The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19960546 Ver 1_Complete File_19960531State of North Carolina Department of Environment, - NAA Health and Natural Resources &14 • Division of Water Quality James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Wayne McDevitt, Secretary p E H N R A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director December 11, 1997 Burke County DWQProject #960546 APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Mr. Frank Vick NC DOT PO Box 25201 Raleigh NC 27611-5201 Dear Mr. Vick: You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to fill in 0.06 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Little Silver Creek as you described in your application dated November 12, 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below. 1. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds (T 15A:04B .0024). If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611- 7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing. This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786. Sin ly, P 1 .`Pr ston Howard, Jr. P. . Attachment I ?J cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office Asheville DWQ Regional Office Mr. John Dorney Central Files 960546.1tr Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone 919-733-1786 FAX # 733-9959 An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper SfATF o STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 ?60sy?vember 12, 1 & lsweD, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office P.O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ATTN.: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S. Assistant Branch Chief Dear Sir: GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. SECRETARY R81116/1/&? 2199 114/21 P44 ?i FN?FS Subject: Burke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 348 over Little Silver Creek on SR 1150, Federal Project No. BRZ-1150(6), State Project No. 8.2851601, T.I.P. No. B-2932, Action I.D. 199604182. The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the subject project on July 29, 1996. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The replacement of Bridge No. 348 over Little Silver Creek on SR 1150 is not scheduled to be let to construction until December 1997. Consequently, the Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to renew authorization for this work. Information regarding the project description has not changed since the distribution of the Categorical Exclusion in a letter dated May 31, 1996. Bridge No. 348 will be replaced at its existing location with a double-barrel box culvert with each barrel 3.7 x 2.7 meters(12 x 9 feet) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately 0.02 hectares (0.06 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities. Since issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide rmit 23 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has added the dwarf-flowered heartlea. (Hexas lis naniflora) to its listing for Burke County. The DOT has included with this le r iological conclusion of "No Effect" for this project in regard to its review of the species. A copy of this permit reauthorization request is also being sent to the FWS. NOV 0 2 The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in Burke County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 307. Sincerely, H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/plr cc: w/attachment Mr. Robert Johnson, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality Mr. Whit Webb, P.E. Program Development Branch Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit Mr. William J. Rogers, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer Mr. John L. Williams, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer Mr. Joe Mickey, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator I I& AA12s - • 9 I 9 STATE OF NOILTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION jAMEs B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRFPAKY June 0". 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head Bridge Unit ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager FROM: Tim W. Savidge. Environmental Biologist • E>1 i?C•?C?`ent'1 Unit SUBJECT: Protected Spepies Survey Results Pertaining to TIP No. B-2932. Suitable habi.-at for the federal iv protected dwarf- flowered heart leaf (He-astvlis nani i i ora) occurs or_ the north-facing slopes grading from the I-40 roadway to:vard Little Silver Creel. Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted in these areas iJL' ?.CDU'T blol0°1stS Tim Savid_ and Hal Bain cn March ?0. x995. `:o dwarf -flowered heartl.eaf plants were observed. B I OLOG I CAL COI`ICLUS i ON : No Effect Give, the survey results. it can '•ce concludes{ that construction of this project «ili have no impact On the dwarf-flowered heart'_eaf. A temporary detour structure is proposer: to the .rest side of the existing= aiignment. It should be noted that there is considerably more wetlands occurring on the west side as opposed to the east side of the bridg i e. Welland idered for avoidance and minimization must be y serious cons this project. Charles Bruton. Ph.D. Unit V Head Environmental Unit cc: . Hal Bain,.Environmental Supervisor File Section 7 Issues File B-`?93? P STATE s ?S STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .9 6 0 5 4 6 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 May 31, 1996 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office P. O. Box 1890 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner Chief, South Section Dear Sir: GARLAND B. GARRETT JR. SECRETARY 401 ISSUED Subject: Burke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 348 over Little Silver Creek on SR 1150, Federal Project No. BRZ-1150(6), State Project No. 8.2851601, T.I.P. No. B-2932. Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project. Bridge No. 348 will be replaced at its existing location with a double-barrel box culvert with each barrel 3.7 x 2.7 meters (12 x 9 feet) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Construction of the proposed project will impact approximately 0,02 hectares (0.06 acres) of jurisdictional wetland communities. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administratio as a "Catego 'cf Exclusion' in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not antici e requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nation rmit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project. We anticipate the 401 General Certification No. 2745 (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, Department of Environmental Management, for their review. (9 2 We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRQ will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-7844, Ext. 307. Sincerel , H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch HFV/plr cc: w/attachment Mr. Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Department of Environmental Management Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E. Program Development Branch Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design Branch Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design Unit Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer Mr. John L. Williams, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator Burke County Bridge No. 348 on SR 1150 Over Little Silver Creek Federal Project BRZ-1150(6) State Project 8.2851601 TIP # B-2932 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager 4,planning and Environmental Branch Date Nicholas af, P. E. /ivision Administrator, FHWA Burke County Bridge No. 348 on SR 1150 Over Little Silver Creek Federal Project BRZ-1150(6) State Project 8.2851601 TIP # B-2932 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION February, 1996 Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By: John . Williams Project Planning Engineer q h e ?' //c .•`•°?H FARO ^?.•??..Q?pEESS?py?129 Wayne liott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head SEA L • = 6916 Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.; Assistant Manager ''•"$, V. Planning and Environmental Branch '"»III11", Burke County Bridge No. 348 on SR 1150 Over Little Silver Creek Federal Project BRZ-1150(6) State Project 8.2851601 TIP # B-2932 Bridge No. 348 is located in Burke County on SR 1150 crossing over Little Silver Creek. It is programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected. 1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 348 will be replaced at its existing location as recommended in Alternate 1 A with a double-barrel box culvert with each barrel 3.7 x 2.7 meters (12 x 9 feet) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. The proposed project will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, 0.6-meter (2- foot) paved shoulders, and 2.8-meter (9-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed shoulder will taper to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required. The roadway elevation at the culvert and along approaches will be approximately the same as the current roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of the new culvert. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph). The estimated cost of the project is $ 523,000 including $ 275,000 in construction costs and $ 248,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1996-2002 TIP is $ 345,000. H. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be included and properly maintained during project construction. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23. While Burke County is designated as a "trout county," Little Silver Creek does not support trout. Therefore no specific measures to protect trout will be required. Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands. Approximately 43 meters (140 feet) of channel widening will be required due to the installation of the culvert. Therefore, NCDOT will implement stream relocation guidelines for "major" relocation (modification) as developed by Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR), N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC). This requires the design to be coordinated with the NCWRC and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. NCDOT will consider a bottomless culvert in the design phase as requested by NCWRC. NCDOT will evaluate the potential of the culvert to carry a waterline for the City of Morganton beneath the road surface. IM ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely. IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1150 (Beep Drive) is classified as an Urban Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It carries 2800 vehicles per day. Because there is no posted speed limit and since SR 1150 is within the city limits of Morganton, the road would be subject to a statutory 35 mph speed limit. The road serves mostly industrial facilities of southwest Morganton. There is some scattered residential development northwest of the project. The existing bridge was completed in 1965. It is 27.7 meters (91 feet) long. There are approximately 4.6 meters (15 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. The deck has 7.5 meters (24.5 feet) of bridge roadway width. There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge. According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 41.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 11 tons for single vehicles and posted 16 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The structure has less than 7 years of estimated remaining life. The horizontal alignment is tangent on the northwest approach and curved on the southeast approach. The bridge is in a vertical sag. The pavement width on the approaches to the bridge is 5.8 meters (19 feet). Shoulders on the northern and southern ends of the bridge are approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide. Traffic volume is 2800 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 4300 VPD for the year 2020. Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported within the last three years in the vicinity of the project. There are no school bus crossings over the studied bridge. There are several utilities in the area some of which will be impacted by this project. Multiple power and telephone lines cross the project area. A storm sewer lies close off the edge of the pavement along the west side of the project area. In addition, a major power line crosses over SR 1150 approximately 15 meters (50 feet) southeast of the bridge. V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES There are five "build" options considered in this document. Each maintains traffic on the existing alignment with a design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph). They are as follows: Alternate IA) (Recommended) Replace the bridge with a double-barrel box culvert, each barrel 3.7 x 2.7-meter (12 x 9-foot) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Alternate 1B) Replace the existing bridge with a new 33.5-meter (110-foot) long bridge. Traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. Alternate 2A) Replace the existing bridge with a double-barrel box culvert. Each barrel is 3.7 x 2.7-meter (12 x 9-foot) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained onsite during construction utilizing three 1800-millimeter (72 inch) pipes as a temporary structure over the creek. Alternate 2B) Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge 33.5 meters (110 feet) in length. Traffic would be maintained onsite during