19970573 Ver 1_Complete File_19970726

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
4? ° © rt
August 1, 1997
Cleveland County
DWQ Project # 970573
DOT TIP No. B-3140
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
permanently impact 0.07 acres and temporarily impact 0.07 acres of waters for the purpose of bridge
replacement at Buffalo Creek, as you described in your application dated 25 June 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 Stormwatcr, 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. DOT shall follow guidance provided by DWQ in our 27 May 1997 letter for minimizing damage to
aquatic resources until a final policy is developed in conjunction with DOT.
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. 2 7 6 1 1-7447. 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 tinder Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
e 1 ,
on otvar , r. P.E.
U
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Feld Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
970573.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affimlativo Action Employer - 50% rocycled110% post consumer paper
5TATE
F"
N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 25, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
,:??I rssk) F6-va
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner 9 7 0 5 7 3
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
41160
y
,a
Subject: Cleveland County, Replacement of Bridge No. 13 over Buffalo Creek
on NC 198, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-198(1), State Project
No. 8.18 T.I.P. No. B-3140.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 13 will be replaced on existing location with a new structure 107
meters (350 feet) long. During construction, traffic will be maintained by a temporary
on-site detour southwest of the existing bridge. Construction otli`propos-ed pr0jectwill
no impact any jurisdictional wetland communities. There will be approximately 0.03
hectares (0.07 acres) of jurisdictional surface waters permanently impacted by
construction of the bridge, and 0.03 hectares (0.07 acres) of temporary impacts resulting
from the on-site detour. In March 21, 1997 a survey was made for the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Herastvlis naniflora). No individuals were found, resulting in a biological
conclusion of No Effect.
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 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 a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
w
2
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, Division of Water Quality
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. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. James A. Buck, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
A
NC 198
Bridge No. 13 Over Buffalo Creek
Cleveland County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-198(1)
State Project No. 8.1801101
T.I.P. No. B-3140
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
2v
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?? Zo 9(v
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 198
Bridge No. 13 Over Buffalo Creek
Cleveland County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-198(1)
State Project No. 8.1801101
T.I.P. No. B-3140
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
mes Wang, Ph. D., P. E.
President
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
G '
L. Gai rimes, P. Unit Head
Consultant Engin eying Unit
w &?
JBuck, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
,o•`O??H •CAR p???,?,'
?:QpFESS/p q'
SEAL
7521 '
' . NCI KE
• ?p?,.
S • J

