19930323 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

/ State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Governor ? E H N F 1
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 26, 1994
Burke County
DEM Project # 94455
TIP # B-2114
State Project No. 8.2850901
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
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
You have our approval to place fill material in waters for the purpose of bridge
replacement at SR 1647, Bridge No. 210, as you described in your application dated 11
May, 1994. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 2734. This certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 23 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
adjudicatory 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 certification 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
Dorney at 919-733-1786.
S' n er?ly,"----
i Preston Howard, P.E.
rector /
/
Attachment I
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
94455.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
-N% C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE 1),5
TO-
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
/J?\
r lJ
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

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:

?d
?

D
K
U
610 i-
j
S GR(;JF
PY SECT;q
f _ .. S
W
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR

q qy5?_5
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 11. 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 25402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
C)
Subject: Burke County, Proposed replacement of Bridge No.
210 on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek, State Project
Number 3.2850901, Federal Aid Number BRZ-1641(1),
T.I.P. No. B-2114.
The project has been processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance
with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Authorization for this project was
verified by letter dated January 13, 1993. Since that time,
it became evident that the project design required
modifications.
The original proposal included a temporary detour to be
constructed adjacent to the existing bridge. This design
will not be feasible, and the detour has been relocated. An
addendum to the Categorical Exclusion has been prepared to
describe these changes. Attached for your information is a
copy of this addendum.
It is anticipated that this project will still qualify
Under Nationwide permit No. 23 and 401 General Certification
No. 2734 (Categorical Exclusion). A copy of the addendum
document is being provided to the North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
Since this project is located in a designated trout
county, a copy of this correspondence has also been provided
to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.

If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. O` n
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D.J. Bowers, PE, Division 3 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
t .

Burke County, Bridge No. 210
on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek
State Project 8.2850901
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2114
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
e H. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental, NCDOT
I -I
Cl3 a3 , d
at F6g Nlic olas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
f
Burke County, Bridge No. 210
on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek
State Project 8.2850901
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2114
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
MARCH, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental BVAR?,h By:
••..??? CAR0 •,•?
tf?OE '4!'•
?. = t4 SE At
Byro E. Brady, P. E. 19 Q ?
Project Planning Engineer ; s Fjj Et:•• O ,
.. ' •
••• ,• INGENE?•`'?
A. Bisse t, Jr., P. E7.
Consulting Engineering, Unit Head

Burke County, Bridge No. 210
on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek
State Project 8.2850901
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
T.I.P. No. B-2114
I. Background
A Project Planning Report (Categorical Exclusion) for the subject
project was approved by FHWA in September 1992.
The recommended alternate was to replace Bridge No. 210 with a new
bridge on partial new location immediately south of the existing bridge.
Traffic was to be detoured onto a detour structure to be constructed
adjacent to the existing bridge.
II. Discussion
There has been a change in this project. The detour has been changed
somewhat and will cause the relocation of two additional structures. This
change was due to the fact that the original detour was not found to be
buildable as designed due to its high degree of curvative and the
difference in grade elevation. The detour was thus re-designed while
using a larger degree of curve which will require the acquisition of
additional right-of-way. The design speed of the detour will remain at 30
mph. The estimated cost of the detour structure is $79,800.
The original cost of the project, prior to the change, was $710,500.
The cost for the project including this change has been estimated at
$1,200,000. Two of the factors responsible for the increase in cost are
the addition of 11 feet to the proposed replacement structure and a longer
detour length.
III. Environmental Considerations
As was listed in the Categorical Exclusion Report, Burke County is a
designated "trout" county. A letter of approval must be obtained from the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. This letter of approval
will be obtained prior to construction.
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.
Neither the soils, vegetation, or hydrology qualify any of the study
area as wetland. There were no federally or state listed protected
species occurring at this site. And there are no 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.

? N
N ?
O
C ?
CrJ O?
Q
mod.
7d
to pq
N t E
Bozo
a: oz o
A
_ x0 tri
8 "-30x
6-4 PO O
?.
T 7C N
O
N
is ' 07
?7 wx
X27,00
y0
0Z
z 0
0
o a, ?
y
r 0 7
b
?i
0
ti
F,,4'0'A,
ag

t

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 13, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300543 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your October 26, 1992 application for Department of the Army
authorization to replace Bridge Number 210 over Drowning Creek, on S.R. 1647,
near Penelope, Burke County, North Carolina. A new bridge will be constructed
immediately upstream (south) from the old bridge. Approximately 425 feet by
32 feet of new roadway approaches will be required. The new bridge will be 30
feet in width and 190 feet in length. No wetlands will be impacted by the new
construction. However, according to the plans, possible stream impacts will
include some limited sedimentation debris during construction and after
project completion. Likely adverse impacts will be minimized through the
employment of silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control
measures. This project has been coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission.
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. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
[phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401, Water Quality
certification prior to starting work.
r ?
-2-
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. Steve Chapin, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker Ms. Stephanie Goudreau
North Carolina Department of N.C. Wildlife Resources
Environment, Health and 320 South Garden Street
Natural Resources Marion, North Carolina
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
?`?Post office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Commission
28752

