19930148 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard Jr., P.E„ Director
19A
AA&4
slalom ?ssssssss
llllslllsll?
[D EHNR
November 29, 1994
Cleveland County
DEM Project # 93148
TIP # B-2017,
State Project # 8.2800701
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
FILE COPY
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.08 acres of wetlands or waters for trz purpose
of construction of a temporary access road at bridge replacement (T-213) on SR 1512, as you
described in your application dated 10 November 1994. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 2727. Thi certification
allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 33 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you. may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. In
addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an ad-Judicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certif-cation and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-"33-1786.
Sincere V,
P Jr. P
Attachment '
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
93148.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer pacer
N. C. 'DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE.

TRANSMITTAL SLIP 4
O:• - REF. NO. R ROC A, BLDG.
r I 1
O R F. LDG.
_
°I ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE.. ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN,TO. ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT' THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR. YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR My SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i

t,
i
f: i
?.

-
Y
f, e?srnto
Pi ?9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 10, 1994
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Cleveland County, SR 1512, Bridge No. 213 over
First Broad River; State Project Number 8.2800701;
Federal Aid Number BRZ-1512(1); T.I.P. NO. B-2017
The Categorical Exclusion for this bridge replacement
was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 6,
1993. Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction
Access and Dewatering) was issued on March 10, 1994, for the
placement of a temporary causeway to facilitate removal of
the old bridge. This involved placement of rip rap within
0.08 acre of the stream bed and banks, with three 48"
corrugated steel pipes. The contractor has proposed that
placement of six 36" corrugated steel pipes within the
causeway would provide better water passage. No changes in
the areal coverage of rip rap fill would be necessary. All
of the rip rap placed in the stream is to be removed upon
completion of this work.
We hereby request modification of the existing plans
approved under Nationwide Permit No. 33 to allow the
placement of six pipes within the temporary rip rap causeway,
rather than four pipes. By copy of this letter, approval by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, is
also requested.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
0

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you
have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely
B. 'Qui n, P.E.
Assist anager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
R.W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer

1
?O
......
O?
-- ----------
r

-a`s'• ?

avi?

am z
0
J
' ?' J u
O

J
?!" -

r?s
w"

boo .
ME:
O .

h

O O
C\j
y[ ( Q & J .
Q0-

'?
R
OO UISII

? o
? ?

' C
O
? how a? ova" % ? x ?
_
W
W Q Q V Lu
U'/'NOW
NQ?aU.
W N
j?Z1a-
FHUN C)
O V F-•
Q

'"a
N UL a Ln
..
ny
zOw¢uu¢
f ¢r uzN¢
oC ?o
NM O ti
W
OW -N -4 .r, O

stis
W
18
V N
SOW
?i
50WM 1

'r
.......................... _ %
•. I W
; ?y
?
- W
....
... ...............
.._.._.._.._.._......?._ 8'3Nb OV

.. d "r Q
-
_-
-

t
I / _
.......

0
I`??
so

.... •. 2
----------- -
' .......

W

Q Y 3

a

y
a ~
e .. Vm C
Y
4
m

W h
a 3 LL. '
410
€N to Q?
g? vc)v
n" -J
e= ??ti w
ticr
V
K {? O 4y
a ? U- ?C elf
O O W ?c
6 -Z Z
N...6"2?
O?? W y
WNO
j0? LL
1
IM1Mry•? a ?Mj]
U
W
F
O U ? 0
O W y
. U 3
? 'w
sY° a W =
u?s
m? w?7
?3w? u,
-gy s
m

M W
a

R' -

W Nii ti
aU
tp `? b
W
m
W
Z
Ja x
Q
Q
ti
Q
L?
W
x
m
u ? g
J j
Z
W w
V W
a
b
C-
cc

o?
r

N r
Z
6
Iv'
..y3
Fo?u`- QWm
{{syy ? ? ?I

? .a„
-?!
W p
IIIJ
I-
W

Vf
O Q
I
*'` a raj u=iLL:

1`? [
iom?

4 Q LO

00,
=
how c 0-- ? , Z J l0
.
• 6?
?
aN?=9 `'? W F- Q o

yl W New
O?FC60VF'1
¢ LLJ --J
-5
V Q
_? ?g ? o$
?? a 1~il
rar?W Q
Q
x ¢N o N ,^ ?' J

2 r•
a
J w3
SOON
.-----._ .-•.-._____ • .

a ?? 1
W?V 0
JQ) V)
e o W C? CZ?
ticr ?c
ti
na- CL L,
>C X11
a W ac
G JO J z
NLL ¢2
6~ Cw
2wZ?K
d
??

?
H
W
3
1O
W
QaNa O
o
rca??? r
o. $m

20¢awO Ww
qwrJZ
> O
C¢oiwp?1Wy
iw¢?wN
?

