazch 19, 2004
SUBJECT: ~ NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Rockingham, Randolph, and Guilford counties.
TIP Nos. B-4252, B-4254, B-4243, B-4244, B-4246, B-4129, B-4130, and B-
4131.
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
('12 U.S. ~. ~'~32(2)(c}) and ~h:, rsh and Wildlife i:ooruination Act (48 Stat. ~40I, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Our standazd recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope 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 honzontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows.#'or 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.

Bridge Memo
2 March 19, 2004
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 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
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.
5. 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.
Logan Williams 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 I S 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.
San bags, ro.c_c hcra~s, co`ferdams, or other tai~t::ien stn~c~ires shoul~? be u:~ed
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:

Bridge Memo
4 March 19, 2004
exists at this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from
April 1 to June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4243, Randolph County, Bridge No. 71 over Reek Creek on SR 1504. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-4244, Randolph County, Bridge No. 140 over Gabriels Creek on SR 2215. We
recommend replacing this bridge with abridge. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4246, Randolph County, Bridge No. 228 over Richland Creek on SR 2834. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
6. B-4129, Guilford County, Bridge No. 226 over Little Alamance Creek on SR 3000. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish exists at
this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to
June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4130, Guilford County, Bridge No. 228 over Alamance Creek on SR 3045. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish exists at
this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to
June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4131, Guilford County, Bridge No. 11 over Little Alamance Creek on SR 3394. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish exists at
this site, therefore we request an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to
June 30. Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
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 soma t3!pe, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
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.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Bridge Memo 3 March 19, 2004
The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This maybe accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
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 along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with rflad closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
?oc~aed `o avoid rTret?~_.d imp~c±s, i~:inlIl:ize the need fir clearing al:d t~ avoid dcstabiliLil.g
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 reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
f
1. B-4252, Rockingham County, Bridge No. 67 over Little Beaver Creek and Bridge No. 95
over Big Beaver Creek on US 31 1. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge.
A significant fishery for sunfish exists at the Big Beaver Creek site, therefore we request
an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1 to June 30. Standard
recommendations apply.
2. B-4254, Rockingham County, Bridge No. 89 over Little Troublesome Creek on SR 2627.
We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery for sunfish

~~~
~'° "`~'
~ ~.,.n~ ,
~~~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
l~larch 10, 2004
MEMORANDUM
~,~i V~4
~~~'~ 1 ~ 200 _
i~
a~~n °:'~ 1V16~ OiF '~~ ~
Division ' ~ N~qB y`g~~
David L. S. ~~
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
r~ , - ~
FROM: David Brook ~~~~ ~,~` ,~,~Q .;: ~~.~. ~ tJt.f~y(~_
1
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek, B-4243; Bridge No. 140 on
SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek, B-4244; Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over
Richland Creek, B-4246; Randolph County, ER04-0471, ER04-0472 and
ER04-0473
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 2004, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic
resources which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
undertaking as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
"Thank you for youi cooperation anal cun;ideration. if you i:ave questions conc.ir~ia t:ie
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.
cc: Mary- Pope Fury
Matt Wilkerson
www.hpo.dcrstate.nc.us
Location Mailing Address TelephondFax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-0617 [phone].733-8653
RESTORATION 51 S N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone].715-4801

~~~
y° .~..^„
~. w.sw•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'I~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 10, 2004
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
Division of Archives and History
Department of Cultural Resources
4610 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4610
Dear Dr. Crow:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Randolph County
B-4243, Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek
B-4244, Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek (W. Branch)
B-4246, Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has begun studying proposed
improvements to the subject bridge replacement projects. The projects are included in the
NCDOT's 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program and are scheduled for right-
of-way in fiscal year 2005 and construction in fiscal year 2007.
B-4243, Bridge No. 71 on SR 1504 over Reek Creek
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1962, crosses over Reek Creek and
is 41 feet long and 24 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do-Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace at existing location by closing the existing roadway and
maintaining traffic with anoff-site detour.
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing anoff--site detour route, SR
1504 will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