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
October 26, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
I? I %
\ 5 7
Nov i 81992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project: Burke
County, SR 1647, Bridge No. 210 over Drowning Creek, Federal-Aid
Project BRZ-1647(1), State Project 8.2850901, T.I.P. I. D. No.
B-2114
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 CFR 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 (B-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.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification which is administered through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge of dredged or
fill material and for which a federal permit is required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
• an
L. aP. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Burke County
SR 1647
Bridge No. 210 over Drowning Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
State Project 8.2850901
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2114
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ME

. J. ard, P.E., Manager
A^ Planning and Environmental Branch,
NCDOT
p zs z
DATE Nic as G , P.E.
Pe Division Administrator, FHWA

Burke County
SR 1647
Bridge No. 210 over Drowning Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
State Project 8.2850901
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2114
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Pro
::: ?? ? ? I
Ja es M. Greenh 1
P ojec Manager
by Wang Engineering Company:
1, P. E.
For North Carolina

R6n?lmerf-e, P.E!, Unit Hed'd
Consultant Engineering Unit

of Transportation

??•?'?t1 CAR01"."',.
SE AL
12979
N ?.
9i? •. GI NE .•?,?? .
Project Manager
Burke County
SR 1647
Bridge No. 210 over Drowning Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1647(1)
State Project 8.2850901
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2114
Bridge No. 210 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. 210 should be replaced on partial-new location
immediately upstream (south) of the existing bridge as shown by
Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 30 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 24-foot
travelway with 3-foot shoulders.
Approximately 425 feet of new roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 24-foot
pavement with 8-foot shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 190
feet in length should be provided. The elevation of the new
structure should be approximately the same as the floor elevation
of the existing bridge.
During construction, traffic would be maintained with a
temporary on-site detour road and structure.
The estimated cost of construction, based on current prices,
is $710,500 including right of way and utility relocation costs.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999
Transportation Improvement Program, is $760,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
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.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county,
a letter of approval must be obtained from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. This letter of approval will be
obtained prior to construction.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that
a comprehensive archaeological survey is needed for this project.
This survey will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1647 (Cape Hickory Road) is classified as a rural minor
collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is part of the Federal-Aid System (BRZ-1647).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1647 has a 18-foot
pavement with 2-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical
alignment is generally rolling. Horizontal alignment of the
structure and west approach is tangent with an approximate 22
degree curve at the east approach. Land use near the bridge is
primarily scattered rural residential with a church (the Drowning
Creek Baptist Church) located adjacent to the west approach.
The posted speed limit is 45 MPH.
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include under-
ground telephone lines which surface at the stream crossing and
above ground electric lines. Both utilities are located along
the south side of the bridge and will require a minor relocation.
The traffic volume for the anticipated construction year of
1995 is projected to be 2100 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
expected to increase to approximately 4000 VPD by the year 2015.
The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge (see photo in Figure 3) was constructed
in 1952. The 6-span superstructure consists of a paved timber
deck on wood and steel beams. The substructure is composed of
wood abutments and bents. The structure is located 23 feet above
the stream bed and is above the 500-year flood elevation.
Overall length of the bridge is 149 feet. Clear roadway
width is 22.6 feet. The posted weight limit is 10 tons for
single vehicles and 17 tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 210 has a sufficiency rating of 24.8 compared to
a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Three accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 298
during the 3-year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31,
1991. None were related to the existing bridge or roadway
conditions. However, with the proposed installation of the
flattened horizontal curvature of the recommended alternate,
wider structure, and approach guardrail the potential for future
accidents should be reduced.
School buses cross the studied bridge nine times daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 210 were
studied. (See Figure 2.) In each alternative, a deck width of 30
feet would be provided on the new structure. The profile grade
elevations for both alternatives will closely match the elevation
of the existing bridge and roadway.
A temporary on-site detour is be required on both alternates
for maintenance of traffic. The temporary detour will include a
bridge approximately 85 feet long located about 60 feet north
(downstream) of the existing structure. The proposed width of
the temporary bridge is 24 feet which will accommodate a 20-foot
travelway with 2-foot shoulders. The detour roadway will consist
of a 20-foot wide pavement with 4-foot shoulders. The elevation
of the temporary detour bridge will be approximately 4 feet lower
than the elevation of the existing bridge.
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the structure along the
existing roadway alignment. The estimated replacement
structure is a bridge 170 feet long having a waterway
opening equal to that of the existing bridge. Improvements
to the alignment of the bridge approaches include
approximately 200 feet of new pavement. The existing
horizontal alignment, including a 22 degree curve on the
east approach, would be maintained with a slight improvement
to the vertical alignment. The design speed of this
alternate is 30 MPH.
Alternative 2 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the bridge
on partial-new location slightly upstream (south) of the
existing structure with an improved horizontal alignment.
The estimated replacement structure is a bridge 190 feet
long which also maintains the existing waterway opening.
This alternative utilizes a 12 degree curve on the
replacement bridge and on the east approach. It ties into
the existing alignment near the abutment on the west side of
the stream requiring only minor right of way on the Drowning
Baptist Church property. The design speed of this alternate
is 50 MPH. The 12 degree curve will be an exception to the
criteria.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service now being provided by SR 1647.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
3

V. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at
the studied bridge site is necessary. Existing roads in the area
were examined and the length of the detour route was found to
be excessive (5.8 miles).
A road user analysis (based on 2100 VPD and an average of
5.8 miles of out-of-direction travel) indicates the cost of
additional travel would be approximately $986,500 during the nine
month construction period, based on a travel cost of $.30 per
vehicle mile. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour
is $150,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 6.58. This ratio
indicates that construction of an on-site detour is economically
justifiable.
In view of the above factors, it is clear that traffic
should be maintained at the existing bridge site during
construction. A temporary on-site detour would be constructed
immediately downstream of the existing bridge.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $255,000 $285,000
Roadway Approaches 120,000 155,000
Detour Structure &
Approaches 150,000 150,000
Structure Removal 18,000 18,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 57,000 67,000
Right of Way & 36,500 35,500
Utilities
Total $636,500 $710,500
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 210 should be reconstructed on partial-new
location (slightly upstream) of the existing bridge with an
improvement to the horizontal alignment as shown by Alternate 2
in Figure 2.
4
The recommended improvements will include about 425 feet of
new roadway approaches and incorporates a 12 degree curve on the
bridge and on the east approach. A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot
usable shoulders should be provided on the approaches. A 30-foot
clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement bridge. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 24-foot travel-
way with 3-foot shoulders.
The design speed for the new alignment is 50 mph. The 12
degree curve will be an exception to the design criteria.
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour
to be located immediately downstream.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, the recommended
replacement structure should be a bridge having a length of
approximately 170 feet. It is anticipated the elevation of the
new bridge will be approximately equal to the floor elevation of
the existing bridge and have a waterway opening equal to that of
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. 210 be replaced on new location south (slightly
upstream) of the existing structure (Alternate 2) and that
traffic be maintained with an on-site detour during the
construction period. (See Record of Contact in the Appendix.)
The Drowning Creek Baptist Church was contacted and has
responded by letter (a copy is included in the Appendix) in favor
of Alternate 2 with an on-site detour.
Alternate 1 was not favored due to lack of improvement to
the existing horizontal alignment. An alignment which placed the
entire bridge on a tangent section at approximately the same
location as Alternate 2 was also examined but dismissed due to
lack of substantial improvement to the existing alignment and the
potential relocation of the Drowning Creek Baptist Church.
A northern (downstream) alignment was also studied but
dismissed due to undesirable alignment and right of way
considerations. This alignment offered no substantial
improvement over the existing alignment, required the replacement
bridge to be constructed entirely on a 20 degree curve, and
introduced a back to back reverse curve. Right of way costs and
impacts would also be increased due to the required acquisition
of property north of the Drowning Creek Baptist Church.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
5
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 a significant 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 existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations. No change in land use is
expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation. Right of
way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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 northwest of Long View in Burke
County in the western portion of the Piedmont physiographic
province which is characterized by a gentle topography of rolling
hills and valleys. The study area is located in a rural setting
of scattered residential sites. Farming is the 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 Burke 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.
6
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Communities
South of the bridge (upstream) the plant communities are
largely disturbed. These are also the plant communities most
likely to be impacted by the bridge replacement. In the
southwest quadrant, the dominant vegetation is mowed lawn grass
(Fescue obtusa and others). This lawn extends south upstream
approximately 150' and west up a steep slope to a small church.
A fringe of native plants remains along the bank of Drowning
Creek. Dominated by elderberry shrubs (Sambucus canadensis),
this area also contains scattered river birch saplings (Betula
nigra) and small silky dogwoods (Cornus ammomum). Herbaceous
plants include sour grass (Rumex acetosella), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis), wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), and
Venus' looking glass (Specularia perfoliata). Several large river
birch trees are located about 150' south of the bridge in the
lawn near the creek. (For the purpose of conserving space, the
binomial nomeclature will only be presented with the first
mention of the organism.)
The southeast quadrant contains a 40-50' wide cut-over power
line right-of-way which runs west up the hill from the creek
parallel to the existing bridge and roadway. The vegetation here
consists of a dense tangle of tree sprouts, shrubs, vines, and
tall weedy herbs. Tree sprouts include yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
red maple (Acer rubrum), wild cherry (Prunus serotina), paper
mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera). Codominant shrubs included
silky dogwood, blackberry (Rubus argutus), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), and elderberry. Vines include Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), grape (Vitis balleyana), kudzu (Pueraria
lobata), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Herbaceous vegetation is
dominated by Joe-Pye-Weed (Eupatorium purpureum) and wingstem
(Verbesina alternifolia).
The canopy species in the wooded area south of the power
line right-of-way is dominated by mature river birches (B. nigra)
on the lower end of the slope near the creek, grading to yellow
poplar on the upper slope. The elevation ranges from
approximately 920' to 10001. Other canopy species include red
oak (Quercus sp.), loblolly pine (Pinus echinata), and wild
cherry. Understory dominants include flowering dogwood (Cornus
florida) and transgressives of the canopy species.
The land north (downstream) of the existing bridge is
largely wooded. The temporary detour will be constructed in this
area. A 40' wide strip of woods rises steeply from the creek to a
gravel drive and mowed lawn in the northwest quadrant. The
dominant canopy species are yellow poplar and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Dominant subcanopy species are white oak (Q_ alba)
saplings and flowering dogwood with small hollies (Ilex opaca)
scattered throughout. Shrubs are largely located along the sunny
borders of these woods except for yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
7
simplicissima), which grows along the creek bank. Drier edges
have multiflora rose, winged sumac (Rhus copallina), and
blackberry dominating.
Vines in the shaded woods include greenbriars (Smilax
glauca, S. Bonahox) and poison ivy. In the more sunny cut-over
road and bridge right-of-ways, the dominant vines are Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy, trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), coral
beads (Cocculus carolinus) and Virginia creeper.
Mixed ferns form the herb layer under the shade of the
trees. Dominant fern species are grape fern (Botrychium
virginianum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides) and
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron) with fewer maidenhair
ferns (Asplenium spleenwort). The more open portion of the slope
near the creek contains New York fern (Thelypteris
noveboracensis) and southern lady fern (Athyrium asplenoides).
Other herbaceous species in this area include common blue
violet (Viola papilionacea) and pale Indian plantain (Cacalia
atriplicifolia) in shaded areas; Joe-Pye-Weed, wingstem,
sunflower (Helianthus decapetalus), goldenrod (Solidaao sp.),
English plantain (Plantago rugelii) and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale).
The northeast quadrant contains the largest relatively flat
woodland adjacent to the creek before the land slopes upward to a
cut-over power line right-of-way on the east. The canopy of
these alluvial woods is dominated by large river birches with
scattered yellow poplar and white oak (4uercus alba). The
subcanopy is dominated by flowering dogwood and red maple. The
open shrub layer is dominated by privet (Ligustrum sinense),
multiflora rose and elderberry. Kudzu vines dominate the power
line right-of-way as well as the eastern edge of the woods and