NC 198
Bridge No. 13 Over Buffalo Creek
Cleveland County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-198(1)
State Project No. 8.1801101
T.I.P. No. B-3140
Bridge No. 13 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid
or minimize environmental impacts.
2. A survey will be performed at the bridge site for the occurrence of the Hexastylis
naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) during the next flowering season (March - June
1997) prior to right of way acquisition.
1 A Memorandum of Agreement with South Carolina Department of Transportation will be
developed for funding for the Environmental Planning Report, Design and Construction.
4. Location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final
design phase.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 13 will be replaced on existing location as shown in Figure 2. The new bridge will
have a clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft) and a length of approximately 107 meters (350
ft). The structure will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on
each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
grade at this location. The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with
2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved shoulders. Approach work will extend
approximately 145 meters (475 ft) north and south of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour structure during the construction
period as shown in Figure 2.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,867,000 including $42,000 for right-of-way
and $1,825,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program, is $995,000 including $45,000 for right-of-way and
$950,000 for construction.
1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 198 is classified as a rural major collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily agricultural, forestry and residential in the immediate vicinity of
the bridge. Bridge No. 13 is south of Earl, North Carolina on the border of North Carolina and
South Carolina. The existing bridge crosses the Buffalo Creek main channel and an overflow
channel located adjacent to the creek on the south side.
Near the bridge, NC 198 has a 6.0 meter (20 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
The horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the north and south approaches. The
vertical alignment is relatively level. The roadway is approximately 14 meters (46 ft) above the
creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 4400 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 7900 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (kph) (posted 55
miles per hour (mph) ) at the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1950 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck on steel 1-beams, supported by reinforced concrete caps on steel piles with spill
through approaches.
The overall length of the bridge is 107 meters (350 ft). The clear roadway width is 6.7 meters
(22 ft). The posted weight limit is 26.33 metric tons (29 tons) for single vehicles and 29.96
metric tons (33 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 13 has a sufficiency rating of 30.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
This low rating warrants replacement of the bridge.
Utility impact will be low.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from January 1, 1992 to December
31, 1994.
One Cleveland County school bus crosses the bridge twice a day
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No relocation alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge; the existing
roadway provides the best alignment.
Bridge No. 13 will be replaced with a structure approximately 107 meters (350 ft) long with a
clear roadway width of 9.2 meters (30 ft). This structure will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 ft)
travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side. The existing roadway will be widened to
a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved
shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained by constructing a temporary on-site detour southwest of the existing
bridge. The detour structure will be approximately 50 meters (165 ft) in length over the main
creek channel and two 1800 mm (72 inch) pipes for the overflow channel. Two tributaries flow
2
into Buffalo Creek northeast of the existing bridge, the terrain southwest of the bridge is more
suitable for an on-site detour.
Detouring of NC 198 traffic via other routes in the area during construction is impractical due to
the considerable traffic volume and inadequate detour routes.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 198.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
(Recommended)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 43,200
Structure (proposed) 590,640
Roadway Approaches 175,830
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches 598,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 422,330
Engineering and Contingencies 270,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 42,000
TOTAL
$2,142,000
Note
Based on a proposed Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and SCDOT SCDOT will reimburse
NCDOT for the following cost.
1 Fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the Environmental and/or Planning report.
2 Fifty percent (50%) of the project design and plan preparation (including specifications).
3 Twelve percent (12%) of the bridge construction cost (including temporary detour bridge).
4 One hundred percent (100%) of the approach and roadway work on the South Carolina side,
(including approach work for the temporary detour).
5 Twelve percent (12%) of the miscellaneous bridge construction (mobilization, construction
engineering and contingencies) including temporary detour bridge.
6. One hundred percent (100%) of the miscellaneous approach and roadway work on the South
Carolina side (mobilization, construction engineering and contingencies) including approach work
for temporary detour.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 13 over Buffalo Creek will be replaced on existing location with a new structure
approximately 107 meters (350 ft) in length. Traffic will be maintained by a temporary on-site
detour southwest of the existing bridge (Figure 2). The existing approaches on each end of the
bridge will be widened.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the bridge be replaced at the
existing location with a temporary on-site detour southwest of the bridge.
A 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders including 1.2 meter (4 ft) paved
shoulders will be provided on the approaches. A 9.2 meter (30 ft) clear roadway width is
recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge
Policy. This will provide a 7.2 meter (24 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the
structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis and the 50 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 107 meters (350 ft). The elevation of the
roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and opening size
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined from
a more detailed analysis during the final design phase of the project.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the southwest portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
in rural Cleveland County (Figure 1) south of Earl, North Carolina, on the border of North
Carolina and South Carolina. Cleveland County is primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming
an industrial and urban county with increasing influence from the Charlotte metropolitan area.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Blacksburg North, 1971); NCDOT aerial photographs of the project
area (1:1200); Soils Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps (1973); U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected species and federal species of concern; and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon species and unique habitats.
Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 19, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 24.4 m.
(80.0 ft) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of
the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific
replacement structure design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was
assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the area being directly impacted by each alternative.
"Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi.) radius of the project area.
4
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along
the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 182.9 meters (600.0 ft).
This portion of Cleveland County contains soils from the Grover-Madison-Wedowee
association, which are characterized as being well drained mostly micaceous soils with sandy
loam surfaces and moderately permeable subsoils on smooth ridge tops with strongly sloping
and moderately steep sides. The field investigation confirms the soils as they are mapped.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Broad River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Buffalo Creek with a stream index number 9-53-(5) originates near Kings Mountain, NC and is a
perennial tributary within the Broad River basin. The stream flows from northeast to southwest
through the proposed project area with a width at the bridge of 12.2 meters (40.0 ft). The depth
of the stream could not be accurately determined due to the turbidity and the swift flow. Buffalo
Creek has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the creek's suitability for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture, or other uses. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Cleveland
County (1991) indicates the project area lies in Zone AE, where base flood elevations have
been determined. The base flood elevation at Bridge No. 13 is 183.5 meters (602.0 ft),
The NCDEM maintains a benthic macroi n vertebrate sampling station on Buffalo Creek within
the project area. Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the
bottom substrates of rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable
tool as some benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality.
Criteria have been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to
each benthic sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for
different ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from Buffalo
Creek at NC 198 in July 1995 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 24, which has a
bioclassification of "Good".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method
to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish communities. The scores
derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody and may not
necessarily directly correlate to water quality. There is no NCIBI data for Buffalo Creek.
Data collected in 1964 and reported by the Division of Inland Fisheries (Fish, 1968) indicate
that, at that time, Buffalo Creek's ecological classification was "E/C sucker", indicating the
presence of suckers, robin warmouth and rockbass. However, this report also states that this
particular stretch of Buffalo Creek is 'too polluted to support much sport fishing".
The Cleveland County Watershed Ordinance (1994) provides regulations to limit the exposure
of watersheds in Cleveland County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area adjacent to a water
supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining
portions of the watershed. The Balance of Watershed is the rest of the watershed where the
regulations apply. The Watershed Protection Map indicates that the project is not within a
Critical Area.
No waters classified by NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the
project study area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a
result of the project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and low mountain alluvial forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas are discussed under the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and the pasture on the southwest