structure. If you feel this would create undue travel hardships to the community please
advise. Any comments regarding potential impacts to School Bus Routings and
Emergency Response Units (fire, rescue, police, etc.) would be especially helpful.
B-4244, Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek (West Branch)
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1950, crosses over Gabriels Creek
and is 36 feet long and 19.1 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do-Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace at existing location by closing the existing roadway and
maintaining traffic with anoff-site detour.
- Replace at existing location maintaining traffic with a temporary structure
and detour on east side.
If the structure is replaced at its existing location utilizing anoff--site detour route,
SR 2215 will be closed to through traffic during the construction of the replacement
structure. If you feel this would create undue travel hardships to the community please
advise. Any comments regarding potential impacts to School Bus Routings and
Emergency Response Units (fire, rescue, police, etc.) would be especially helpful.
B-4246, Bridge No. 228 on SR 2834 over Richland Creek
The existing two-lane structure, constructed in 1951, crosses over Richland Creek
and is 92 feet long and 19.5 feet wide.
The following alternatives will be studied for this bridge project:
- Do-Nothing
- Rehabilitate the Existing Structure
- Replace on the west side maintaining traffic on the existing structure as an
on-site detour.
- Replace at existing location maintaining traffic with a temporary structure
and detour on west side.
We would appreciate any information you have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential community and environmental impacts of the above projects. If
applicable, please identify any permits and/or approvals required by your agency.
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for these
projects. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the projects.
It is desirable that you respond by March 31, 2004, so that your comments can be used in
the preparation of a proposed Categorical Exclusion for the above projects. You may

have previously been contacted concerning these bridge replacement projects, please note
that the alternatives may have changed or additional alternatives may have been added.
If you have any questions concerning the projects, please contact Kazen Taylor,
P.E., Project Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], extension 223.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachments
KT/jw

`O~OF vuH1F~QG
~ I~ f

p '~
March 24
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
n,
' ~ ~ . /~
FROM: Robert Ridings, Env. Tech., DWQ 401 Unit ~-~~/~ %2
THROUGH: John Hennessy, Supervisor, DWQ 401 Transportation Unit~~~
d-
,~
~tIPR ~ 2~~'4
'~ ~
yAp D!'JiSlUN G;` ~';
~0 ~,~~ NiGh1~YAYS ~~C ~Q
~gr~~r~C AN ~~' ~~.
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects:vB-4281,x-4112,-4252,
~B-4254,~'B-4100,'$-4101,`x-4243,x-4244,`x-424~'~3-4104,'B-4129 ~B-4130;~B-4131.
~'- ~ K (rj rya ~ K;cu1
In reply to your correspondence dated February 10, 2004 (received February 18, 2004) to Cynthia Van der Wiele,
in which you requested comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following
comments:
L General Comments Re~ardin~ Bridge Replacement Proieets
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace the
bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. 14 rather than Nationwide Permit 23.
2. Bridge demolition should be performed using Best Management Practices developed by NCDOT.
3. DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do .
not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clrrarances provided by bridges allows for
human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
4, -Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed across the
bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated
buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters -
5. ?.ive concrete sho~~ld rot be a1loWCd to contact tl;e Water i.~ or entering into tl~e stream. Co-,t:rete is mostly
made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state. (not hardened) calcium carbonate is very
soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unharderied state concrete or cement will change the
pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
7: 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 10'x10'. If
possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with
chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact,
allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone). 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
~ ~ ~(,,~ J t ` Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross 1r., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1~~ . .

r
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the
bridge.
9. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented prior
to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent sedimentation
of water resources.
11. 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.
12. 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. This equipment should
be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
II. General Comments if Reylacin~ the Bride with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for. aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe invert
should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural thalweg depth). If
multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream
bankfull or floodplain bench elevation. (similar to Lyonsfield design}. These should be reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the upstream end to restrict
or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silted ban els should be filled with sediment so as not to cause noxious
or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low
flows to accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched
baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life
passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide
a continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
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 along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid channel
realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided..Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet
end ofstructcres typically d^creases w<^.ter ve'.ecit~ c~usirg sedi**ient deposition that requires increased.
maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active. thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally designed,
sized, and installed.
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. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. 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.