the road right-of-way. Where kudzu has not overrun the other
plants, major vines are honeysuckle, grape, poison ivy, trumpet
vine (C. radicans), and Virginia creeper (P. quinquefolia).
Herbaceous species include southern lady fern, ragweed (Ambrosia
trifida), Joe-Pye-Weed, sunflower (Helianthus decapetalus) and
jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
Many of the plants surrounding this Drowning Creek bridge
are indicators of disturbance, and reflect man's influence on the
area.
The minimal removal of
construction of approaches and
negligible impact to fauna
represents only a tiny fraction
vegetation associated with the
the temporary detour should have a
utilizing the area because it
of the available habitat.
Wildlife
The only wildlife species seen during this study were birds.
These included:
Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis)
8
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polYalottos)
Barn swallow (Herundo rustica)
Red-bellied woodpecker (Melaneases carolinus)
Purple finch (Carpodacus turpureus)
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchor)
Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Killdeer tracks were observed on a small sandbar by the
creek.
Tracks of a raccoon (Procyon 1. lotor) and a gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis) were also seen in sand along the creek.
Other small mammals which might use the wooded corridor along the
creek would likely include: opossum (Didelphis virainiana),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagis floridanus mallurus), mink
(Mustela vision mink), white footed mouse (Peromyscus 1.
leucopus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys n. nuttallii).
Amphibians likely to be in the area include: eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky salamander
(Demoanathus fuscus), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's
toad (B. wood housei), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) and upland
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata).
Reptiles likely to be in the area include: eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina) eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus); five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), corn snake (Elaphe guttata), black rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon),
and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). No previous
vertebrate studies were located for this area.
Aquatic Wildlife
Streams similar to Drowning Creek are likely to contain the
following fish species: golden shiner (Notemiaonus crysoleucas),
red horse suckers (Moxostoma sp.), bluegills (Lepomis
macrochirus), and redbreast (Lepomis auritus). Invertebrates seen
or indicated were a water strider (Gerris sp.) and a crayfish
burrow. A limited number of bottom-dwelling invertebrates would
live in a sandy-bottomed stream like Drowning Creek with limited
boulders for attachment and protection. However, white bass and
other fish species who prefer a sandy bottom for spawning may
migrate into the lower part of this creek in early spring from
Lake Hickory.
Impacts to fish and wildlife will be minimal. This is not a
prime wildlife area; there will be little loss or modification of
aquatic or terrestrial habitat. Degradation to vegetated habitat
will be reduced by the fact that the entire area to be directly
affected has been disturbed previously and includes no mature
natural communities.
9
Impacts to the aquatic organisms should be the greatest
concern. The major threat would be excessive silt and sediment
originating from the construction area which could affect
Drowning Creek and Lake Hickory. Care should also be used to
prevent contaminants such as fuels from entering the creek. Both
benthic organisms and spawning fish would be harmed if runoff is
not carefully controlled. Impacts on the aquatic species in the
stream and the quality of the water will be minimized by
following the regulations outlined in NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (33 CFR 330.6).
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil
According to the Burke County Soil Conservation Service,
most of the soils along the proposed construction route is Rion
Sandy Loam, with the exception of an area of Pacolet Sandy Loam
in the southwest quadrant.
Rion Sandy Loams are found on 25 to 50 percent slopes.
There are very deep, well-drained soils on upland ridges and side
slopes. They formed in residuum from felsic rocks such as
granite and gneiss. The surface layer is loamy with some gravels
mixed in. The subsoil is loamy. Permeability is moderate and
available water capacity is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. The seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
Pacolet sandy loam occurs on 15 to 25 percent slopes. These
very deep, well drained soils are on uplands. They have formed
in residuum from felsic rock types. They have a loamy surface
layer with a significant amount of gravel mixed in. The subsoil
is loamy and clayey. Permeability is moderate and available
water capacity is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. The
seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and 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 AD-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed form is included
in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the proposed project will not impact
any prime or important farmland soils.
Water Resources
The bridge to be replaced crosses Drowning Creek
approximately 3 miles southwest of Lake Hickory. Lake Hickory is
a water supply source for the City of Hickory. Drowning Creek is
a tributary of Lake Hickory at Catawba River mile 89, and is 7.2
10
miles long from mouth to origin. It has an overall average width
of 10 feet. In the area of this bridge, the average width is 18
feet and the depth is generally 1-2 feet with occasional deeper
pools. Banks in this area average from 3-6 feet high. The rate
of flow vary widely depending on rainfall and run-off waters.
The substrate consists of sand and silt with a few scattered
boulders and gravels. The field investigations were conducted
during a period of frequent rains and the stream turbidity was
high.
Drowning Creek is classified WS-IV (effective August 3,
1992). This classification is applied to waters protected as
water supplies which are in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated waste water are
permitted pursuant to Rules 15A NCAC .014 (M) and .0211 adopted
by the Environmental Management Commission on February 13, 1992.
Local programs are required to control non-point sources and
stormwater discharges of pollution are required. This stream is
suitable for all Class C uses: aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Drowning Creek is not a trout stream and is not tributary of a
trout stream.
Drowning Creek is of minor fishing significance. However,
in the spring white bass spawn in the lower mile adjoining Lake
Hickory. No data was available from Benthic Macro invertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) for this creek, however, all bottom
dwelling invertebrates and spawning fish requiring clean sandy
substrates are known to be adversely affected by siltation.
Therefore, erosion control is of prime importance. No channel
alteration or fill is anticipated. No secondary development
impacts are anticipated.
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction and after project completion.
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. Upon removal
of the temporary on-site detour, the stream and surrounding land
will be restored to its original condition.
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.
Burke County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in
the project area is 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
11
the crossing is rural/wooded. 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 wetlands are found in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement.
Protected Species - General
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
to inhabit Burke County. Also, an on-site survey was conducted by
carefully walking through the entire area to search for protected
species or suitable habitat.
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.
Birds:
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) - (E)
A crow-sized bird 15-21" long with a 40" wingspread. Adults
slate-gray above and pale below, with fine bars and spots of
black; narrow tail; long pointed wings; conspicuous black
"mustaches". Young birds darker below and browner.
Range: Formerly bred from Alaska to Greenland south to
Geogia and Baja California, but now restricted to the northern
parts of its range in the East. Winters north to British
Columbia and Massachusetts. Also breeds in southern South
America and in Eurasia, Africa, and Australia.
Habitat: Open country, especially along rivers, also near
lakes, and the coast. Migrates chiefly along the coast. Nests
on cliffs or windowsills and ledges of buildings in large cities.
Peregrine falcons have been introduced at several sites in
the western mountains of North Carolina where cliffs exist to
provide nesting sites. However, this project area does not
contain any cliffs or suitable nesting sites for this bird.
During two visits to the site, no falcons were seen in the area.
This project will not impact on this species.
12