construction utilizing three 1800-millimeter (72-inch) pipes as a temporary structure over the creek. Alternate 3) Replace the existing bridge with a double-barrel box culvert. Each barrel is 3.7 x 2.7 meters (12 x 9 feet) in cross section and 40 meters (131 feet) in length. The extra length of the culvert would be built in phases. The first phase would involve building a portion of the culvert to the west side of the existing bridge. The next phase would shift traffic from the existing bridge to the temporary alignment. The existing bridge would then be removed. Phase three would extend construction of the culvert into the space previously occupied by the bridge. Finally, traffic would be shifted back onto the original alignment. "Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. VI. ESTIMATED COST Recommended COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE IA 1B 2A 2B 3 Mobilization & Miscellaneous $ 54,000 $ 95,000 $ 109,000 $ 159,000 $ 112,000 New Culvert Structure $ 92,000 N/A $ 92,000 N/A $ 152,000 - OR - extra length New Bridge Structure N/A $ 179,000 NIA $ 179,000 N/A Bridge Removal $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ 19,000 Roadway & Approaches $ 67,000 $ 61,000 $ 67,000 $ 61,000 $ 63,000 Temporary Detour N/A N/A $ 188,000 $ 213,000 $ 141,000 Engineering & Contingencies $ 43,000 $ 62,000 $ 75,000 $ 110,000 $ 63,000 Total Construction $ 275,000 $ 412,000 $ 550,000 $737,000 $ 550,000 Right of Way (high ROW $ 248,000 $ 250,000 $ 254,000 $ 258,000 $ 254,000 costs due to utilities impacts) Total Cost $ 523,000 $ 662,000 $ 804,000 $ 995,000 $ 804,000 VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 348 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate IA with a box culvert 3.7 x 2.7 meters (12 x 9 feet) in cross section and 24.2 meters (79 feet) in length. Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction. The proposed project will include two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes, 0.6-meter (2- foot) paved shoulders, and 2.8-meter (9-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed shoulder will taper down to 1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required. The roadway elevation at the culvert and along approaches will be approximately the same as the current roadway. Approach work will extend approximately 30 meters (100 feet) to either side of the new culvert. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph). Traffic will be detoured offsite along SR 1177 and SR 1142 as shown in Figure 1. The roadways along the detour are well maintained with alignment equal to or better than SR 1150. The one other structure along the route (a culvert on SR 1142) is sufficient to carry traffic detoured from SR 1150. The division engineer supports this plan of traffic maintenance and the City of Morganton has no objections. Road user analysis indicates that vehicles routinely using SR 1150 would experience a travel cost increase of approximately $ 289,000. This cost is based on 2800 4 vehicles per day traveling as much as 3.6 kilometers (2.3 miles) out of their way for the five month construction period. Comparing this user cost to the $ 281,000 cost of maintaining traffic on-site results in a benefit-cost ratio of nearly 1.0. Therefore, from a road user analysis perspective, neither onsite traffic maintenance or detouring traffic offsite has an inherent economical advantage. Alternates 1B and 2B both propose replacing the existing structure with a bridge. These alternates were included, at the request of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, to determine the feasibility of using a spanning structure to cross Little Silver Creek in an effort to reduce environmental impacts (see Attachment 1). A spanning structure would avoid approximately 43 meters (140 feet) of channel widening but would result in more than $ 130,000 additional project costs relative to Alternates IA and 2A. Since Little Silver Creek is not designated as "trout waters" and since this stream flows into a very industrialized area, widening the channel will have a relatively minor impact on water quality in this stream. Therefore, the additional cost is not warranted in this circumstance. Alternate 3 was considered as another option for maintaining traffic onsite during construction, to be compared with Alternate 2A. The cost of construction is nearly the same, but the environmental impact of leaving a longer box culvert permanently in place is considerably greater. These alternates would have greater environmental impact and greater cost than Alternate IA. NCDOT recommends Alternate IA because it is the most economical alternate and has only relatively minor environmental impacts. VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. There are no hazardous waste impacts. No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. 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. 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 proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain. Utility impacts are expected to be high due to mutltiple power lines running through the area in addition to a sewer line running parallel and close to the existing road. Both sewer and power lines are likely to be impacted by construction of the project. The impacts will be high. B. AIR AND NOISE The project is 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. This project is air quality neutral and does not require a project level CO analysis. This project is in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures. NCDOT and the FHWA do not anticipate that it will create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area. The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation 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 the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports. The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction. C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that the project will not impact prime or important farmland soils. D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources databases, the Department of Cultural Resources (DCR) has indicated that they "are aware of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore recommend no historic architectural surveys be conducted. In Attachment 3, the DCR indicated that an archaeological survey should be completed. However, in a conversation with DCR, Dave Moore of their Ashville Office stated that an archaeological investigation would not be necessary in the event that no new alignment or temporary alignments were required. Attachment 4 from DCR reflects this comment. Since Alternate IA maintains traffic on secondary roads and maintains the existing alignment, no archaeological survey is necessary. E. NATURAL RESOURCES PHYSICAL RESOURCES This portion of Burke County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province. The topography of southwestern Burke County is characterized by rolling hills. Soil types and availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. The elevation at the project site is approximately 329 meters (1080 feet). Soils Upland soil.z in the project area have been disturbed by industrial development. The floodplain oils dominating the immediate project site are within the range of characteristic:. .? `h _ Toccoa sandy loam with 0 to 3 percent slopes. They are deep, occasionally flooded, moderately well drained soils. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 0.8 to 1.5 meters (2.5 to 5.0 feet). Toccoa soils are not listed on the national or Burke County lists of hydric soils (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1991; David Knight, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Burke County 1995). Water Resources Water resource information encompasses the resource's relationship to major water systems, physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality. Impacts to water resources are discussed, along with suggestions to minimize impacts. Characteristics of Water Resources Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Catawba River Drainage Basin. Little Silver Creek originates approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) west of the project site and flows into Silver Creek approximately 7.7 kilometers (4.8 miles) downstream from the proposed bridge replacement. Silver Creek eventually flows into the Catawba River north of Morganton. At the project site, Little Silver Creek is approximatel-, 2.4 meters (8.0 feet) wide and 15 centimeters (6 inches) deep. The Creek has moderate flow, clear water, and a sand / silt-gravel bottom. Best Usage Classification Streams have been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The DEM Index numbers for Little Silver Creek are 11-34-7-(1) from its source to SR 1150, the project site, and 11-34-7-(2) from SR 1150 to Silver Creek. The best usage classification for Little Silver Creek upstream from the project site is Class C while downstream from the project site, the creek is designated as WS-IV. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Local programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. These waters are suitable for all Class C uses. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project study area. Water Quality The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. BMAN information is not available for Little Silver Creek (NC DEHNR 1991). Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. One permitted discharger is located on Little Silver Creek. BASF Corporation is permitted to discharge paint and ink formulation and non- contacting cooling water and condensate per NC DEHNR permit NC 0005738. An additional permitted discharger, Borden, Inc. is located on an unnamed tributary of Little Silver Creek and is permitted to discharge non-contacting cooling water and condensate per NC DEHNR permit NC 0051527. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources Replacing an existing structure in the same location with road closure during construction is almost always the preferred environmental approach. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacement on new location or a detour bridge usually results in more severe impacts. Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters: - Increased sedimentation and siltation from erosion; - Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal; - Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from construction; - Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal, and; - Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway construction and toxic spills. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. These precautions minimize impacts to water resources in the study area by protecting stream bank vegetation, installing silt fences as well as other erosion and sedimentation controls. Following these provisions should preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval. Approximately 43 meters (140 feet) of channel widening will be required due to the installation of the culvert. Therefore, NCDOT will implement stream relocation guidelines for "major" relocation (modification) as developed by Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR); Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC).. BIOTIC RESOURCES Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Natural plant community titles follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and discussed. Identifications and nomenclature of vascular plants were made primarily with Radford et al. (1968). Terrestrial Communities A variety of disturbed biotic communities dominate the project site. Much of the area has been recently disturbed. Some areas (roadside shoulder, powerline right-of-way and a cutover) are maintained at, or are currently at, an early successional stage. One small area of Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest is present along Little Silver Creek just west of the existing bridge. Disturbed - Early Successional Roadside and Powerline Rights-of-Way and Cutover The powerline right-of-way area is present on the southern quadrants of the current bridge. The power line crosses NC 1150 from the southeast just south of the bridge and follows Little Silver Creek out of the project area. Examples of streambank vegetation under the powerline includes: tag alder, black willow, and Japanese Honeysuckle. Much of this area meets jurisdictional wetland criteria. A majority of the northeastern side of the current bridge is maintained lawn dominated by fescue. Hydrophytic species are present in a small wetland area located at the base of the road shoulder near the northeast corner of the bridge. Examples of species dominating this wetland include cattail, woolgrass, common rush, and Japanese grass. The northwestern quadrant has been recently logged and is dominated by herbaceous and shrubby species. Hydrophytic species are indicators of the many water pockets and a high water table in this area. Many of the same species listed for the wetland on the southeastern corner of the bridge are present here. Disturbed areas such as these are used by a variety of animals for foraging and nesting. Avian species such as mourning dove and American goldfinch are likely to be found in the project study area. Scavenging birds such as the turkey vulture and the American crow are probably present during most of the year. Examples of mammals likely to inhabitant or use these disturbed areas include white tailed deer, raccoon, and Virginia opossum. Upland