.'
III. Proiect-Specific Comments
B-4281, Bride 60, Dan River, Stokes County
Dan River is classified as C Trout and is in the Roanoke River Basin. A moratorium prohibiting in-stream wo.
and land disturbance within the 25-foot trout buffer is recommended from October 15 to April 15 to protect the
egg and fry stages of trout. DWQ would prefer this bridge to be replaced with a bridge and the use of BMPs
(particularly for sediment and erosion control) to be maximized.
B-4112, Bride 30, Muddy Creek, Forsyth County
Muddy Creek is classified as C and is in the Yadkin River Basin. DWQ has no special concerns with this proje
Please refer to general recommendations listed above.
B-4252, Brides 67 and 95, Little Beaver and Bid Beaver Creeks, Rockingham County
Little Beaver and Big Beaver Creeks are both classified as C and are in the Roanoke River Basin. DWQ has nc
special concerns with this project.
B-4254, Bride 89, Little Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County
Little Troublesome Creek is listed as C NSW and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water.
NCDOT shall maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical
Area of the Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4100 and B-4101, Brides 142 and 141, Abbotts Creek, Davidson County
Abbotts Creek is listed as WS-III water supply stream and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff anc
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).
B-4243, Bride 71, Hasketts Creek, Randolph County
Hasketts Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Best Management Practices for all work crossing or draining to the Critical Area of the
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed waters. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4244, Bridle 140, Gabriels Creek Randolph County
Gabriels Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. DWQ has no special concerns for this projec
~B-4246, Brume 228, Richland Creek, Randolph County
Richland Creek is listed as C and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. It is a 303(d) listed water. NCDOT shall
maximize the use of Bestliaaagement Practices for-all vrork crossi~?~ or cry ~:~irg to the Critical Area of tr°
Water Supply Watershed and 303(d)-listed wafers. In addition, NCDOT shall strictly adhere to "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124).
B-4104, Brul~e 21, Carter Creek, Davie County
Carter Creek is listed as WS-IV and is in the Yadkin River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetated buffer
requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximize use c
BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B :0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G).

B-4129, Bridge 226, Little Alamance Creek Guilford County ~
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to mininuze storm water runoff a~
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located withi .
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this project bas
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The projectf
shall incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .01
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
B-4130, Brul~e 228, Alamance Creek Guilford County I
Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot vegetates
buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff and maximi
use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project is located within the Criti~
Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for.this project based on traffic
count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project shall
incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0215 (~
stormwater management; sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers).
B-4131, Bride ll, Little Alamance Creek Guilford County
Little Alamance Creek is listed as WS-N NSW CA and is in the Cape Fear River Basin. There are 30-foot
vegetated buffer requirements in WS waters in addition to the requirements to minimize storm water runoff an
maximize use of BMPs. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)(i)(F) and (G). Since the project.is located wi
the Critical Area of a water supply watershed, hazardous spill catch basins may be required for this project ba
on traffic count, percent truck traffic or proximity to industries transporting hazardous materials. The project
shall incorporate the requirements for WS-N Waters within the critical area as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .C~
(i.e., stormwater management, sedimentation and erosion control, and buffers). t
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality ,
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met anc
.designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional. information, please
contact Robert Ridings at [phone] or Cynthia Van der Wiele at [phone].
cc: USACE Raleigh Field Office
File Copy