` Plants:
Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) - (E)
Terrestrial herb with long, slender, filamentous roots and 5
- 6 verticillate, drooping leaves inserted at the top of the
slender, low, fistulose stem. Inflorescence composed of 1
(rarely 2) sessile or sibsessole just above the leaves; sepals
less than 3 cm long, light green. Flowers pale yellowish green
and purple. Fruit a capsule with loculicidal dehiscence, erect,
ellipsoid - cylindrical, 1.7-3 cm long, on a short pedicel to 1.5
cm long, values hygroscopic. Flowers May to July; fruits, June;
vegetative, May to July.
Range: Small scattered populations from Canada south to
Georgia, west to Michigan and Illinois. Rare throughout.
Habitat: Open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous woods,
or along stream banks. Merkroff (1980) states that all sites are
second-growth deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forest, with an
open canopy and shrub layer and a sparse herb layer. He also
lists various situations in which the species occurs: old fields
or pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, near
semipermanent canopy breaks, such as streams, highways, old
logging roads, lakes, or cliffs. Site conditions, e.g., soils,
aspect, topography, vary a great deal.
This study was conducted during the growing season for this
plant, and two very small populations do occur within 25 miles of
this project site in Burke County. The wooded areas at this site
had closed canopies, not open, and cleared areas were thickets of
vines and weedy species or mowed lawns. However, because of the
wide range of habitats reported for this species, all areas
within 75 feet of any proposed construction at this site was
carefully searched by walking transects through the area at 5-
foot intervals. No whorled pogonias were found. This project
will not impact on this species.
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum)* - (E)
An erect (1 to 5 dm tall) hirsute perennial herb with a
basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves arising from a
horizontal rhizome. Inflorensence terminal, a few - flowered,
indefinite cymc. Flowers actinomorphic with 5 hersute green
sepals, fused a the base, and 5 separate bright yellow petals.
Stamens and pistils numerous, distinct; pistils simple, ovaries
superior and hirsute, persistent as a beak in fruit. Receptacle
ringed with dense, tan, stiff hairs. Fruit a hemispheric
aggregate of hirsute, beaked achenes. Flowers, June to October,
Vegetative, May to October.
Range: Distribution includes the northwestern mountains of
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Habitat: Endemic to balds on high mountains over 3800' in
elevation. This plant often occurs on steep rock faces and narrow
ledges.
Since this project area is all under 1000' elevation, and no
rock faces or ledges occur, this plant is not likely to be on
this site and none were found. In fact, the USFWS states that no
specimen of spreading avens has been found anywhere in Burke
County in at least 20 years. This project will not impact this
species.
13
v