chorus frog, spring peeper and northern cricket frog are three amphibians likely to inhabit the cutover wetland area. Black rat snakes and rough green snakes may be found throughout the disturbed areas. Piedmont / Mountain Bottomland Forest A portion of a bottomland forest is found near the southwest corner of the bridge and extends outside of the right-of-way. Dominant species found in this Piedmont/ Mountain Bottomland Forest community include red maple, black willow, tag alder and arrow arum. Many of the animals that inhabit or use the disturbed areas probably utilize this community also. Northern cardinal, mourning dove, American crow, white-tailed deer, Virginia opossum, raccoon and black rat snakes are likely inhabitants of bottomland forests. Aquatic Community - Piedmont Perennial Stream Little Silver Creek is considered a Piedmont perennial stream. The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission collected the following species of fish in Little Silver Creek at the project site on 21 July 1995: redbreast sunfish, bluehead chub, striped jumprock, rosyside dace, greenhead shiner and fantail darter. Although Burke County is a designated trout county, this stream does not support trout (Goudreau 1995). Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems effected. Both temporary and permanent impacts are considered here. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community at the project site. Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses of these biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using a right of way width of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet) and a project length of 183 meters (600 feet). Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Anticipated impacts to biotic communities from Alternatives 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B and 3. Values are given in hectares (acres). COMMUNITY TYPES ALTERNATIVE Disturbed Piedmont Total Areas Bottomland Forest Impacts IA 0.29 (0.71) 0.02 (0.05) 0.31 (0.76) 113 0.29 (0.71) 0.02 (0.05) 0.31 (0.76) 2A 0.36 (0.90) 0.05 (0.13) 0.41(l.03) 2B 0.36 (0.90) 0.05 (0.13) 0.41(l.03) 3 0.31 (0.77) 0.04 (0.09) 0.3 5 (0.86) Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting, feeding and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Alternatives IA and 1B will have the least impact [0.31 hectares (0.76 acres)] on the natural communities within the project area. Although the current roadside shoulder will most likely be destroyed, a similar community will be created during the bridge replacement. The construction of an on-site detour (Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3) will cause destruction to portions of the natural communities in the project area. Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3 will reduce habitat for faunal species and therefore diminish their populations. Total habitat loss from Alternatives 2A or 2B could reach 0.41 hectares (1.03 acres). Habitat reduction concentrates wildlife into smaller areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. 10 Impacts to the aquatic community include degradation of water quality, thus negatively impacting the aquatic organisms living in the stream. The surface area impacts to Little Silver Creek will be greatest for those alternatives (IA, 2A and 3) that involve replacing the current bridge with a culvert. The culvert will require stream widening 18.3 meters (60.0 feet) upstream and downstream from the crossing. Stream channelization required for the culvert will disturb 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of stream substrate which may degrade the aquatic community in Little Silver Creek. Alternative 2A will cause additional stream degradation since it involves the construction and removal of a temporary on-site bridge. Alternatives IB and 2B involve replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge. Although both alternatives will cause the same amount of damage to the stream by surface area [(0.01 hectares (0.02 acres)], Alternative 2B will involve an on-site detour. The construction and removal of this temporary bridge will cause more damage to this aquatic community than simply replacing the existing structure (Alternative 1B). Alternative 1B will cause less damage to Little Silver Creek than any of the other alternatives. There will be fewer terrestrial and aquatic impacts since this alternative involves replacing the current bridge with a new bridge and does not involve an on-site detour. JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES Waters of the United States Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands includes evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. One small wetland is located near the northeast corner of the current bridge. It is approximately 6.1 x 9.2 meters (20.0 x 30.0 feet) in size. Most of the west side is characterized by wetlands. Hydrophytic plants such as cattail, common rush and false nettle are present. Mottled soils with a color of 10YR 4/2 were present. The wetland areas on the southwest side of SR 1150 contained tag alder, black willow, red maple, arrow-arum, woolgrass and spotted touch-me-not. Mottled soils with a color of 10YR 4/2 were present and had a mild sulphitic odor. Alternatives IA and 1B will have the least impact on wetlands [0.02 hectares (0.06 acres)]. Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3 will cause more wetland destruction [0.28 hectares (0.70 acres)] because of their on-site detours to the west. Little Silver Creek is the only surface water present in the study area. Permits Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United States." 11 A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act: (1) 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; (2) that 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 the determination. This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Final decisions concerning applicable permits rest with the COE. Since the proposed project is located in a designated "trout" county, the authorization of a Nationwide Permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the Wildlife Resources Commission. However, fisheries biologist Stephanie Goudreau (1995), states that Little Silver Creek does not support trout. Mitigation The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts ((40 CFR) 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measure should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Alternatives IA and 1B involve the replacement of Bridge No. 348 without the construction of a temporary on-site detour and would therefore avoid the greatest potential impact to wetlands. This alternative would cause the least amount of impacts to