side of the bridge (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. The road shoulders and pasture are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.),
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), plantain (Plantago rugelii), wild onion
(Allium canadese), mouse-ear chickweed (Cerastium vulgatum), birdfoot violet (Viola pedata),
and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to living and dead faunal components. American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) were observed during the site visit. The Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis
6
cardinalis), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside
and pasture habitats.
Low Mountain Alluvial Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate to steep slopes along Buffalo Creek, the
interstream divide, and the floodplain upstream of the bridge (Figure 2). The dominant canopy
trees in this area include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra),
tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). An understory of
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), and American holly (Ilex
opaca) are also found in this community. The shrub layer is dominated by privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and the herbaceous layer consists mainly of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
A whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and a raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed during
the site visit. Other animals may be found in this community such as the gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Buffalo Creek. Within the project area
Buffalo Creek is approximately 12.2 meters (40.0 ft) wide. On the day of investigation the
stream was turbid and flowing swiftly from rainfall (0.67 inches in Charlotte) the night before and
during the morning of the investigation. The stream bottom was not visible. Wrack lines and
debris along the bank indicate a flood level up to 4.6 meters (15.0 ft) above the level observed.
In the study area, there are two unnamed perennial tributaries, one from the northwest and one
from the northeast, that flow to a confluence with Buffalo Creek north of Bridge No. 13.
The stream banks are well defined, approximately 4.6 meters (15.0 ft) high, and vegetated with
river birch, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. Animals such as the belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and the Southern
leopard frog (Rana utricularia) may reside along the waters edge. Due to the large size and
depth of Buffalo Creek, macroi n vertebrates such as mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly
(Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would be confined to the shallow rocky areas
and snag habitats along the creek banks. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel
would be dominated by chironimid (midges) larvae, oligochaetes (segmented worms) and
freshwater molluscs.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the following fish species were
collected in Buffalo Creek in 1980: royside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Cyprinella chloristius), spottail shiner (Notropis
hudsonius), yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne), sandbar
shiner (Notropis scepticus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), striped jumprock
(Moxostoma rupiscartes), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus). The species in bold print are considered to be intolerant to stream degradation
under the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the NCDEM to assess the biological
integrity of streams.
7
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic communities by habitat type. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in
locations exhibiting steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE ACRES
Bridge No. 13 Man- Low Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Mountain Community Total
Impacts Community Alluvial
Community
Alternative A 0.75(l.85) 0.19 (0.47) 0.03 (0.07) 0.97 (2.39)
Temporary 0.26 (0.65) 0.47(l.15) 0.03 (0.07) 0.97 (2.39)
Detour
Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities in the project area, the man-dominated will receive the
greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement
and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Buffalo Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.03 hectare (0.07 acre) of stream bottom.
The new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment
loads in the stream in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to
local populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion
and sediment control measures as specked in the NCDOT Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Guidelines for Contract Construction (January 1995).
8
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Issues
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Buffalo Creek has well defined banks
within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project area
was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project construction
cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface
water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 0.03 hectare (0.07 acre) of
jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No.
13.
Permits
Nationwide Permit No. 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:
1) 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;
2) 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;
3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice to the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in a April 10, 1996, memorandum (Appendix). The recommendations as applicable,
will be implemented in accordance with NCDOTs Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required. Mitigation requirements on projects covered by Nationwide permits are left up to the
discretion of the USACOE.
9
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline either due to natural
forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Cleveland County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists one
federally protected species for Cleveland County as of August 23, 1996, see Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
Common Name
Hexastylis naniflora T
Dwarf-flowered heartlea
NOTE.' I
Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a perennial, evergreen herbaceous plant having the aroma of
ginger. The leaves of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf are variegated, cordate to orbicular-cordate
and approximately 4.0 to 6.0 cm (1.6 to 2.4 inches) long and wide. The flowers have a
cylindrical calyx tube with an apical flare which is wider than the calyx tube is long. The flowers
are present between late March and June.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is often found in mature, deciduous forests on acidic, sandy loam
soils of north facing bluffs and ravines. It is frequently associated with mountain laurel, and with
Pacolet sandy loam soil of the Piedmont Physiographic province.
Habitat is present in the project area for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. A survey for the
presence of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be conducted during the next flowering
season. Impacts will be ascertained once a survey for the dwarf flowered heartleaf is
done during the flowering season (March-June 1997).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species,
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. NCNHP records do not document any occurrences of FSC within the project vicinity.
Table 3 includes FSC species listed for Cleveland County and their state classifications.
10
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
Common Name Status Present
Monotropsis odorata C Yes
Sweet inesa
Saxifraga caroliniana C Yes
Carolina saxifra e
Notes. C Denotes Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being
rare and needing population monitoring.)
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed by the NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are afforded limited state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
NCNHP database was reviewed and one state protected species, Loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus ludovicianus), not list on the USFWS rare and protected species list for Cleveland
County, is included. Habitat is present in the project area, but no individuals were observed
during the investigation. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences
of any state protected species within the project vicinity.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated April 11, 1996, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated April 4, 1996, requested a comprehensive survey be
conducted by an experienced archaeologist. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included
in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the project area for the replacement of Bridge No.
13 on NC 198 was conducted to determine if significant archaeological resources might be
disturbed. One archaeological site, 31 CL28**, comprised of deteriorated bridge piers and
traces of road approaches to the bridge, was identified. This site is not considered to be
archaeologically or historically significant. There are no archaeological resources in this bridge
replacement project that would involve Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966. No further archaeological work is recommended for this project. The SHPO has
reviewed the archaeological report and concurred with its findings (letter of August 9, 1996).
11
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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 not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocations are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The bridge will be replaced at its existing location, therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy Act
does not apply.
This project is located in Cleveland County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
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 for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Cleveland County does not participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program,
however, some flood hazard zones have been identified by approximate flood studies for this
county. This site on Buffalo Creek is in a designated flood hazard zone, but there is no detailed
flood study for Buffalo Creek. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, Figure 4,
on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the
project.
12
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of signfcant
environmental consequences.
13
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cleveland County Watershed Ordinance. 1994.
Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and
Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United
States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press. New York, New York.
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Species of North Carolina. February 1996. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the Broad River Basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preston, R. and V.G. Wright. Identification of Southeastern Trees in Winter. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of
NorthAmerica. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
NorthCarolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N. C.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, N.Y.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1973.
General Soil Map Cleveland County, North Carolina.
14
United States Geological Survey Topographic map of Blacksburg North quadrangle 1971
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book).United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. August 23, 1996. List of Threatened and Endangered
Species.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
15