Mountain golden-heather (Hudsonia montana) - (T)
Low, spreading, decumbent, freely branched, heathlike shrubs
from short, thick crowns, rarely more than 3 to 4 dm tall, often
forming a dense, circular mat. Leaves deciduous, simple,
alternate, crowded, needle-shaped, 3 - 7 mm long. Flowers
solitary, on stalks a the ends of short leafy branches. Sepals
5, basally fused, unequal, persistant; petals 5, distinct,
yellow, slightly to 2 times longer than sepals; stamens numerous.
Fruit a unilocular, 1 - 6 seeded, ovoid capsule, enclosed in the
persistant calyx. Flowers May to July; Fruits, July to September;
Vegetative, January to December.
Range: Mountains of Burke County, North Carolina, plus one
small population in adjoining McDowell County, North Carolina.
Habitat: Clearings on high balds, on quartzitic ledges, and
cliffs on 2800 to 2980' high peaks and ridges. Usually rooted in
shallow, acidic, sandy or stony soil in depressions or rock
cracks.
Habitat for this plant does not occur at the project site
whose elevation is less than 1000 feet. Therefore, this project
will not impact on this species.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri) - (T)
A small, erect ( 1 - 5 dm tall), glabrous perennial herb
with a thickened, rounded, cornlike rootstalk. Narrow, linear,
entire, simple, alternate leaves are numerous and spirally
arranged. Flowers (florets) are small and sessile in a compact
head on a common enlarged receptacles, surrounded by an
involucre. The heads are arranged in an elongate, racemiform
inflorescence, flowering from top to bottom. Distinguishing
characteristics are its short stature and its very short pappus.
Fruit a cypsela (achene or nutlet by some authors), 2.5 to 5 mm
long, tan to blackish, somewhat cylindrical but tapered at the
base into a blunt point, ribbed, hairy, particularly along the
ribs; pappus of rather stout, capillary, barbellate bristles,
tan, 1/2 or less the length of the corolla tube. Flowers, July
to September; Fruits, August to October; Vegetative, July to
October.
Range: Northwestern Mountains of North Carolina.
Habitat: Open, rocky outcrops, ledges, cliff faces and woods
at elevations above 2800 feet.
This project's elevation is under 1000 feet and no rocky
outcrops occur. Therefore, suitable habitat for this species does
not occur at this site. This project will not impact on this
species.
Drarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) - (T)
Acaulescent; rhizomatus, glabrate herbs. Leaves cordate to
orbicular - cordate, 4 to 6 cm long, or wide, lobes usually 1/4th
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 - early May; Vegetative, year-round.
Range: A few counties in the piedmont of Virginia, North
Carolina and South Carolina.
14