wetlands. Minimization Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization 12 typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Alternatives 1 A or 1B would cause the least amount of destruction to jurisdictional wetlands and biotic communities and, therefore, should be considered unless an on-site detour is absolutely necessary. If the on-site detour proposed in Alternatives 2A, 2B and 3 were to be constructed, it should be placed as close to the existing roadway as possible to minimize the destruction and degradation of wetlands. Additional means to minimize impacts to the waters and wetlands crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control using Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian areas; reduction or elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re- establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with prudent pesticide and herbicide management; minimization of in-stream activity and litter and debris control. The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing water quality degradation resulting from project construction. Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. Protected and Rare Species Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. Federally-Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Protected Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. Seven federally-protected species are known from Burke County as of 28 March 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). 13 The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus, Endangered) is found throughout the United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May. There is no appropriate habitat for the American peregrine falcon within the project site. Most of the area is disturbed. There are no high cliff ledges nor broken off tree tops in this area. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not impact the American peregrine falcon. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Spreading evens (Geum radiatum, Endangered) is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of 1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680- 5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. There are no scarps, bluffs, cliffs or escarpments in this part of Burke County. Possible habitat for spreading avens does not occur at the project site. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not affect spreading avens. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Roan Mountain bluet (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana, Endangered) is a perennial species with roots and grows in low tufts. Known populations of Roan Mountain bluet occur at elevations of 1400-1900 meters (4600-6200 feet). Cliffs, outcrops and steep slopes do not exist in this portion of Burke County. Also, the project site is at an elevation of 329 meters (1080 feet), well below the elevations where this species is known to occur. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not affect Roan Mountain Bluet. Biological Conclusion: . No Effect The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora, Threatened) has heart- shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. Populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the southeastern mixed forest. 14 Although wetlands are present at the project site, no bluffs, ravines or upper Piedmont oak-pine forests are present. Plant by plant surveys were conducted and revealed no populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the project study area, therefore, this species will not be affected by this project. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana, Threatened) is a low, needle- leaved shrub that is yellow-green in color. It occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops, with known populations found at elevations of 850-1200 meters (2800- 4000 feet). It can be found on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds dominated by Leiophyllum which merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially shaded areas, but do not appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas. A critical habitat area for mountain golden heather exists in Burke County. The elevation range for mountain golden heather [850- 1200 meters (2800 - 4000 feet)] is well above the elevation of the project site [329 meters (1080 feet]. It occurs on mountain tops with weathered, rocky soils. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not affect mountain golden heather. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides, Endangered) is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogoma have short sepals. The small-whorled pogonia grows in second growth deciduous or deciduous- coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density. The project area is composed mainly of maintained or heavily disturbed habitat. Only one small area of second growth forest exits on-site. This bottomland forest is along Little Silver Creek and is regularly inundated and always wet. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not affect small- whorled pogonia since appropriate habitat for this species is not present. Biological Conclusion: No Effect 15 Heller's blazing (Liatris helleri, Threatened) star is a short, stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Heller's blazing star is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Known populations of this plant occur at elevations of 1067-1829 meters (3500-6000 feet). Heller's blazing star is an early pioneer species growing on grassy rock outcrops where it is exposed to full sunlight. Heller's blazing star prefers shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks. Known populations of Heller's blazing star occur at elevations of 1067-1829 meters (3500-6000 feet) which are not present at the project site [elevation 329 meters (1080 feet)]. The project site does not have any grassy rock outcrops. A survey of the NC Natural Heritage Program's database of rare and protected species revealed that no populations of this species have been reported from the project site. This project will not affect Heller's blazing star. Biological Conclusion: No Effect 16 FIGURES 275 , :y ;? I I /rj O _ ::•.; ::: ' .30 1 150 BRIDGE NO.348 O? 1168 q` Ntk 0`Z A? J nviak-k \ ` „4 c?.\ Ne bill a j; or f4 P P( Jab Twtle Ed- ' ? St. Fo.esr •9 liiv.5 1 1152 N c t-i78 1177 b3 G????F SOUTHERN 11 77A 1142 Dr .. 4 0 115 Y. .? '' ::. -_ -- _ -- -- - -1.12- BO i ` EXTENSION 1161 '1 100 15 . 