?
C
ti
m
Wye

gnu
_} .
.
m
?
Wy UUUpU.? 6
Fjw O?W w
Jzu
¢LLZ.N y
O
`
?
• ? NW
3
?W _I

1.
H:
it
411b*
1 W
/ i
i+
.._..-.. _.. _.._..-..?.-W ? N3Nb OVC&B lSyld
g- _ Q
..............

4;.
I
M

... • z
-- -- -------
------------
s ` P
'b
C

a

s

b
?m
gW C?
W
m
W
a
? Q
z
2
OO
U
V
W
g
Q W
c
ti
III
I
woom
...................
Y
a
a
--------------
i
?W •
ism ?•'
ql %.?
YNy?? 1•
U6?
i
i z W?
S Z ?` 7
y`S', JWOW >W O O J Q
,?1LL? A
FOU°.U~ 3J O 3
J
LU
-? ??Iy?•. ?avwio ?iLL•. ?i ?? ? ? ? 1i Lo?? ?
C) V)
t U
?m w.-.-YS Q
F a iwm? Q
O J CO QLLJ2 w °-lases
?""""7 ozdwar °'LL'am ~ Z W ti. ?Z O ty ,n of
1-?J JUOJ? _??? w W Z V) j
Jwu.-O ?
u Nin?w ?lF ¢a W J m Q.U ill
m LL ¢a oin o U Q w° O W OC
r
F???? W ? .. a N a=
FiFay {n uz ? ?
6W2?Z q?J¢N ? > ti
u??°Za4 ?WZN Oa ti ? H
003HW o01-O6 (Y? ?? ? ? 3
60 U?W `V 2 x
Q1NU6u11O 66p J.JQ.. R? ?m t5
rZaSW? ¢WW>W ? W{n =4 .
W= J2U W z to 2M1O
JU O 6LL ?: V1 6W

N
I

lk.
a?
• O?
}
1
1 ?W
?a
I
W
+ ? b3Nb OVObg ?N/J
Q
m
Sa4z?,
2
0
`J
I
,{
9
a ?
m
c
R
Qg
U <
W „
W
m
m g
W
ti
W
V)
W
I _ .
O
sooom
11
e
gZ,
$?t
m
j,GF / - . •--- -
scoa*
/---
aW
C
r
W "? ro

•
'
'g w

a z o C ._-

s m A

OO OU J

¢
LL-
? p C~
1

? -
t
-
3
?
•.??/ Fonu
oa?? WJ
Nio
ri
•n O
? O
? 3a
? _
W J
j?? "C I
/a'41 Q
J
oa6 NLL. a N aQ Q>ti
?
?` 11?
°
` w??Y&
•-o ?`} iwmj
??
s
J
' Q
?j
4 4?
eo V
JWU a
Q1?to?
y ,i
'??YY °?ZU'°x
OW 6r uu
i
ocean
i1 ?{
M pk O' 'O? ? Jt
Z W
- ?-??{ w W
3
O
WrKw3 W 4 G 4 ``
?I?
Nl
c
\
uNNOw
IIz
Q V

o O

a rc

o ti

p W

?
Z .1 VZNj2 ? ? a N
1Y p? {JZ
1-"?-JW
6 ON?7N
JK••
O p ?

3 ? x
O
WZ Z
•
JG
O W
?Or ~ ? N
?
Z
o 1L
?
OSI-W LLC•
? OJJ
= (
(?••??
W 4ti ? 3
pGN6W
O ..Ja
R6.
QQ ?? Q
< ?m

,?
Z
U W J OM,
xx?
\ J
U6NtJQSSQ
W
FJUO I Iz

LL•?+. U1
6
VI 6W

•
% - $?aa I x
v /
N
?4$ Sp
N??? ?? I H / I "N a ¢m
Vlb
Wm
m 6y10+
b3NU ?? LSb!!
Q
I\ • j¢W?Y
•,? 1OLL tJ
99
}
Sp?
2
O
`J
y
o?
9
r?c4'

Q?
Q?
rc
O
N
W <
W
z
m g
m g
2
W?
x
W
i
O
r '_,i- w m
F
A Z = n e N
NZ
t'? auwi°i 'am t- OU J a > Q
y3a azo??
O •-C -
'J
'?ht UOaJJ YNLL.• ? of ON ? ?Q ???
ftF„/ o•-Oa °-r?u? Q 3 eo QWZ Q°1691'
ZW W
0. LLJ
N J FH6 V W
v snow »z.a- Q U U O
a W W>C ?1
iI W
Zx W d h pa
~ a _ ttSf
zowa= e? O '^
?o
W rv u
a??W o v,
¢WZ Z W{y J•¢.." ?J 12.
N LL 0? 2 ¢LL SmK Y N C41
oZs ?wW ao?-LLOaJJ CQ ;
a
RaNaO C6.I..J6 dti
Y O>U m
,•` F?ai?i aLL ?: uwi ¢ gnu
•. ,•`,, J U O V1W ? J
M o
• ? ? V?W ?? m
z
N
W
r W

sooom
Y

?i

aOe

..... .. .
. j OH. . ............