L Habitat: Rich, deciduous forests, bluffs, and ravines at low
elevations.
Because of the habitat, this species could possibly exist at
this site. Areas within 75 feet of any proposed construction were
carefully searched by walking transects at 5-foot intervals. No
Hexastylis was found. This project will not impact on this
species.
A liverwort (Cephaloziella obtusilobula)* - (C)
These tiny plants have transversely inserted bilobed leaves.
Leaves are very small, only a little wider than the stem. Stems
of uniformly small cells containing oil bodies.
Form tiny dark green to blackish brown patches along shaded
rock crevices.
Butternut (Juglans cinera) - (C)
A tree with glandular twigs and chambered dark brown pith.
Leaflets 7 - 17 cm, ovate or lanceolate, 2.5 -17.5 cm long, 1.5 -
6.5 cm wide, pubescent with fascicled glandular trichomes
beneath, acuminate, serrate, base oblique or rounded, sessile;
petioles 3.5 - 12 cm long. Fruit ellipsoid, glandular pubescent.
Found in cove forests and rich woods, chiefly in the
Mountains, but also in the Piedmont.
A liverwort (Plaaiochia caduciloba)* - (C)
A small, creeping, non-vascular plant with leaves
succubously inserted and decurrent dorsally. Underleaves are
sporadic and small or absent. Leaf margins are erose with teeth
broken off; plants - brownish; oil bodies - homogenous.
Habitat is shaded rocks, primarily in the southern
escarpment gorges.
A liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera)* - (C)
A small creeping, non-vascular plant with leaves succubously
inserted and decurrent dorsally. Teeth on leaves not broken
though distal portion of some leaves may be broken along line
dehiscence. Mature leaves not falcate and long decurrent;
plantlets not produced. Leaves slightly narrowed at base;
marginal teeth 3 cells long; shoots 2.5 - 3.5 mm wide in pale
green mats on shaded rocks.
A liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii)* - (C)
A relatively large liverwort with long decurrent leaves on
upper side of stem, with margins turned back. Teeth of leaves
fewer than 10, large several celled; leaves narrowly ovate.
Shoots 1.5 - 2 mm wide with creeping caudex and upright or
pendant shoots.
Often found among mosses, these plants grow on shaded rocks
or under ledges.
Rock skullcap (Scutellaria saxatilis) - (C)
A perennial herb with quadrangular erect stems, 1-4 dm tall,
simple or branched, glabrous or pubescent. Leaves 2 - 5 cm long,
1.2 - 3.5 cm wide, obtuse to acute, crenate, ciliate, petioles
0.5 - 3 cm long. Corolla zygomorphic, 3-lobed, the upper lip
galeate, the lower lip unlobed, usually white in the throat and
15
blue to blue-violet.
Habitat is northern hardwood forests in the mountains.
Oconee bells (Shortia galacifolia)* - (C)
Low, rhizomatous, acaulescent, glabrous, evergreen perennial
herb, forming dense clumps or carpets. Leaves simple, alternate,
clustered basally, arising from horizontal rhizomes, mostly
widely elliptic, 3-8 cm long, leathery, lustrous, truncate to
emarginate, coarsely crenate to serrate, base rounded to cordate,
petiole 4-15 cm long. Flowers nodding, actinomorphic, solitary,
scapose, scapes to 18 cm long. Sepals 5, barely united at the
base. Petals 5, united 1/4 or less their length, white to pale
pink or blue, 2-2.5 cm long, apex undulate crenate notched,
corolla open - campanulate.
Shortia inhabits streambanks, slopes, and outcrops in humid
gorges of the mountains, often under Rhododendron maximum and
Kalmia latifolia.
Brook floater (mussel) (Alasmidonta varicosa) - (C)
Ligament external, shell with well-developed pseudocardinal
teeth, length from 25 to 200 mm; beak sculpture con entric and
coarse; shell rhomboid with a prominent posterior ridge.
Habitat - sand and mud bottoms of rivers.
* - indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
The NCNHP records show none of the federally endangered,
threatened, or candidate species have ever been reported from the
vicinity of this project. The NCWRC listed no special concerns
for this site. No federally endangered, threatened, or candidate
species were found, and this project is not expected to impact on
any protected species listed in this report.
State Protected Species
All the federally listed species described above are also on
the North Carolina protected list and none occur at this site.
The NCNHP records have no reports of any state listed species
occurring at this site. The NCWRC listed no special concerns for
this site. This project will not impact on any protected state
species.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the U.S. Army 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.
Since this project is located in one of the 25 westernmost
North Carolina counties that contain Mountain Trout Waters, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to obtain
a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and to fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. The
final permit decision rests with the U.S. Army Corps of
16
Engineers. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification which is
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 appear to be 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 recorded archaeological sites within the
project boundaries. However, since the project area has never
been systematically surveyed, the State Historic Preservation
Officer has recommended that a comprehensive archaeological
survey be conducted to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project. This survey will be accomplished prior to
construction.
IX. 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
construction of this project.
17

