19970574 Ver 1_Complete File_19970626

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
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Ag4:j 4111
E:) EHNF?
August 1, 1997
Cleveland County
WQC 401 Project #970574
TIP# B-2815
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.07 acres of
waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at Muddy 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 Stormwater, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also 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.
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). For this
approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
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 Dorsey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
stop 4wd,J r.P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorsey
Central Files
970574.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer - 50% recycled/100% post consumer paper
n M SUlf
ww vov
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 25, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. o. Box 1890 970574
??tiT 6?sy?
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ••??,r
Ilk"
s
ATTN.: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, South Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cleveland County, Replacement of Bridge No. 35 over Muddy Creek on
SR 1001, Federal Project No. BR7--1001(12), State Project No.
8.2801201, T.I.P. No. B-2815.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 35 will be replaced at the existing alignment with a new bridge 36
meters (118 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. During construction, traffic will be
detoured off-site on existing roads. No jurisdictional wetland communities will be
affected. Up to 0.3 hectares (0.07 acres) of jurisdictional surface waters may be
impacted. On March 21, 1997 a survey was made for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastvlis 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.g

1)
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. 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
.,' r
?lJ ;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1A.MES B. HUNT R.
v?wER;?ur,
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.L. 27611-5201
March 25, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO
ATTENTION:
FROtiL•
SUBJECT:
Gail Grimes. P.E.. Unit Head
Consultant Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT )R.
SECRETARY
Jim Buck, P.E.. Project Planning Manager
Tim Savidge. Protected Species Coordinator
Environmental Unit
Protected Species Survey Results Pertaining to TIP
No. B-1'81 5, State Project No. 3.28012-01.
The subject project was visited by NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge and Matt Smith on
March 21. 1997 to investigate the presence-of the Federally Threatened dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflor-a). The potential impact zones were visually examined for
the presence of Hexastylis species. If any plants were found, representative population
samples were collected and identified to species level. using keys by Gaddy (1987) and
Blomquist (1957). The little heartleaf (Hexastylis ininoi•) was found in the southeast
quadrant of the project area. No dwarf-flowered heartleaf was found.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is not present
in the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this
species.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
File: Section 7 Issues
File: B-?815
D
Cleveland County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 35 Over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(12)
State Project No. 8.2801201
T.I.P. No. B-2815
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED.
DA E H. ranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
za _ T
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Cleveland County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 35 Over Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(12)
State Project No. 8.2801201
T.I.P. No. B-2815
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
,? Jcx?ac_ L
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
James ang, Ph.D., P.E.
Presi? nt
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
G
L. ail ri es, P. E., U it Head
Consults Engineeri Unit
001,
/Y
mes A. Buck, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SEAL r
7521
:,NGINE??:•'?a,
s S. J. `NP?,•
Cleveland County
SR 1001
Bridge No. 35 Over Muddy Fork Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1001(12)
State Project No. 8.2801201
T.I.P. No. B-2815
Bridge No. 35 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 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. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
3. A survey for the presence of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be conducted during the next
flowering season (March-June 1997), prior to right-of-way acquisition.
4. Location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final design
phase.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 35 will be replaced on the existing alignment as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 9.2 m (30 ft.) and a length of 36 m (118 ft.).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 7.2 m (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft.) shoulders,
including 0.6 m (2 ft.) paved shoulders, for approximately 152 m (500 ft.) west of the bridge and
152 m (500 ft.) east of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site on existing roads as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $772,700 including $47,700 for right-of-way and
$725,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1997-
2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $353,000 including $23,000 for right-of-way and
$330,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1001 is classified as a rural minor collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily forest land and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 35 is located approximately 3.4 km (2.1 mi.) upstream from the confluence of Muddy
Fork and Buffalo Creek which is 1.8 km (1.1 mi.) downstream from the dam of Kings Mountain
Reservoir.
The existing bridge is located on a tangent alignment. The west approach of the bridge is
tangent. East of the bridge, there is a 195 m (9 degree) horizontal curve with a design speed of
approximately 70 kilometers per hour (km/h) (45 mph). The vertical alignment is moderately
rolling.
Near the bridge, SR 1001 has a 5.5 m (18 ft.) pavement width with 1.2 m (4 ft.) grass shoulders.
The roadway is approximately 5.8 m (19 ft.) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 2200 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 5900 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT) . The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 km/h (55
mph) at the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1951 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of a reinforced
concrete deck with asphalt wearing surface on steel 1-beams. The substructure consists of
timber caps and piles with cross bracing at interior bents and timber bulkheads. Additional
timber bent piles have been placed adjacent to the existing interior piles for reinforcement.