f .
/
r
r
/
/
M /
? i
W /
C7 /
m r
O
W
o:
w

CLEVELAND COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 13
B-3140
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING EAST
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3

SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000
meters
i
FIGURE 4
CLEVELAND
COUNTY
Fcdcral Aid # k4rP ° V1*1 (t) TIP # It' 3140 County C1-J4EA_6.?4D
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description 1ZIr wkc-c, D 4 PG£ ?Je. 1s7 vw AC ,10K, wm t?FF?,o L2"4d_
(oa 1 o,?C H-1AF I X )
On A-F94 L. I l 1111 b, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
_ A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
,/ there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligiblc
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
Z there are no National Register-listed properties N ithin the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
• Rcpres
fti
4/11 /.1
C . W 4
FHNNA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO
S
tate Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of Uiis form and die attached list will N included.

_: ?,w SrAT[,?
(? r .I
"wem.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governur
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 9, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek,
Cleveland County, Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-
1980?, TIP B-3140, ER 97-7106
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 16, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas Beaman Jr. and Kenneth Robinson concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one archaeological site, determined to be not
eligible for the National Register, was located within the project area. The authors
have recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
Sincerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 13
3

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
lames B Hur J; . (i
Bette Fay ?1:; :.._ ?.:retar,
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpprtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek, B-3140,
Cleveland County, ER 96-8523
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?
vF O

Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the
general area of the project.
We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify and evaluate
any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or 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.
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. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
l()O Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, Norlh Carolina 27(,01-2807 1?3