?W ..

W?

?
?
4
N4

1 ?W
t ?
m?
N3NN Gti? LSbId
Q
2
O
`J V
. P?
?Y
9
s
=m C
5
gm
gi
? m
?m
?W
V
a
m
W
m ?
b W
s
Q 4?
L
Q
v
,

a
?f
'f rY•YC'?wtt Y•?..? 1, t'?.4'W?pA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
May 6, 1993
IN Htf'LY Fitt tH IU
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301387 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
fln?,
Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201 WETLANDS GROUP Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 WATER UALITYSECTION
Dear Mr. Ward:
Thank you for your inquiry of February 17, 1993, regarding your plans to
replace Bridge No. 213 over the First Broad River on S.R. 1512 (State Project
8.2800701) near Polkville, 1eveland-County,.-North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. Please be reminded that temporary
construction and access fills below the ordinary high water line of the river
by the contractor will require additional authorization under other nationwide
or regional general permits. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Environmental Management, at telephone
[phone] regarding state water quality certification for this work.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP

authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

SrVt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. IR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 17, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
231,993
Subject: Cleveland County, SR 1512, Bridge No. 213 over
First Broad River; State Project Number 8.2800701;
Federal Aid Number BRZ-1512("1); T.I.P. No. B-2017
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CPR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (P,-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and. Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
uilln, E.
mis?- ,
Mal er,
Planning and Environmental Branch
9) 14q

+ T
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: COE, Asheville Field Office
ohn Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
R.W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Leigh Cobb, P&E
Davis Moore, P&E

Cleveland County
SR 1512
Bridge No. 213 over First Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1512(1)
State Project 8.2800701
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2017
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Z Ward, ., M nager
/_DXPE ?APlianning
and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
r
/Zo 9 3
xa4 1*7 Zv??
DATE Nic as Graf, P.E. PIC F" Division Administrator, FHWA