The overall length of the bridge is 32.2 m (105.6 ft.). The clear roadway width is 6.7 m (22.1 ft.).
The posted weight limit is 13,620 kilograms (15 tons).
Bridge No. 35 has a sufficiency rating of 17, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Three accidents were reported near the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to March
31, 1995. All three accidents were single vehicle, traveling at approximately 90 km/h (55 mph).
All accidents involved loss control of the vehicle
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low. According to Cleveland County Planning Department,
there are no sewer lines in the project area. A 6-inch water line and a 4-inch blow out valve
exist within the project area. An overhead powertine parallels the south side of the existing
bridge.
Cleveland County school buses cross the bridge six times daily
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No relocation alignments were considered for replacement of the existing bridge. Utilizing the
existing roadway provides the best alignment, the lowest cost and the least impacts to the
environment.
The two alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 35 include a new bridge on the existing
alignment that will accommodate a 7.2 m (24 ft.) travelway with 1.0 m (3 ft.) shoulders on each
side. The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 m (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft.)
shoulders, including 0.6 m (2 ft.) paved shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing Bridge No. 35 on the existing alignment. Traffic will be
maintained with a temporary on-site detour on the northeast side of the existing structure during
construction. A design exception will be required due to the existing vertical sag curve. The
approach work will extend approximately 152 m (500 ft.) east and west of the bridge.
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing Bridge No. 35 on the existing alignment. Traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour along existing roads during construction. A design
exception will be required due to the existing vertical sag curve. The approach work will extend
approximately 152 m (500 ft.) east and west of the bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1001.
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 of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
Alternate A Alternate B
(Recommended)
$ 15,993 $ 15,993
253,920 253,920
158,470 -----
210,018 210,018
186,599 150,069
125,000 95,000
54,100 47,700
$1,004,100 $ 772,700
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An eight month road closure period is anticipated. Traffic will be detoured on SR 2033 and SR
2044, an approximate distance of 4.8 kilometers (3 miles). The detour roadway and bridges are
adequate to accommodate detoured traffic during the construction period.
Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 35 will be replaced on the existing alignment. A design exception will be required
due to the existing vertical alignment.
A 9.2 m (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 m (24 ft.) travelway
with 1 m (3 ft.) shoulders across the structure.
A 7.2 m (24 ft.) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft.) shoulders including 0.6 m (2 ft.) paved shoulders will
be provided on the proposed approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation of Alternate B.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 36 m (118 ft.). The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A vertical design exception for the design speed will be required due to the existing vertical
alignment. The vertical design speed is approximately 70 km/h (45 mph), which is within the
character of SR 1001. The speed limit is not posted but is assumed to be 90 km/h (55 mph) at
the project site. An alternative to improve the design speed to 100 km/h (60 mph) was
considered but would require raising the grade approximately 2.4m (8 ft.). This alternative was
determined not justifiable due to the additional environmental impacts, right-of-way and
construction costs.
4
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the southwest portion of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
in rural Cleveland County north of Oak Grove, North Carolina (Figure 1). Cleveland County is
primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming an industrial and urban county with close ties to the
Charlotte metropolitan area.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Waco, 1973); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200);
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps (1973); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Waco, 1994); USFWS list of protected species and federal
species of concern (1996); 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 22, 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 and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the
stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction
impacts should be less, but without speck replacement structure design information (pile
and/or 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 km (1.0 mi.) radius of the project area.
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 213.4 m (700.0 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 subsoil 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
Muddy Fork (stream index no. 9-53-6) is a perennial tributary within the Broad River basin. The
stream banks are well defined, approximately 4.5 m (15.0 ft.) high, and vegetated with river
birch, Japanese honeysuckle, and blackberry. The stream flows northeast to southwest
through the project area with a width of 15.5 m (51.0 ft.). The depth of the stream was not
determined due to the turbidity and the swift flow. Muddy Fork has a Class C rating from the
North Carolina Department 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. 35
is 214.3 m (703.0 ft,).
The NCDEM maintains a benthic macroinvertebrate sampling station on Muddy Fork upstream
from 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 Muddy
Fork at SR 2012 in July 1995 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 23, 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 Muddy Fork.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, no current fish sampling data
are available for Muddy Fork. Data collected in 1964 and reported by the Division of Inland
Fisheries (Fish, 1968) indicate that, at the time, Muddy Fork's ecological classification was "E/C
dace trickle", indicating the presence of dace and skiners.
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 area is not within a
Critical Area.
No waters classified by the 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.
6
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 the NCDOT 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, the powerline easement, the field
to the northeast of the bridge, and the field to the southeast of the bridge (Figure 2). Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The road shoulders and
the powerline easement are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white
clover (Trifolium repens), plantain (Plantago rugelii), wild onion (Allium canadense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). The field located southeast of the bridge is an agricultural field previously planted in