~`~~
~~ ~~~,~~
~~
~^\`~~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
.~d,~
~d /~A
~ __ .~
~~~..~-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLD
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO
~-
F r-~
`~ CJ ~Y"
~ ~r ~ ~.-.
~~
August 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Cox
School Transportation Director
Randolph County Schools
2234-A Enterprise St.
Asheboro, NC 27203
FROM: William T. Goodwin, Jr. PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Creek, Randolph County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-221 S(1), State Project No. 8.2574201, TIP
No. B-4244
The N. C. Department of Transportation has begun the planning process to replace the
above bridge, which is nearing the end of its useful life. Construction is planned for year 2006.
Alternative methods of replacing the bridge will be studied. Some alternatives may require
road closure at the bridge site. In that case, all traffic would be detoured onto other local roads.
The type of bridge or structure that we select will determine how long the road would have
to remain closed. However, the time of closure would not be longer than 8-12 months.
We would like to know the specific number of bus crossings per day and if road closure
could be handled by re-routing or other changes, or if it would ereate an unworkable situation for
your school bus operations. Of course, closure is not a realistic option for dead end roads. In such
cases traffic will be maintained.
We ask that you let us know your opinion in writing by using the enclosed addressed
envelope. We need your reply by December 2, 2002.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Davis Moore at (919} 733-
7844, ext.-258.
Attachment
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.N000T.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

• 06~fl2i2004 11:48
MTCHAEi.I^. EASt.EY
GOVERr10R
May z~, 2004
TIP Project: B-4z44
County: Randolph
Description: Bridge No. 140 on SR 2215 over Gabriels Creek {West Hranch)
NiIEIYIORANDIJM
TO: Gregory J. Tharpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: Karen Taylor, I'.E., Project Development Engineer
N0.692
LYNAO TiPPETT
SECRETARY
FRt?M: ~, N'athan K. Phillips, P.E., Piari Review Engineer ~ j~ ~~5~
Congestion Management Section -`
SUBJE'CT': Categorical Exclusion for B-4244
The Plan 12eview Scluad of the Traffic Engineering• and Safety Systems Branch has completed a
preliminary review of this project. We would like to shore the following comments received from
Traffic Contro! and our Signing Section.
^ Traffic Control recommends an offsite detour for this project during construction as the most
viable option. According to Traffic Control, the off-site detour may need to be resurfaced to
ensure that the additional traffic is properly accommodated,
• Our Signing Section estimates that $2000 will be required for contract signing on this project.
The Signing Section further comments that a field trip will be conducted during the project's
preliminary plan preparation phase to determine whether the signing work will be handled by
contract or through the division force account.
.~',t tl.is time rv~ have na additional comments. If ye>.l have any ~uPstions, »_ lease contact N:~sir
Sidd.iqui, Plan Review Project Engineer, or me at [phone].
NKP/ns
cc: T. Johnson, P.E. (Attention: W. C. Garner Jr., P.E.)
'V'. $arbaur, P.E. (Attention: C. S. Houser, P.E.)
A.L. Grandy
T. M. Hopkins, P.E. (Attention: J. H. Dunlop, P.E.)
I~lAI1.,ING ADDRESS:
T'R.4tFl(" C/~GItJ[~RI\C ANU $AI~E7l" $YSTQIvIS 13 RAWC
p15~~I3 W1~,IL SLRViCE CEKTL'R
IV.LI;IG1(, NoxTti CAROW NA ?7G94-1593
NC DOT PDEA ~ 98516846
~M
r
•y~-.
STATE OF NORTH CARDLII+~A
LlEPARTMENT ~F 1, .tcANSPO~tTATI~N
1'ti LtE rl ton e : 919-25 0-4151
Pnx~ 914-350-a19c
11'F,USfTE.' l1'K'~~'DOIt.DOY:STAT£. A'C. US
R. E. Mullinax, P.E.
J. S. Bourne, P.lr.~
R. W. King, P.E.
LOCATION:
CENTURY CEI:TER CQMPLE:( SL4l.D1~:G li
102U I31RCH R[OGE DaIYH
ItALElptl, NpRTH CAAOLIh'A 27610
D02

Jack Ward
From: Davis, Donovan L. [[e-mail]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 3:27 PM
To: jward c~koassociates.com
Subject: Randolph County, NC Bridge replacement projects
Mr. Ward,
In reference to the bridge closing projects; B-4243, B-4244, and B-4246. I do not see any
immediate concerns regarding the detours. We do request that we be given 2-3 weeks notice
prior to the closing of each bridge so that a more strategic and detailed survey can be
taken of the immediate residences and/or businesses in those areas. At that time we will
also notify each Fire Department, Rescue Service, EMS, and Zaw Enforcement.
It is difficult to make exact determinations with the provided maps. I did look on our
GIS but could not determine the specific area when comparing the~two maps.
The most problematic area will be the project on Old Cox Rd (SR 2834) because of NC Zoo
traffic in the area. Again, with 2-3 weeks notice prior to the closing, this should not
be a major problem.
Please give me a call if you have any other questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Donovan Davis,
Deputy Director - EM
Randolph County Emergency Services