Cleveland County
SR 1512
Bridge No. 213 over First Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1512(1)
State Project 8.2800701
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2017
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1992
Documentation Prep
Ja s V. Greenhil
P ojec Manager
For North Carolina
ar by Wang Engineering Company:
CAR0Z
•.
?.OESSIpN•.?'? •'
9
E.
a SEAL
• 12919
• If i
•' IFS ••......•• ??? .•
Departmentpof,,Transportation
v
Ron Elmore, P. E., nit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Cleveland County
SR 1512
Bridge No. 213 over First Broad River
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1512(1)
State Project 8.2800701
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2017
Bridge No. 213 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The
project is not expected to have a significant impact on the human
environment and has been classified by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 213 should be replaced on new location upstream
(west) of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate 3 in Figure
2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 24 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 20-foot
travelway with 2-foot shoulders.
Approximately 700 feet of new roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 20-foot
pavement with 2-foot minimum graded shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 315
feet in length should be provided. The waterway opening should
be equal to that of the existing bridge. The elevation of the
new structure should be approximately the same as the floor
elevation of the existing bridge.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
the construction period.
The estimated cost of construction, based on current prices,
is $675,400, including right of way and utility relocation costs.
The previously estimated cost of the project, as shown in
the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, was $467,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any
possible impacts.
,* N
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county,
approval must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Further coordination will be done during
the permit application phase.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1512 (Delight Road) is classified as a rural local route
in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is part of
the Federal-Aid System (BRZ-1512).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1512 has a 20-foot unpaved
roadway on the north approach and a 16 to 18-foot unpaved roadway
on the south approach (see Figure 3). Vertical alignment is
generally rolling. Horizontal alignment of the structure is
tangent with an approximate 48-degree curve on the north approach
and a 10-degree curve on the south approach to the bridge. The
south approach crosses over a small unnamed stream which passes
through a 9-foot concrete arch culvert. This culvert is located
approximately 160 feet from the south end of the bridge.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
primarily scattered rural-residential and agricultural.
Development is sparse but a sand dredging operation is in
progress about 600 feet upstream of the bridge.
The only known utility in the vicinity of the bridge is an
underground telephone line which is attached to the underside of
the bridge.
There is no posted speed limit along this route in the
vicinity of the studied bridge.
The projected traffic volume of 100 vehicles per day (VPD)
for the 1995 anticipated year of construction is expected to
increase to approximately 200 VPD by the year 2015. The
projected volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DTT). Farming operations also utilize
the studied bridge.
The existing bridge (Figure 3) was constructed in 1957. The
4-span superstructure consists of a timber deck on steel beams
with pony trusses supporting the three southernmost spans. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete abutments, two
concrete piers and one steel bent. Overall length of the bridge
is approximately 256 feet. Clear roadway width is 11.0 feet.
The structure deck is located approximately 31 feet above the
stream bed which is above the 100-year flood elevation. The
posted weight limit is 8 tons for single vehicles and 11 tons for
trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 213 has a sufficiency rating of 23.3 compared to
a rating of 100 for a new structure.
2
,s
No accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 213 during
the three year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.
No school buses cross the studied bridge.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 213 were
studied. In each alternative, a bridge deck width of 24 feet
would be provided to accommodate two 10-foot lanes with 2-foot
shoulders. The approaches should consist of a 20-foot pavement
with 2-foot minimum graded shoulders. On all alternatives, the
proposed bridge elevation should be approximately the same as the
existing elevation.
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the structure along the
existing roadway alignment. The proposed replacement
structure is estimated to be a bridge 300 feet in length.
Improvement to alignment of the bridge approaches includes
approximately 250 feet of paved roadway. During the
construction period, traffic would be maintained on existing
routes (see Figure 1) with a "road closure" at the
construction site. The design speed for this alternative is
20 mph.
Alternative 2 - proposes a slightly skewed 305-foot long bridge
located approximately 75 feet upstream (west) of the
existing bridge with an improved horizontal alignment.
Improvements to the alignment of the bridge approaches also
include approximately 650 feet of paved roadway. The
existing structure would be used for maintenance of traffic
during the construction period. The design speed for this
alternative is 25 mph.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) - proposes a slightly more skewed
315-foot long bridge located approximately 125 feet upstream
and provides an improvement to the Alternate 2 horizontal
alignment. Improvements to the alignment of the bridge
approaches also include approximately 700 feet of paved
roadway. The existing structure would be used for
maintenance of traffic during the construction period. The
design speed for this alternative is 40 mph.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service provided by SR 1512.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternatives discussed in this section and shown on Figure 2
are based on functional plans prepared on an uncontrolled photo
map. All distances and directions are approximate. Final
3
r
- 0P construction plans will be based on detailed survey information
and may slightly vary from the alternatives presented here.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structure $345,600 $351,360 $362,880
Roadway Approaches 118,400 177,640 186,120
Structure Removal 16,000 16,000 16,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 70,000 80,000 85,000
Right of Way & 10,600 16,200 25,400
Utilities
Total $560,600 $641,200 $675,400
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 213 should be replaced on new location west
(upstream) of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate No. 3 in
Figure 2. This alternative, while more costly than Alternates 1
and 2, provides a more suitable alignment.
The recommended improvements will include about 700 feet of
new roadway approaches. This includes 350 feet on each approach.
A 20-foot pavement with 2-foot minimum graded shoulders should be
provided on the approaches. A 24-foot clear roadway width is
recommended on the replacement structure. The cross section on
the structure will consist of a 20-foot travelway with 2-foot
shoulders. The design speed for the new alignment is 40 mph.
This will be a design exception, since the assumed speed limit
along this route is 55 mph.
During the construction period, traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge. No construction phasing is anticipated.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, the new bridge
should have a length of approximately 315 feet and a waterway
opening equivalent to that of the existing bridge. The elevation
of the new bridge should be approximately the same as the
existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
future hydraulic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that
Bridge No. 213 be replaced upstream of its existing alignment
along Alternate 3 and that traffic be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. (See letter in Appendix.)
4
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical
exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with use of
current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations.
No adverse impacts on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
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 located northeast of Polkville in Cleveland
County in the Broad River Drainage Basin of the Piedmont Province
of the Appalachian Highlands. The study area is located in a
rural setting of farm fields and scattered residential sites.
Farming is a major industry in this predominantly rural county.
NOISE & AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air
Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Cleveland
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in
an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not
contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures. of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction
but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning,
all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are required.
5
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Life
The areas east of SR 1512 will only be impacted if the
bridge is replaced in its existing location, and that impact will
be minimal. In the northeast quadrant, all vegetation within
100' of SR 1512 consists of a dense growth of weedy, early
successional plants between the roadway and a large sandy flood
plain that has previously been used for a sand-gravel operation.
Examples of plants found here are:
Tree saplings: Black cherry (Prunus serotina)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Shrubs: Staghorn sumac (Rhus tvnhina)
Dogwood (Cornus ammomum)
Blackberry (Rubus arcrutus)
Vines: Trumpet vine (Campsis radicans)
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
Fox grape (Vitis labrusca)
Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)
Greenbriars (Smilax hispida and s. bona-nox)
Manroot (IRomoea pandurata)
Sensitive briar (Schrankia microphylla)
Herbs: Camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris)
Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)
Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida)
Sericea (Lespedeza cuneata)
New York ironwood (Vernonia noveboracensis)
Wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis)
Bitterweed (Helenium amarum)
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota)
Sunflower (Helianthus microcephalus)
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.)
Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium)
Evening primrose (Oenothera biennis)
Mixed grasses
The southeast quadrant is a sharp contrast to the northeast.
Except for the 10' wide cut-over road right-of-way, this area is
covered by mature forests. The right-of-way contains tall weeds
and vines similar to the northeast side.
A 50' wide flood plain adjacent to a 20' steep bank by the
river supports a mature Piedmont Alluvial Forest Community. This
flat is periodically flooded. Dominant canopy species here are
river birch (Betula nigra), black walnut (Juglans ni ra), and red
oak (Ouercus rubra). Ironwood (CarRinus caroliniana) is the
dominant subcanopy tree. Vines are numerous and include grapes:
fox grape); possum grape (V. baileyana); and greenbriars (Smilax
rotundifolia). The herb layer here is sparse due to the effects
6
i '
of periodic flooding. Herbs seen were: wood sorrel (Oxalis
stricta), jumpseed (Tovara virginiana) and white avens (Geum
canadense).
The alluvial forest grades into a Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest Community as one moves up a steep slope to higher ground.
Beech and sycamore become more important as the slope rises above
the flood plain. Vines continue to be important. A dense tall
herb layer of wingstems (Verbesina occidentalis and V.
alternifolia) grows under the large trees on the slope. As the
soil changes, and becomes drier upland at the top of the slope
pines (Pinus virginiana and P. taeda) and yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) become dominant.
A greater variety of plants were found west of SR 1512,
because of a larger area surveyed, and slight differences in
exposure. The northwest quadrant contains a house trailer in a
cleared area on the upland ridge north of the river. A cut-over
power line right-of-way runs north to south about 1001 west of SR
1512 at this point. This same right-of-way continues through the
southwest quadrant.
A new gravel road leads west from SR 1512 onto the flood
plain northwest of the river. Except for a fringe of plants
along a portion of the 121-15' high riverbank, this entire flood
plain has been completely cleared and is occupied by an active
sand-gravel operation.
This remnant plant community contains dominant river birches
along with black willow (Salix nigra), box elder (Acer negundo)
and blue-fruited dogwood (Cornus ammomum). In addition to tall
herbs and vines similar to the northeast quadrant, this area
contains hedge nettle (Stachys latidens), wild rye grass (Elmus
virainicus), wild oats (Chasmanthium latifolia) and Johnson grass
(Sorghum halenense).
The largest area of relatively undisturbed natural
vegetation that this project may impact on is in the southwest
quadrant. A mature Piedmont Alluvial Forest Community occupies
the 75' wide flood plain adjacent to the 201-25' nearly vertical
river bank. A canopy of mixed alluvial hardwoods includes:
river birch
ash (Fraxinus pennsvlvanica)
black walnut
beech (Fagus grandifolia)
red oak
The subcanopy includes:
ironwood
Carolina silverbell (Halesia caroliniana)
Catalpa saplings (Catalpa speciosa)
Hickory saplings (Carya sp.)
7
The open shrub layer includes:
Privet (Liggstrum sinense)
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
Hobble-bush (Leucothoe fontana)
Hearts-a-bustin' (Euonymus americanus)
Vines in this forest include:
Cross-vine (Anisostichus capreolata)
Grape (Vitis spp.)
Greenbriars (Smilax spp.)
Herbs present:
Panic grass (Dichanthelium sp.)
Goldenrod
Sedum ternatum
The alluvial forest on the flood plain grades into a Mesic
Mixed Hardwood Forest as a steep slope rises above the flood
plain to the south. As the elevation rises and moisture
decreases yellow poplar and loblolly pine (P. taeda) become more
dominant in the canopy.
The subcanopy species on this slope include:
Sassafras (Sassafras albidum)
Red mulberry (Morus rubra)
American holly (Ilex ooRaca)
Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
Red maple (Acer rubrum)
Canopy hardwood saplings (mixed)
Scattered shrubs include:
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia)
Sweet shrub (Calycanthus floridus var. laevigatus)
Vines include:
Sparse honeysuckle (L. japonica)
Crossvine
Grape
Greenbriar
A sparse herb layer includes:
partridge berry (Mitchella repens)
foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia)
lopseed (Phrvma leptostachya)
Indian plantain (Cacalia atriplicifolia)
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides)
The ridge at the top of this slope is dominated by pines (P.
virginiana and P. taeda) with mixed hardwoods such as yellow
8
y+
poplar, red maple, black gum (Nvssa sylvatica), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum). The understory is dominated by flowering
dogwood. The shrub, New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus), is
also on this ridge.
Herbaceous plants on the ridge include:
Flowering spurge (Euphorbia corollata)
Elephant foot (Elephantopus tomentosus)
Wild petunia (Ruellia caroliniensis)
Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta)
Beard tongue (Penstemon laevigatus)
Virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana)
Snakeroot (Sanicula canadensis)
Wood betony (Pedicularis canadensis)
The south side of this ridge is dominated by white oak
(Quercus alba) as it slopes down to a small creek that flows
northeast under SR 1512 and empties into the First Broad River
400' east of Bridge #213.
The minimal removal of vegetation associated with the
construction of approaches should have a negligible impact to
fauna utilizing the area because it represents on a small
fraction of the available habitat.
Animal Life
A variety of wildlife habitats are found in the area of
this project. White-tailed deer tracks were found on the north
side of the river. Other mammals that probably frequent the area
include:
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis elongata)
Opossum (Didelphis v. virginiana)
Carolina short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis
kirtlandi)
Eastern cottontail (Slyvilagus floridanus mallurus)
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias s. striatus)
Woodchuck (Marmota monax monax)
Mink (Mustela vison)
Reptiles and amphibians likely to be in the area include:
Toads (Bufo spp.)
Frogs (Rana spp.)
5-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinus)
Rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta)
Ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus)
Many birds were seen or heard at this site. These include:
Cardinals (Richmondena cardinalis)
Bluebirds (Sialia sialis)
Mourning doves (Zenaidura macroura)
9

Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella marina)
Warblers (ORorornis spp.)
Robin (Turdus migratorius)
Mockingbird (Mimus polvalottos)
White-breasted nut hatch (Sitta carolinensis)
Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor)
Field sparrow (SRizella pusilla)
A variety of butterflies were also conspicuous:
Tiger swallowtails
Tailed-blues
Red-spotted purples
Copper butterflies
Most of the species in this area would move out of the
construction area, and are somewhat adapted to human
disturbances. The aquatic species would be most at risk from
siltation and hazardous material spills.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
have no special concerns regarding fishery resources (see letter
in Appendix). According to the NCWRC, a state threatened mussel
has been reported from the First Broad River watershed.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
The flat flood plain along the First Broad River is Buncombe
Sand, a typic udipsamment, mixed thermic soil. The Buncombe
series consists of excessively drained sandy soils on first
bottom flood plains in the Piedmont. Slopes range from 0 to 6
percent.
The soils on the steep slopes on either side of the river
are Pacolet. These are typic kanhapludults, clayey, kaolinitic,
thermic soils. The Pacolet soils consist of well-drained,
moderately permeable soils of the Piedmont uplands. Typically
these soils have 3" of brown sandy loam surface layer, and red
clayey subsoils to 37" overlying weathered rock. They are on
short to medium length slopes adjacent to the bottomlands and
drainageways. They developed in residuum weathered from granite,
gneiss, and schist. Slopes range from 2 to 80 percent.
The more level land on top of the slopes is Bethlehem.
These are typic kanhapludults, clayey, kaolinitic, thermic soils.
The Bethlehem series consists of well drained, moderately deep
soils on ridgetops and sideslopes in the Piedmont. The surface
layer is strong brown gravely sandy loam 8 inches thick. The
subsoil is 23 inches thick. The upper part is yellowish red
sandy clay loam 4" thick. The middle part is red clay, 13"
thick. The lower part is very gravely sandy clay loam, 6" thick.
The underlying bedrock is weathered sillimanite schist from a
depth of 31 to 60 inches. Slopes range from 2 to 45 percent.
10