1142 112 -1-l" 1197 i sag 2103 2116 U2103 STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE 1r 1 ?711vr?nnLU Is ' 03 or B R E d ? ia / rove at Pl ? ' easB 6C ? la ?Sa?lh Mo?nro?ns 1 SYvre Pork l / ?. Z j I North Carolina Department Of Transportation Planning & Environmental Branch BURKE COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 348 ON SR 1150 OVER LITTLE SILVER CREEK B-2932 0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8 Figure 1 0 miles 0.25 miles 0.50 J lw: P? rr, ?Y All alternates replace Bridge No. 348 on the existing location with a nee structure Bridge No. 348 ALTERNATIVES Alternate IA Replace bridge N ith a double-barrel boa culvert. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. Alternate 1B Replace bridge with a new bridge. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. Alternate 2A Replace bridge with a double-barrel box culvert. Traffic would be maintained on a temporary alignment to the west during construction. M'IrF • ..+ A Alternate 2B Replace bridge -Mth a new bridge. Traffic would be maintained on a temporary aligmnent to the west during construction. n w Alternate 3 Replace the bridge with a box culvert (extra long). Traffic would be OWN- maintained on the extended portion of the box culvert during constriction. Y Y t ?? rrs. I N C} now- 4 )MITE:? :J..3 I rE , E ?. I-40 i e e<? Northeast Face of Bridge No. 348 Northwest Approach Facing Southeast Southeast Approach Facing Nort hwest FIGURE 3 G H ,? oR ZONE X gTE 10 AR FLO PLAIN LIMITS P? JP J?? dE X Y e ??M?rs- ZONE AE ZONE X 0 A hci ` ? °A RM32 ZONE X x ZONE X ° ZONE X ZONE X 9FFp `t ? °S S ZONE X 0 , 1057 ZONE X UNNAMED ROAD ZONE X A PROJECT SITE X066 p, 1060 c1. , M ?06 c°`? p _.? 1058 1150 /- l ATTACHMENTS V)'O)CV' ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program DATE: June 13, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #348 on SR 1150 over Little Silver Creek, Burke County, TIP #B-2932. This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the scoping sheets for the subject project. At this time we have not identified any special concerns regarding this project. Although Burke County is designated a trout county by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Silver Creek does not support trout. Our comments on the 404 permit application will reflect this. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652- 4257. ATTACHMENTI JC?2 6 1995. D n,/swv of ipy AVS Q North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission`-9? - ' 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program DATE: July 24, 1995 SUBJECT: Additional scoping comments regarding replacement of Bridge #348 on SR 1150 over Little Silver Creek, Burke County, TIP #B-2932. We previously commented on this project in a memorandum to you dated 13 June 1995 in which we stated that we have no special concerns regarding the subject project. However, Mr. John Williams of your staff contacted me on 19 July 1995 to inform me of the results of the scoping meeting. Apparently the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the existing bridge with a multi-celled reinforced concrete box culvert. As part of the project, the NCDOT proposes to widen the stream channel 60 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge. We are concerned with this component of the project, which amounts to channelization of the stream. Mr. Robert Brown (Assistant District Fish Biologist) and I visited the site on 21 July 1995. The bankfull width of the stream upstream and downstream of the bridge is approximately 10 feet. The stream is gently meandering with a good stand of riparian vegetation stabilizing the bank and providing a travel corridor for wildlife. We noted a small wetland area just downstream of the bridge along the right bank (looking upstream). Deer and raccoon tracks were numerous along the stream. In addition, we conducted fish sampling upstream and downstream of the bridge and collected the following species: Redbreast sunfish Bluehead chub Striped jumprock Rosyside dace Greenhead shiner Fantail darter Lepomis auritus Nocomis leptocephalus Moxostoma rupiscartes Chnostomus funduloides Notropis chlorocephalus Etheostoma f Zabellare Channelization degrades aquatic habitat by creating a wide, shallow channel with little habitat diversity. Water velocity usually slows when a channel is widened, causing sediment to ATTACHMENT 2 B-2932 Page 2 July 24, 1995 deposit. Although this stream does not support trout, it does provide habitat for redbreast sunfish and several species of nongame fish. In addition, the stream and its adjacent riparian zone provide habitat for many species of wildlife. We would prefer that the crossing structure be modified rather than the stream channel and encourage the NCDOT to develop an alternative plan that does not involve channel modification. One alternative that should be examined is the installation of a bottomless box culvert. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652- 4257. cc: W Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist Mr. John Williams, NCDOT 5LATE North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director September 13, 1995 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Replace Bridge 348 on 1150 over Little Silver Creek, Burke County -283 Federal Aid Project BRZ-1150(6) tate Project 8.2851.601, ER 95-9033 Y+ •2`132 Dear Mr. Graf: On June 20, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting. Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project. 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. 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. Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical. Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments. The above 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. ' cerely, Da i Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw cc:F. Vick B. Church T. Padgett ?a North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary February 28, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch Division of Highways Department of T sportation f FROM: David Brook % . a bk Deputy State Historic Preservatlon Officer SUBJECT: Bridge 348 on SR 1150 over Little Silver Creek, B-2932, Burke County, ER 95- 9033 Division of Archives and History Jeffrey J. Crow, Director We have been asked to comment on this project by John Williams, project planning engineer. 