?i
.K
APR 1 5 1996
Z
D!V/SIC
- ??.HIGHl1i YOF
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
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: April 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Comments on Group a Bridge Replacements, Alleghany, Cleveland, McDowell,
Buncombe, and Catawba Counties.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding eleven
proposed bridge replacements in western North Carolina. Biological field staff of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have reviewed the information in your letter dated 11 March 1996
and have examined our records fish sampling data.
Our comments on these projects are listed below. All species and common names follow
"Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada" by Robins et al. 1991
(American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20). Species listed in bold print are considered to be
intolerant to stream degradation under the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management to assess the biological integrity of streams.
B-2803 - Alleghany County, Bridge No. 52 over Little River, Bridge No. 56 over Pine Swamp Creek
Both the Little River and Pine Swamp Creek are designated Hatchery Supported Public Mountain
Trout Waters (PMTW) in the project area. We recently provided you with a memorandum dated
12 July 1995 with our scoping comments on this project (see attached).
B-2815 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
No fish data are available for Persimmon Creek, nor have we identified any special concerns
associated with this project.
B-2816 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. According to WRC
district files, the following fish species were collected in Buffalo Creek in 1980:
Group IX Page 2 April 10, 1996
Common Name
rosyside dace
bluehead chub
greenfin shiner
spottail shiner
yellowfin shiner
swallowtail shiner
sandbar shiner
creek chub
striped jumprock
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
Scientific Name
Canostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Cyprinella chlorisdus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutipinnis
Notropis procne
Notropis scepticus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma rupiscartes
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Other species collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepe&wmm
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
highback chub Notropis hypsinotus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
redhorse Moxostoma sp.
bullhead Ameiurus sp.
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
warmouth Lepomis gulosus
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
B-2847 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. No fish sampling
data is available for Muddy Creek, but we would expect the species assemblage to be
similar to that of South Muddy Creek (see B-3002 below).
B-2931 - Buncombe County, Bridge No. 512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River
The Swannanoa River is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW at the project site. The
river also supports some wild trout. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced
with another spanning structure.
B-2940 - Catawba County, Bridge No. 82 on SR 1165 over Clark Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) collected the following
fish species in Clark Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
flat bullhead Ameiurus pla"ephalus
Group IX
redbreast sunfish
pumpkinseed
bluegill
largemouth bass
B-2941 - Catawba Cou
Page 3 April 10, 1996
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
nty, Bridge No. 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Menhinick of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte collected the following species in 1991:
Common Name
common carp
rosyside dace
bluehead chub
greenhead shiner
creek chub
white sucker
Scientific Name
Cyprinus carpio
Chnostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis chlorocephalus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
silver (v-lip) redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
B-2998 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 41 on SR 1147 over Second Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in the Second Broad River in 1988:
Common Name Scientific Name
tieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Santee chub
bluehead chub
highback chub
greenfin shiner
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
white sucker
striped jumprock
silver (v-lip) redhc
flat bullhead
margined madtom
rock bass
redbreast sunfish
fantail darter
Cyprinella zamema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinotus
Cyprinella chlorisdus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscartes
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Etheostoma flabellare
Group IX Page 4 April 10, 1996
B-2999 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. The following
fish data were collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
Common Name
thicklip chub
fieryblack shiner
bluehead chub
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
redhorse
margined madtom
redbreast sunfish
Scientific Name
Cyprinella labrosa
Cyprindla pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
smallmouth bass Mieropterus dolomieu
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Piedmont darter Percina crassa
seagreen darter Etheostoma thalassinum
B-3002 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in South Muddy Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Nam
rosyside dace Chnostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
margined madtom Now= insignis
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill LMomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Piedmont darter Percina crassa
Other species collected by Louder (1963) include:
central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
yellow perch Perca flavescens
B-3140 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Fish sampling
data for Buffalo Creek are listed above under B-2816.
Group IX Page 5 April 10, 1996
Although we do not have any special concerns regarding several of these bridge
replacements, we recommend that the NCDOT incorporate the following measures into all bridge
replacement projects to minimize impacts to aquatic organisms:
1) Erosion controls should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
3) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
4) Multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts should be designed so that all water flows
through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
5) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/6524257.
cc: Ms. Katie Cirilis, Resource Southeast
f ,
A
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
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 12, 1995

SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #52 on SR 1172 and Bridge
#56 on SR 1128 over Little River, Alleghany County, TIP #B-2803.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to replace two bridges over the Little River. The scoping sheets indicate that the new
structures will also be bridges.
The Little River is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the project area. If a 404
permit is required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for this project, our recommendations on
the permit applications will likely be as follows:
1) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
2) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river
channel in order to min ize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the river.
3) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
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: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC Highway Coordinator