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impacts to prime or important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime or important
farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
project will impact farmland soils and to complete Form-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.
Inasmuch as the Soil Conservation Service did not respond
within the 45 days, in accordance with SCS Regulation (7 CFR
658.4(a)), the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply to
this project. Mr. Kent Clary of the Cleveland County Soil
Conservation Office stated that a soil survey sheet is not
available for this project area.
Water Resources
The First Broad River is a tributary to the Broad River at
river mile 2.5. This bridge is approximately 36 miles downstream
from the First Broad River's origin. The average width at this
point is 50 feet; flow is 10.26 cfs and turbidity varies widely.
This stream is relatively shallow except in periods of high
water. The bottom here is deep sand and has moderately deep
pools.
The only fish sampling record available from the NCWRC was
taken in August, 1980, near Lawndale. This site is downstream
from Bridge #213 on SR 1512. This report stated that the sample
was not representative of the standing fish crop because the
stream was too large to block off with nets. It specifically
points out that no suckers or darters were caught although they
are known to be present. The Fisheries Biologist also noted
severe siltation. The following fish were collected:
Striped Jumprock
Firey Black shinner
Bluegill
Red brest
Margined Mad Tom
Roseyside dace
Notropis spp.
Bluehead chub
Carp
Thicklip chub
Hybopsis xanema
Greenfin shiner
Spottail shiner
Sandbar shiner
Snail bullhead
Catfish is the main gamefish, but fishing pressure is light.
The NCWRC biologist stated, "Little gamefish habitat exists."
The First Broad River's current classification by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
is WS-IV. The scheduled effective date for this classification
becomes effective August 3, 1992. This class includes waters
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to
highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211; local
programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses.
11
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) data was
collected in 1990 but 38 sites were sampled previously between
1983 through 1989. The Bioclassification ranged from Good to
Fair for the First Broad River during the entire period. No
improvement or decline was charted.
NCWRC listed no special concerns regarding fishery resources
on this stream other than the standard control of sedimentation
and the prevention of wet concrete contacting water flowing in or
into the stream. These precautions would also apply to the small
stream that flows into the river that both Alternate No. 2 and
No. 3 must cross.
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction of the project. Likely
adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of silt
basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control measures
required of the contractor and specified in the State approved
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented to minimize
adverse effects of construction activities.
With proper implementation of the Department's sediment and
erosion control measures and "Best Management Practices", overall
environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a
result of this project.
Cleveland County is not a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program; therefore, a National Flood Boundary
and Floodway Map which shows the approximate 100-year floodplain
is not available. However, the 100-year floodplain has been
superimposed onto a USGS topo map as shown in Figure 4.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-
plain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of
about the same magnitude. The floodplain in the adjacent area of
the crossing is rural/wooded and agricultural. The amount of
floodplain and floodway to be affected is not considered to be
significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible
harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands /
No wetland soils exist at this site, nor is the vegetation ?
or hydrology indicative of a true wetland.
Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
were contacted to obtain current lists of protected species known
12
to inhabit Cleveland County. Also, an on-site survey was
conducted by Ms. Ruby Pharr, Ph.D., Environmental Consultant, by
carefully walking through the entire area to search for protected
species or suitable habitat during the month of July, 1992.
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E) and Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal Candidate (C)
species have also been listed, but are not provided protection
under this Act. No survey was conducted to determine the presence
of candidate species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists only one threatened
species from Cleveland County:
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) - (T)
A caulescent, rhizomatus, glabrate herb. Leaves cordate to
orbicular-cordate, 4 - 6 cm long, or wide, lobes usually 1/4 or
less the total length. Calyx tube cylindrical or slightly
narrowed apically, reticulate-ridged within, 7 - 10 mm long, 5 -
8 mm in diameter, lobes 5 - 6 mm long, ascending-spreading.
Anther connective not extended; style extension merely notched at
apex. Flowers, April to early-May; Vegetative, year-round.
Range: A few counties in the piedmont of Virginia, North
Carolina (including Cleveland County), and South Carolina.
Habitat: Rich deciduous forests, bluffs, and ravines below
2000 feet in elevation. (The elevation of this project is less
than 900 feet.)
Because the habitat for this species could possibly exist at
this project site, areas within 75 feet of any proposed
construction were carefully searched by Ms. Pharr by walking
transects at 5-foot intervals during the month of July, 1992. No
heartleaf was found. This project will not impact on small-
flowered heartleaf.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Records listed no federally
protected species from Cleveland County.
State Protected Species:
The NCWRC reported no special concerns for the First Broad
River at this site. (See letter in Appendix.)
The Natural Heritage office has no records of state
protected species from this area.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of
330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
13
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county,
the North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to
obtain approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and to fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. A
Section 401 Water Quality certification administered through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources is required for any activity which may result in a
discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural
resources has been delineated and is shown on Figure 2.
There are no historic architectural resources in the
vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation officer was consulted and concurred with the above
statement. (See letter in Appendix.)
There are no known archaeological sites within the project
area. Based on present knowledge of the area, the State Historic
Preservation Officer has recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that
with proper implementation of the Department's erosion and
sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices" no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
implementation of this project.
14