soybeans (Glycine max). The field located northeast of the bridge contains ryegrass, fescue,
broomsedge (Andropogen virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and dandelion.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, including vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) and
living and dead faunal components. Although only an American robin (Turdus migratodus) and
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) were observed during the site visit, the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) are often attracted to these roadside
habitats.
Low Mountain Alluvial Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate to steep slopes along Muddy Fork. The
dominant canopy trees in this area include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river
birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), post oak (Quercus stellata), white oak
(Quercus albs), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua). An understory of Eastern red cedar, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple,
and dogwood (Comus florida) are also found in this community. The shrub layer is dominated
by mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and the herbaceous layer consists mainly of Japanese
honeysuckle, common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and blackberry.
Although not observed during the site visit, the animals previously listed may be found in this
community along with the whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), the raccoon (Procyon lotor),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Muddy Fork. Within the project area
Muddy Fork is approximately 15.5 m (51.0 ft.) wide. On the day of investigation the stream was
turbid and flowing swiftly from rainfall (0.67 inch in Charlotte) during the week. The stream
bottom was not visible.
Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), the Northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon sipedon), and the Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) may reside along the waters
edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubs (Semotilus
atromaculatus), and darters (Etheostoma sp.) likely inhabit the stream. Due to the large size
and depth of Muddy Fork, macroi n vertebrates such as mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly
(Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae are confined to the shallow rocky areas and
snag habitats along the creek banks. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel are
dominated by chironimid (midges) larvae and oligochaetes (segmented worms). No
macroinvertebrates were observed during the site visit.
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. The NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable.
8
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge No. 35 Man- Low Mountain Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Alluvial Forest Community
Impacts Community Community
Alternate A 0.06 (0.14) 0.18 (0.44) 0.03 (0.07) 0.27 (0.65)
Temporary 0.59(l.45) 0.04 (0.09) 0.04 (0.09) 0.67(l.63)
Detour
Alternative B 0.06 (0.14) 0.18 (0.44) 0.03 (0.07) 0.27 (0.65)
Recommended
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities in the project area, the Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
community will receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing
habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Muddy Fork. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.03 hectare (0.07 acre) of stream bottom.
This is the "worst case" condition; actual disturbance should be considerably less. Construction
of the bridge and approaches will likely increase sediment loads in the stream in the short term.
Impacts to the stream community will not be confined to the 0.04 hectare (0.09 acre) impact
zone. 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 the NCDOT Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the NCDOT Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines for
Contract Construction (January 1995).
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
9
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Muddy Fork 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.
35.
Permits
A 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 an April 10, 1996, memorandum (Appendix). These recommendations, as
applicable, will be implemented in accordance with the NCDOT Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #2745) is required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required. However, mitigation requirements on projects covered by Nationwide permits are left
up to the discretion of the USACOE.
10
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 FWS 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 heartleaf)
NOTE T 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 (1.6-2.4 in) 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 or 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
11
listing. NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any FSC within the project
vicinity. Table 3 includes two FSC species listed for Cleveland County and their state
classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
(Common Name) Status
Monotropsis odorata C Yes
(Sweet pinesap)
Saxifraga caroliniana C Yes
(Carolina saxifrage)
NOTE. C Denotes Candidate (species 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.
X. 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, stated that there were no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Therefore, it was recommended that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix.
12
XI. 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.
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 relocates are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
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.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Since the bridge will be replaced at its existing location the
Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The 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 projects 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 air quality in compliance with 15 NAACO 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
13
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Although Cleveland County is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
detailed mapping has been done on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in anticipation of
future participation in the NFIP. The approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is
shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be
significant.
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 significant environmental consequences.
14
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 United States 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.J. 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 North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
15
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1973. General Soil Map
Cleveland County, North Carolina.
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 Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map of Waco, 1994.
United States Geological Survey Topographic map of Waco quadrangle, 1973.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
16