/?-
MENT OF l
p United States Department of the Interior
N O
? a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?4RCH 3 ?s°9 Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1996 E I V
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
P1anning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation ?'v'4RON
P.C. Box 25201
R;aielh. North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear !"ir. Vick:
Sul,,je:t: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Alleghany, Buncombe,
Catawba. Cieveland, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
- D",, or vour letter of March 11, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
?---?lce.s (Service) Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office (we
re-e-vec ;t on March 18. 1996). Our office handles project reviews and
o-4 this nature for the western part of the state, including the
t?,? ; yen i oned coui "t i es . The following comments are provided in
a.???rcance v.ith the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
cmeridec ;16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
?r 1973. as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
-,cording to the information provided in your letter, the following
4, d" ;i11 be replaced: Bridge Numbers 52 and 56 on SR 1172 over the
River (Alleghany County); Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
River (Buncombe County); Bridge Number 82 on SR 1165 over Clark
(Cata?,,,ba County)- Bridge Number 94 on SR 1722 over McLi n Creek
Cata??ba County): Bridge Number 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
(Cleveland County); Bridge Number 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
(Cleveland County); Bridge Number 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
;Cleveland County); Bridge Number 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
(McDowell County); Bridge Number 41 on SR 1147 over the Second Broad
River (McDowell County); Bridge Number 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek;
and Bridge Number 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek.
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts
the proposed bridge replacement projects could have on federally listed
species and on Federal species of concern and (2) the potential impacts
Lc stream and wetland ecosystems within the project areas,
e ve reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should
a'uate possible impacts to the following federally listed species
a c or Federal species of concern (these include aquatic animal species
2
KnOwn from a particular stream system for one of the proposed bridge
projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers) :
Alleghany County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
This species generally is found beneath large flat stones or logs in
shallow clear-running streams and rivers. It is presently known
from at least one location in the Little River, 7 miles east of
Sparta.
Kanawha minnow (Phenocobius teretulus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to large clear streams within the New River
drainage of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is
presently known from at least one location in the Little River,
0.E?- mile downstream of the NC 18 bridge.
Buncombe County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
There is a record of this species in the Swannanoa River near Black
M,Duntain.
Spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha) - Federally threatened. A species
endemic to the Tennessee River drainage. The Little Tennessee River
presently supports the only extant population in North Carolina:
ho,;,e,%er, there is a historical record from the Swannanoa River in
4,hevi 11e.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
Tr,s species is endemic to the upper Tennessee River. It generally
occurs in the riffle areas of large rivers that have cobble and
gravel substrates. There are only a few extant populations left in
the Little Tennessee River. Toe River, Cane River, and Nolichucky
River systems. There is a historical record from the Swannanoa
River.
French Broad crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to North Carolina and is known from the
headwater portions of the French Broad River and one stream in the
Savannah River drainage. It was once found in the Swannanoa River
near Black Mountain.
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) - Federal species of
concern. This species is generally found in association with other
acidophiles, such as ericaceacous shrubs, hemlock, rhododendron, and
mountain Laurel.
3
Butternut (Ju lans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) - Federally threatened. This
species occurs within the scour zone on the banks of high-gradient
streams or on braided features such as point bars, natural levees,
or meander scrolls of the lower reaches of streams. It may occur
within the floodplain, but it is most often found at the water's
edge. There is a historical record of this species along Hominy
Creek near Asheville.
Catawba County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several creeks in the county,
including Brushy Creek, Sandy Run, and Poundingmill Creek.
Cleveland County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
T'r;s species has been found along several tributaries to the Henry
T-K River.
McDowell County
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis) - Federal
soecies of concern. This species is presently known from one
locality in North Carolina at a cave located on the banks of Muddy
Creek east of Marion.
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
There is one known population located along the banks of South Muddy
Creek in the headwaters area.
Northern oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia var. brevistvla) - Federal
species of concern. This species grows in various habitats, from
rocks near water falls, in sand at the edge of running water, in
shady deep moist loam soils, and on dry hillsides. It favors cool,
damp, shady stream banks with fertile, moderately acid, soils.
he presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project
impact areas should be addressed in any environmental document prepared
for these projects. Please note that the legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard
to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of
the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also,
please note that Federal species of concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the
proposed projects should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation
of the various bridge replacement alternatives and structures (e.g.,
replacement at the existing location versus upstream or downstream of the
e>-,_-ng structure), (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
s:,::'mentation during construction: and (3) any measures that will be
-im-lemen-?,-ed to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g..
Ming riparian vegetation whenever possible).
„? ao; e fate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
r-??est that. you keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In
ar?? fj,ure correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
_??? ?? tuber 4-2-96-057.
Sinoevely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
1, F
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr_ Governor C) E H N R
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary A, Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E„ Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric Galam14
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water). B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges. sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Eaual opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper
I r?
rDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ?'.
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5U"
I\ P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 14, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
c F\
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch MAY 17 199
North Carolina Division of Highways 6
Post Office Box 25201 Z
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 DtviSICN,
HIGHVVAYS 0,
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of March 11, 1996 subject: "Request for
Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence): continued
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
Mr. Larry Workman (CEORH-PD-S)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington
502 Eighth Street
Hu tingtcn, West Virginia 25701-2070
May 13, 1996
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for Alleghany and Buncombe Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District. With the exception of Alleghany and Cleveland Counties, these bridges are
located within counties which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Alleghany County has flood hazard areas identified on Flood Hazard Boundary
Maps, but has not had detailed mapping done and does not participate in the program.
Cleveland County has mapping done on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
anticipation of future participation in the NFIP, but does not currently participate in the
program. From the various FIRMs, it appears that both approximate study and detail
study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information
pertaining to these bridges is contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the
county flood insurance study unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm