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
1524
- Eakers Comer
h '
ISIZ
1523

509
'
l

rr
^^
vJ

4/

1511

N
O

4 r
15()9
'
ISIZ
ISO,
1511
0 Z
1305 Oak Grove meth.

10 1309 Ch.

309

1310 °

POLKVILLE
1558
POP. 528
`\
1361
O 66 '
a
. , I

IS2a

.23
.,3[
1362 :`:^?:7 1
1819
X1. _ 1507
2
136]
161
S
13 .04
I82 FAS 1884
-
taa
Elliott Mem

t 38a
F,Sc'1 y
Ch.
1
1
1
1
1
¦
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Nr? BRANCH
SR 1512, BRIDGE NO. 213
OVER FIRST BROAD RIVER
CLEVELAND COUNTY
B-2017
7 L mile FIG. 1

r ?
UPSTREAM SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH

SOUTH APPROACH
B-2017
BRIDGE NO. 213
CLEVELAND COUNTY
FIGURE 3

,
-
t: t
I
N
513.

100 f?-YEAR FLOODP LAIN

?,v -? /
?/-'PR
OJECT SITE oi-

#/

• 1509
-: ?.

-
, ? Oak ve ?'C ,
000 ? ? ? ?? . ( . A\ ? •

... CJL
96
'
\
? .•. ; B 8
?:
?

• ' 1 n182
` 1. 1060
JOOo

•
O
B-2017
Troller
lay - BRIDGE NO. 213
?'
r
4f/ CLEVELAND COUNTY •

SCALE IN FEE
'1000 0 loc T
o
FIGURE 4
??