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 survey be conducted to identify significant archaeological resources if a new alignment is selected for this bridge. No archaeological investigation is recommended if the bridge is replaced on the same alignment. The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. DB:slw cc: N. G?f J Williams T. Padge 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??? RECEIVED SEP 0 61995 'tea m• ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES I". ", STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY August 31, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: John L. Williams Project Planning Engineer SUBJECT: SR 1150, Burke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 348 over Little Silver Creek, State Project 8.2851601, F. A. Project BRZ-1150(6), B-2932 A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Highway Building on June 20, 1994. The following people were in attendance: Betty Yancey Right of Way Darin Wilder Program Development Lee Moore Roadway Design Jerry Snead Hydraulics Larry Pressley City of Morganton Roy Girolami Structure Design Olivia Farr Traffic Control Susan Cosper Traffic Forecasting Jeff O'Briant Location and surveys Jimmy Capps Program Development (Scheduling) John Williams Planning and Environmental Branch The following comments were either phoned in or given at the meeting: Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters are Class C. He requested Normal Erosion Control measures. Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge with a new 3.7 x 2.7-meter (12 x 9-foot) box culvert. If the structure is a bridge it will be 33.5 meters (110 feet) long. The channel will need to be widened 60 feet upstream and downstream for a culvert. N 1k.. , August 31, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Larry Pressley of the City of Morganton inquired as to the possibility of the structure carrying a waterline. Roy Girolami of Structure Design stated that this would be possible if there is sufficient depth of cover on the box culvert. Mr. Girolami will coordinate with Mr. Snead to determine if this is possible. Debbie Bevins of SHPO stated that no structural survey would be required for this project. She further stated that an archaeological survey would be required if a new location or temporary detour alternate is considered. Stephanie Goudreau of North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) sent in the comments below following the meeting. NCWRC objects to channel widening up and downstream of the bridge which would cause channelization resulting in degradation of aquatic habitat. She supports a spanning structure. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES The following alternates are under consideration. Cost estimates are not yet available for all alternates. 1A) Replace the existing bridge with a 3.7 x 2.7-meter (12 x 9-foot) box culvert on the existing location. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCT ION: $175,000 1B) Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on the existing location. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads during construction. 2A) Replace the existing bridge with a 3.7 x 2.7-meter (12 x 9-foot) box culvert on the existing location. Traffic would be maintained onsite during construction using three 72" pipes as a temporary structure over the creek. ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCT ION: $550,000 2B) Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on the existing location. Traffic would be maintained onsite during construction using three 72" pipes as a temporary structure over the creek. 3) Replace the existing bridge with a 3.7 x 2.1-meter (12 x 9-foot) extended box culvert on the existing location. Traffic would be maintained on the extended portion of the box culvert during construction. JW/wp BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET TIP PROJECT B-2932 DATE: 6-22-95 DIVISION 13 STATE PROJECT 8.2851601 COUNTY Burke F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1150(6) ROUTE SR 1150 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Replace Obsolete Bridge SPECIAL FUNDING: Will there be special funding participation by municipalities, developers, or others? NO STRUCTURES EXISTING LENGTH 27.7 meters; WIDTH 7.5 meters BRIDGE NO. 348 91 feet 25 feet NEW WIDTH 3.7 meters by HEIGHT 2.7 meters CULVERT 12 feet 9 feet OR NEW LENGTH 33.5 meters WIDTH 12 meters BRIDGE 110 feet 40 feet COSTS TIP Estimate TIP Construction Cost ....................................... $ 325,000 TIP Right of Way Cost ....................................... + $ 20,000 TIP Total Cost ....................................... $ 345,000 Construction Estimate ....................................... $ 550,000 Right of Way Estimate ....................................... Not Yet Available CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector SOUTHERN' 1177 O F?::•::;" .30 1150 . i FBIUDGE NO. 348 X57 )/GQ"f 1177 YAO /1142 ?b 115 40 '? ?s -'-1.12`--BO I 111 EXTENSION 1161 1N .15 0 i 0 7011 2112 - 1-168 21 15 • '24 1197 i 2103 1142 2116 A3 2103 f nvi l` IISS Co.\ Nda,c:u $1 1 M tor? p' 22 Eds. Tw Jab RaW O n? im ms°IfLYI, 18-E Fp1K 1 ? 8 ' rove Pl S • I/ /0 ea Jac - -5oufh Mo?nfe?nr ? ' , 1 Sure Part ? ?,? North Carolina Department Of Transportation Planning & Environmental Branch L BURKE COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 348 ON SR 1150 OVER LITTLE SILVER CREEK B-2932 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2 Fiegive 1 0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0 Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 May 16, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager Planning and Environmental Branch R. SAMUEL HUNT III SECRETARY SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 348 on SR 1150 in Burke County over Little Silver Creek, Federal-Aid Project #BRZ-1150(6), State Project #8.2851601, B-2932 Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this project is scheduled for June 20, 1995 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date. Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842. JW/plr p3?? ?( -0 ? Attachment ?l C I(- 3? tv, 6i4l, N Dr. 60:"wT SOUTHERN Tyr N 1177 57 ON 1152 / 4178 Blvd. g0 b3 1177 G{? e ? t? / p,5 ,tea 1142 Gj~ 2112 1168 2115• 24 - 1197 1b O? o? lS i 2103 1142 2116 A3 ` 2103 a 5 40 ;s= - - - - - - -1.12` - -BO EXTENSION 1161 100 IS North Carolina Department Of Transportation Planning & Environmental Branch ?v.nut' BURKE COUNTY REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 348 ON SR 1150 OVER LITTLE SILVER CREEK B-2932 0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2 Figure 1 0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0 ./ 275, _. t . 30 1150 BRIDGE NO. 348 1142 ;fib BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET DATE: 5-16-95 TIP PROJECT B-2932 DIVISION 13 STATE PROJECT 8.2851601 COUNTY Burke F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1150(6) ROUTE SR 1150 PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 348 on SR 1150 over Little Silver Creek in Burke County. WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X EXISTING LENGTH STRUCTURE: 28 METERS; 91 FEET WIDTH TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + s TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 7.7 METERS 25.4 FEET 325,000 20,000 345,000 It CLASSIFICATION: Small Urban Local Route