52/56 SR 1172 Alleghany Little River Approx 7/77
35 SR 1001 Cleveland Persimmon Ck.** Detail 7/91
230 SR 1908 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Approx 7/91 **''
65 SR 1760 McDowell N. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
512 SR 2435 Buncombe Swannanoa R. Detail 8/80
82 SR 1165 Catawba Clarks Ck. Detail 8/94
94 SR 1722 Catawba McLin Ck. Detail 9/80
41 SR 1147 McDowell Second Broad R. Approx 7/88
317 SR 1267 McDowell Cove Ck. Approx 7/88
60 SR 1764 McDowell S. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
13 NC 198 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Detail 7/91 **''
* County is not a participant in NFIP. Map is a Flood Hazard Boundary Map.
Stream is shown as Muddy Fork on the FIRM.
*'* County is not a participant in NFIP.
May 13, 1996
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
Buncombe County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE, Nashville
District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or
development involving the flood plains. The Nashville District does not currently have
projects that would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may be
contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the Nashville
District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a
permitting process. A 26a permit is required for all construction or development
involving streams or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger
Milstead at [phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a
permitting process. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and be in compliance with all local ordinances. The
engineering point of contact for the NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who
may be reached at [phone]. Specific questions pertaining to community flood
plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
Alleghany County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE,
Huntington District. The Huntington District does not currently have projects that would
be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Larry Workman may be contacted at
[phone] for further information and comments from the Huntington District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh and Asheville Field Offices,
Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
May 13, 1996
Page 3 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)j as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categcrical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected,
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
May 13, 1996
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Alleghany County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Buncombe County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Cleveland, McDowell, and Catawba
Counties

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DA [
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, 8400.
Er c G aAa-ML, DEM
FROM: R[F. NO. OR ROOM, 81.00. -
Pg
ACTT©N
? NOT[ AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOT[ AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOT[ AND SEE ME A80UT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEAS[ ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

f
?
`
t
?
1 I
?FP 1 x;1995 `' j l

w
STATt
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Govi.RNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 5, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SIICR[ MARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: Wayne Fedora, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 13 on
NC 198 over Buffalo Creek in Cleveland County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-198(1), State Project
No. 8.1801101, B-3140
The Planning and Environmental Branch held a scoping meeting on 19 July
1995 to initiate the subject project. Attached is a list of those attending.
The participants discussed one method of replacement: replace at
existing location with a temporary on-site detour west of the existing
alignment. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 107
meters (350 feet) long and 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide.
The estimated construction cost will be provided by the Roadway Design
Engineer.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends an
archaeological survey. The SHPO does not recommend a survey for historic
architectural resources.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) classifies Buffalo Creek
as Class C. The agency recommends normal soil and erosion control measures.
The DEM prefers that, if possible, the replacement bridge has no piles in the
water and that the replacement bridge and detour bridge have no weep holes
draining directly into the water. The DEM requests that the contractor
return the detour alignment to natural grade and plant trees to re-vegetate.
The Division 12 Engineer has concurred with maintaining traffic on a
temporary on-site detour.
The Bicycle Unit has reviewed the project and indicated that it requires
no special bicycle accommodations.
Mot

September 5, 1995
Page 2
No accidents occurred at Bridge No. 13 between 1 January 1992 and 31
December 1994.
No school buses cross Bridge No. 13.
The current project schedule includes right-of-way beginning April 1997
and letting in April 1998.
WF/plr
Attachments
I I*
Scoping Meeting Attendance Sheet
for B-3140 Cleveland County
Name Department
Wayne Fedora Planning & Environmental
Patrick Riddle Traffic Control
Ray Moore Structure Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Ellis Powell Structure Design
Betty Yancey Right-of-Way
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Don Wilson Location & Surveys
Darin Wilder Program Development
Theresa Ellerby Program Development
Eric Galamb DEM
Sepidah S. Assefnia Statewide Planning

3RIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: 3-3140 DIVISION: TWELVE
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-198(1) COUNTY: CLEVELAND
STATE PROJECT: 8.1801101 ROUTE: NC 198
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No.13 on NC 198 over Buffalo
Creek in Cleveland County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Blacksburg North
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 950,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 95,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ....................................... $1,045,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .................. $ ,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)......... $ ,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE .......................... $ ,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) ,(a)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 4000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 8400 VPD
TTST to DV 20
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: 7.2-METER (24-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS 2.4 METER (8-FOOT)GRADED
SHOULDERS (1.0-METER/3-FOOT
IF GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 107 Meters WIDTH 7.1 Meters
350 Feet 23.4 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: Bridge: 107 meters (350 feet) long
9.6 meters (32 feet) wide
COMMENTS:
PREPARED 3Y: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 08/29/95
I -k

sw.
------------
e
c
„«u Moun
B.oo Bod,rie I , , S,tT?ees?
?
212
2226
2
W
N Q
H:
5
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC 198
BRIDGE NO. 13 OVER BUFFALO CREEK
CLE'r'ELk'ND COUNTY
B-3140
0 km 0.4 Ian 0.8
T I -? Figure I
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
ti
? Gs„ ioluc,?.
L _b ,Q
. ` B<I?ooav`\ \
Cherryvr,
owm w.c
:.
?? w .
L}%?
E A N Beffss
K nQS*
'`?? esoao I ?n'rs I I'
2301
198
R
BRIDGE NO. 13
NORTH CAROLINA 222
5K . - - . .
SOUTH CAROLINA
??•_. , - ?/ •? ???_``'?`:? .?, „??.. ? ?1 ' %'„ -?A ? \?-'? i ,fir/'" ?
J
r.?\ ? L `?-?_... '?\?:. / . ?? ' " ? ,.\. s • 1 ?? - _? - `._ _ _ rl ?? .CLL?6•EL?r`p. .C ??-, ?? _`-
\ .?rHER'(KE&?
co -Aldo
`\_\? _ ?``? ??` -ill ? /? ??? ?? ? ?? ? ?-?./ ? ' ? ?, ? ?_?,\?/ ??.•T?\
J?
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
to --?-1- 96
?R?EJF?.JNO. /O,YR^'ROOM. ¦LOO.
F
FROM:
REF. NO.. OR Room* SLOG.
V V ? O? f?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATIbN
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR UR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS OR YOUR INFORMATION'
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. ? INVESTIOATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
• po-, w.5TA7Fu - I I I, I ^_ ? ?i II, \'J 1
3 i.,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GUVIANOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201 SIVRI 1Aav
June 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge
No. 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek in Cleveland
County, BRSTP-198(1), B-3140, State Project
No. 8.1801101
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 July 19, 1995 at 9:30 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 Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
03oYoq
Attachment
WF/plr

buu, , Iyo
W,
/j
Ab lo-, ? 16
- 1c ?41d
-10,wd --,
A 1)1-A
1

I
,A ?1, w
IV
i? Vt

1 ZU
0
jAA? i
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET C 3o.3
TIP PROJECT: B-3140 DIVISION: TWELVE ?J J
O Cc. h? vC r.
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-198(1) COUNTY: CLEVELAND
STATE PROJECT: 8.1801101 ROUTE: NC 198
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No-13 on NC 198 over Buffalo
Creek in Cleveland County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Blacksburg North
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................ $ 950,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............................ $ 95,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................. $
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $1,045,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST .............. $ ,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)..... $ ,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ...................... $ ,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) ,($) v ?CU
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 4000 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 8400 VPD
TTST 1% DV 2% xqS-( 3 yr
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: . -METER ( -FOOT)TRAVELWAY
PLUS METER ( . -FOOT)GRADED
SHOULDERS (. -METER/ . -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 106.7 Meters WIDTH 7.1Meters
350 Feet 23.4 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: Steel Bridge: meters ( feet) long
' meters ( feet) wide
COMMENTS : -ZGt,? ?'? ('orS ? `j g
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 06/16/95
1 '? ,? "-'?\ .Ir^r 4x413 8C-'?
------------
l?' I,?? ? ? ?J\ •I,\ .i \ ??/ ? Vii/ ((? ?' ,??\\ PO '? ? /i
•n '? u?1? ?_? r 800 i f
•x'11 ?? \°.??? 1'?1. '/? ,? 'J? ? .I •I m )?`)'•? lJJ ? ?? ?, ? ?? ?J ?"??vJ\ 1
Z225)
?
.? ? , _\? ??ti ? ?? ?? ? _????? ? ???1 j ? ? ? ? ?C., '-'" V ? ? ? "ice n ql? • \??//?? ? • ? .
?\ \?1\ C\? ?I I ?~ I I?l? I??? ?1?\\ 1 1 ?'? ip'??iJ ^ ?^ \? J ? ??\ .i / ;\ ???J Lw \? ???
L. 700
-? ? ./ ?.• i i -, - ? ? ? '? , , 'rte' ?' ? _ ??' ? _ ? , /_??? i
?\ i x -7 ------ ------1 \\
41,