L

RECORD OF CONTACT
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Date: October 21, 1992
By: Jeff Williams
Person Contacted: Joe Lamb, Jr.
Firm: NCDOT Division Maintenance Engineer, Division 12
By Phone : ? , or In Person: _ . Time (am-, pm )
(called _ or call received ? )
Subject: Bridge Replacement Project, TIP No. B-2017,
Cleveland County
Topics Discussed: The recommended alternative was discussed.
Conclusions Reached: Mr. Lamb stated that he concurred with
the recommendation to reconstruct the subject bridge
upstream of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate
No. 3 and that traffic should be maintained on the
existing bridge during the construction period.
Remarks: None
cc: file

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
June 24, 1992
Ms.'Ruby D. Pharr
Environmental Consultant
111 York. Street
Morganton, NC 28655
SUBJECT: Request for special concerns regarding fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of 11 bridges to be.
replaced by the NCDOT
Dear Ms. Pharr:
This correspondence responds to a request by you for any
special concerns the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has regarding fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity
of each of 11 bridges. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace these bridges with new
structures.
We have the following comments on these projects:
ALLEGHANY COUNTY U ?? wvt. L• ¢?r?
Bridge #11 on NC 113 over PinevBranch: This stream is a
tributary to Piney Fork,) which is Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water. PinelBranch may support wild brown trout. A
state listed snail may also occur within a wa ers ed.
ANSON COUNTY
1) Bridge #199 on SR 1600 over Richardson Creek: This is a
large stream with significant warmwater fish habitat.
Species of particular concern include a listed fish
(Carolina darter, Special Concern) and several listed-or
proposed freshwater mussels, all of which have been reported
from nearby Rocky River tributaries. Many of these aquatic
species would be adversely affected by sedimentation of the
stream bed at or below the construction site.
2) Bridge #207 on SR 1610 over Cribs Creek: Although this is a
smaller tributary than the previous site, similar concerns
Memo Page 2 June 24, 1992
exist regarding fish and mussel habitat. The Carolina
darter has been collected from Cribs Creek.
NOTE: Both of these bridge sites presently involve sharp
road curves in the immediate vicinity of the existing
structures. For purposes of improving safety, NCDOT may
propose relocation of these bridges up- or downstream, using
existing bridges as on-site detours. Additional aquatic and
riparian habitat affected by such operations should be
included in the study area.
BURKE COUNTY
1) Bridge #210 on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek: No special
concerns.
2) Bridge #102 on SR 1438 over Johns River: This stream
supports an excellent smallmouth bass fishery in the
vicinity of the bridge replacement. A federal candidate
mussel species is also known from the Johns River system.
CALDWELL COUNTY
1) Bridge #5 on SR 1178 over Lower Creek: No special concerns.
2) Bridge #106 on SR 1142 over Lower Creek: No special
concerns.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Bridge #213 on SR 1512 over First Broad River: No special
concerns regarding fishery resources. A state threatened
mussel has been reported from the First Broad River
watershed.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Bridge #126 on US 64 over Clinchfield Railroad: No special
concerns.
SURRY COUNTY
Bridge 164 on SR 2233 over Fisher River: No special
concerns.
WATAUGA COUNTY
Bridge 298 on SR 1580 over Watauga River: The stream is
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the vicinity of
the bridge and provides excellent fishing for brown trout.
Fishing pressure is heavy in this area. A state listed
endangered mussel occurs in the Watauga River system.
Memo Page 3 June 24, 1992
Although we have no special concerns in the vicinity of
several -o base prodacts; the NCWRC-expects fie KCDDT-to --
routinely minimize adverse impacts_to fish _ an _wi i e re_s_ources
in?fie- vicinity`o£-bridge replacements The NCDOT should install
an-3aintai_n sedimentation control measures throughout the life
--each_project ancT`prevent wet concrete-from contacting water
flowing in or in?Tie'se streams.
While no special wildlife concerns exist for any of these
bridge sites, replacement of bridges with spanning structures of
some type as opposed-to pipe culverts, is recommended in all
cases-._ Spanni g structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks,-reducin _population fragmentation an ve icle-
related mortality at highway crossings.--
For additional information regarding endangered or
threatened species in the vicinity of these construction sites,
please contact Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Section Manager, at [phone]. If you need further
assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to
review and comment on this project.
SiLne e ly,
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
John Alderman, Piedmont Region Nongame Project Leader
"e- STATE o'
n .tea ~'y ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
r -JU
L 20 1992
'"MslO,V YOSF HWA
? r
fiSE.4F?C`?
Division of Archives and History
\Villiam S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 81 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project. forward to receipt of either 3 Categoricai
Having provided this information, we look ental Assessment which ndicates how NCDOT addresssed our
Exclusion or Environm
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
L'/ David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: L. J. Ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
a u1 %?

I
Replace Bridge No. 213 on SR 1512 over First Broad River,
Cleveland County, B-2017, 8.2800701, ER 92-8543
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
July 16, 1992