. y 7d4! O? o pq 0 1053
'Qt .: ?4 7B .OB
54 2300
1 27
.02 2702
5617 650
IM -
i? l
N i . .44
1420
a?sf
1;11.J 1 ' 1623 .38
I?
\5
33
IQ
35
1e.e. !0g
t
dB BBf / '
age
,_? 1885 '?3
IBBa
S 810
77,
U7 124
06 o
1¢¢i
1057.
A!!!cjpol Airport
:?b J

fi:?: •::•.
i lalj
.!
la
i
?O
.?. : N
H
. 1610,
1
?) O
16 40
0
1 647
n p1 637
G r 11 __ ,S? !S?e .10 ? 2310 ?=
1? / ?l / ? P _ 3308
1 , ! 126 0
'J? I ?pRl 167 .08 .25 " .II
1696
UIIG 1M 08 14311,12
w .... .Od
° (UNINC.
/I

-?-?-?- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1647, BRIDGE NO. 210
OVER DROWNING CREEK
BURKE COUNTY
B-2114
t
7/92 1 m1 ? FIG.1
H
c?
x
x
w
MM£
V/
H
a
b
b
0
a
x

cn

z ?

a

C7
x .?
d
0
£
x
H
z
n
t?
t?
bd
a
b
H
H
H
n
x
x
70
x

x
b
H
CrJ
a
d
rid ,.
c ?
H
rid
\'s

Le
.
1050
• RA
ZONE X •
JJ
•9ZONE X
960 F
i ? ZONE X
ZONE AE
ZONE X
9?4 Stone\A \ -_
Dam/ _
- ;i
F \ .I
• I
PROJECT SR 1647 \ •
116-
SITE •
B-2114 \ • : .
II II
O\ \ II \
II ?.
•

II \ •
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ZONE A
idway?`. I •
Chi-
0
J'I
?-77

City of Hickory
AREA NOT INCLUDED
,
-44
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
t000 Q 1000
B-2114
BRIDGE NO. 210
BURKE COUNTY
FIGURE 4?•
ZONE X
\
O.\
CHEROKEE ¦
¦ :,PACHE •?
DRIVE
o?

RECORD OF CONTACT
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Date: August 25, 1992
By: Jeff Williams
Person Contacted: Ms. Leigh Cobb
Firm: NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch
By Phone: ? , or In Person: . Time 4:& (am-,pm ?? fi
(called _ or call received_? )
Subject: Bridge Replacement Project, T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2114,
Burke County
Topics Discussed: The recommended alternative was discussed.
Conclusions Reached: Ms. Cobb stated that she received
Division 13's concurrence with Alternative No. 2 as
the recommended alternative for the subject bridge
replacement via a telephone conversation with
Mr. Joe Buckner; the Division 13 Construction Engineer.
Remarks: None
cc: Leigh Cobb

_L,ro:,ning Creek Baptist Church
t 7 Box 899
Iickory, 1.C. 128601
dear I.'ir. illiarns,
Our =)actor and deacons have discussed the proposed bridge
replacement on urn 16_+7 near our church. They realize the need to replace
or re.Dair this bridge and. are glad that it is going to be taken care of.
;ue to the fact that about 80; of our members cone from the "LonLyiew
side" of the bridge; they believe that r'.lernete % with the on-site
detour could be better for us.
:,e are most a,pprrciative of vour inouirino, of our con-erns about
the road detour or closure and for giving; us the opportunity to voice
our opion ions. Thank you? If you could let us know if you -plan to
close the road and when; ,.;e could let our members know before our
services. The n _s a!Sctin.
Sincerely yours,
?1 a.W-o2-? (?,,
Barbara Conger
Church ,lerk
^;je?C r 1 ? ?. > z
F14,. ?J I Ip .?2x3C
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:
_9 Jut 2 o 1992
D/V/S10" OF
GHV,AYS '
RfiSEARC?A
Division of Archives and Historv
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categoricai
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
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 9 19/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: -1 L J. Ward 109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett

e
Replace Bridge No. 210 on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek,
Burke County, B-2114, 8.2850901, ER 92-8545
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 recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
July 16, 1992
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request May 8, 1992
Name Of Project T.I.P. No. B-2114 (8.2850901) I Federal Agency Involved None
Proposed Land Use County And State
Highway. Burke County, NC
PART 11. f To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique; statewidd-or local miportant fiFmtand2t"
ti- Acres irrigated, ;Average. Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additionai parts of this form). ? ?
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land-1n Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
iA.;-
w
Name Of Land Ewdluatibttsystetft Used: - titame.*Qfid Stie r H,s R@LUrtt$y6t
r . -. r.tvk. ?.+t
Alternative Site Rating
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 0.41 0.41
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 0 0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 0.41 0.41
PARbp?xnd.ESlct x r x
- j
;Y
WIWONVA

E
r
rr??9?d? M1 '???
& Tatr'}?s? =? w.
• .

1t '(fit bcoxrr?!SCS? Land Etr.?tuatatMNt
P
gw.

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(bl Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On F,*m Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment.(From Part Vl above or a local 1
site assessment)
TOTAL POI NTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reversesidel Form AD-1006 (10-83)