336-318-6943 Office
336-318-6951 Fax
raww.co.randolph.nc.us/
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email
in error please notify the originator of the message.
1

• r
} ..~ SL~1to
G~ . ~ ~'
•~ `~
yw.om~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART`1V1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. Easley Lyndo Tippett
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ATTENTION: Karen B. Taylor, PE
Project Development Engineer
1
FROM: Njoroge W. Wainaina, PE ~~~~
State Geotechnical Engineer
TII' NO. B-4244
WBS 33587.1.1
FEDERAL PROJECT: BRZ-2215 (1)
COUNTY: Randolph
DESCRIl'TION: Bridge # 140 over a Creek on SR 2215
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report
The Geotechnical Engineering Unit performed a limited pre-scoping investigation of the above
reference project to provide an early identification of any Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental
issues uiat liiib'.Irt impact tl~c project's plaiu.ing, design or construction. Tl~e folic ~.ving
information summarizes our findings.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Puraose
This report presents the results of a GeoEnvironmental impact evaluation conducted along the
above referenced project. The main purpose of this investigation is to identify properties within
the project study area that are or may be contaminated and therefore result in increased project
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING UNIT
1589 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1589
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DON.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ENTRANCE B-2
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
E-4244 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 2
costs and future liability if acquired by the Department. GeoEnvironmental impacts may include,
but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous
waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dumpsites.
Technigues/Methodologies Used
The Geographical Information System (GIS) was consulted to identify known environmentally
impacting sites in relation to the project corridor. GeoEnvironmental Section personnel
conducted a field reconnaissance survey along the project corridor on March 23, 2004.
Findings
Underground Storage Tank (CYST) Facilities
Based on our study, there are no UST sites identified within the project limits.
Hazardous Waste Sites
No Hazardous Waste Sites were identified within the project limits.
Land Fills
No apparent landfills were identified within the project limits.
Other GeoEnvironmental Concerns
There were no other geoenvionmental concerns identified within the project limits.
Anticipated Impacts
There are no GeoEnvironmental impacts anticipated within the project limits.
The GeoEnvironmental Section observed no additional contaminated properties during the field
reconnaissance and regulatory agencies' records search. The GeoEnvironmental Section will
provide soil and groundwater assessments-on each of the above properties after identification of
the selected alternative and before right of way acquisition. Please note that discovery of

Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
B-4244 Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Comments
09/09/04
Page 3
additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable during the
project reconnaissance may occur. The GeoEnvironmental Section should be notified
immediately after discovery of such sites so their potential impact(s) maybe assessed.
If there are any questions regarding these or other GeoEnvironmental issues on the project, please
contact Gene Tarascio, GIT at (919)-250-4088.
GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
Techniques and Methodologies
A site reconnaissance was conducted on May 11, 2004. A single Standard Penetration Test
boring was performed on June 2, 2004, in the northwest quadrant about seven feet off the
existing pavement. The collar elevation was about 10 feet above the streambed.
Findings
The proposed corridor lies within the Carolina Slate Belt province in an area mapped as felsic
meta-volcanic rock. Rock "float" is abundant, and rock outcrop is present in the stream channel.
The rock is foliated and fractured yielding a "blocky" texture common in Slate Belt areas. The
floodplain is minimal and not expected to be an issue. The test boring found six feet of roadway
fill, five feet of very soft alluvial clay, then weathered to hard rock. The weathered rock horizon
is near the stream bed elevation.
Auticpafed impacts
The southern approach for a temporary structure on the east side would likely require some minor
excavation. Some small quantities of hard rock excavation can be anticipated. Shallow rock is
anticipated at the structure foundation locations. Abridge would be founded on shallow rock;
spread footings or drilled shaft foundations would be likely. Shallow rock in the streambed
makes a bottomless culvert possibly feasible.
If there are any questions regarding these Geotechnical comments, please contact Clinton B.
Little, L.G or John L. Pilipchuk, L.G., P.E. at (704)-455-8902
NWW/GT/CBL/JLP/dbm