Z?
dN
Muddy
r
D
U
0
z
5
J
U
W
di
0
0
0
0
c
0
8.
0
L
? C
? m
C
E ?
m
a. N c
(D g,2
,=c
.? 0
Uc?
t •y •C
0.5
z 0 a.
40
QO
N
co
w
in ?g
mw}
ZOZ
LU D T-
o?v04
oW z gZ
°'F-
w T
WoU
U?
gN
IL Z
wo

0
m
CLEVELAND COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 35
B-2815
LOOKING NORTHWEST
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000
meters
FIGURE 4

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hum Jr.. G? \rmc!
Betty Rai N1,:C':iir.. Sccretar%
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation ?
FROM: David Brook / If
Deputy State 44isto'ric reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek, 8-
2815, Cleveland County, ER 96-8514
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow. Director
E?D
1 ,1 ?q?h
app
G rn G,,J? NON f.i?,
?/L?& EVGIRDN?.
Thank you for your letter of March 1 1, 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 archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
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
104 East Jones Street • Raleigh. ,'worth Carolina 27601-2807 ???
TIP n e, - 2a;:o
Federal Aid # 1z? County 6Lz L „N1>
CONCURRENCE FORM
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NAOTIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
R"PLAU-- ? ?.?, 3? or.1 l°°1 ova P£2St?nrvtoN Cosy
On dW-4 it III(, , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
$ R4 Dfr{ G40U P 1%
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than nfry years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessare
ary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed
- h n---_
Qn.??nn A-- __.- Ih
L! V 1
FHwA, for the Division Admuustrator, or other Federal Agency
ive, SHPO
? v
is Preservation Officer

ate
S 1 96
ate
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
r' i^
? L

QFn
5 1996
z
Drvrs,Cv ?s
OF
4' HIGH,,
V4
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisburn- 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 IX 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 Socim. 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 chloristius
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 cepedianum
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
highback chub Notropis hypsinotus
white sucker Catostomus commersom
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 platycephalus
Group IX
redbreast sunfish
pumpkinseed
bluegill
largemouth bass
B-2941 - Catawba Cou
Page 3 April 10, 1996
LMomis 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 Scientific Name
common carp Cyprinus carpio
rosyside dace Chnostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
silver (v-lip) redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
channel catfish Jctalurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostomaflabellare
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
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Santee chub
bluehead chub
highback chub
greenfin shiner
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
white sucker
striped jumprock
silver (v-lip) redha
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 flabelk re
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
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semodlus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
smallmouth bass Micropterus 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 Name
rosyside dace Chnostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
margined madtom Noturus insignis
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis 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 Semodlus 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
SENT OF ly
p United States Department of the Interior
N O
? a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
'9CH 3-'bb. . Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1996 ?!G C E VSO
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
pl ann i nc and Environmental Branch
ko!-tn Carolina Department of Transportation ?44?1RON
Box 25201
?r: korth Carol i na 27611-5201
?? e a r M 1? i c k
Su??ec:: ?roposed replacement of several bridges in Alleghany. Buncombe.
Catawba. Cleveland. and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
?sc,o??our letter of March 11. 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office (we
??? ,ee on March 18. 1996). Our office handles project reviews and
phis nature for the v,;este"n part of the state, including the
- red couri- es . The fol c?,'?nc comments are provided in
ca; !l ,stn the provisions of the Fish and wildlife Coordination Act.
mended ;16 U.S.C. 661-667e). and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
19 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (,Act).
dirt a the information provided in your letter, the following
be replaced: Bridge Numbers 52 and 56 on SR 1172 over the
(Alleghany County): Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
giver (Buncombe County) : Bridge Number 82 on SR 1165 over Clark
Cata?;ba County): Bridge Number 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
;-.a?av;,ba ounty), Bridge Number 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
e??land CountyBridge Number 230 c,n SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
eveland County); Bridge Number 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
7eveland County): Bridge Number 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
D??,elI County) : Bridge Number 41 on SR 1147 over the Second Broad
(McDowell County): Bridge Number 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek:
a c Bridge Number 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek.
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts
„ proposed bridge replacement projects could have on federally listed
e es anc on Federal species of concern and (2) the potential impacts
_L-eam and wetland ecosystems within the project areas.
-gave re", ; -,,red our f 1 es and be ; i ev e the envi ronmenta 1 document shout d
aJate possible impacts to the following federally listed species
gnu c2r Feder-al 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 (Cryptobranchus 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 t.eretulus) - 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,
G.- F-1-le downstream of the NC 18 bridge.
Buncombe County
Hellbender ('-ryptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
There s a record of this species in the Swannanoa River near Black
i9nUn?ain.
Spotfin chub (HvboDsis monacha) - Federally threatened. A species
endemic to the Tennessee River drainage. The Little Tennessee River
.,resently supports the only extant population in North Carolina:
r??tie?er. there is a historical record from the Swannanoa River in
she,, .lie.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
his species is endemic to the upper Tennessee River. It generally
occurs in the riffle areas of large rivers that have cobble and
aravel substrates. There are only a few extant populations left in
the Little Tennessee River. Toe P.iver. 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
Sa,-annah 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
acidwhiles, such as ericaceacous shrubs, hemlock, rhododendron, and
mountain Laurel.
3
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.
Virginia spiraea (S iraea 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.
Tnis species has been found along several tributaries to the Henry
Fork River.
McDowell County
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis) - Federal
s,,)ecies of concern. This species is presently known from one
lo_a-,,it;v 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. brevistyla) - 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.

4
The 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.
Addit-Tonally, 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
sting s ructure). (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sezc Tentation during construction: and (3) any measures that will be
;m?,Iemented to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g.,
c ,, ec n riparian vegetation whenever possible).
a p eciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
rat you keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In
u:u-, correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
'JumU 4-2-96-057.
Sin e Ply.
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AA1 Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr_ Governor p E H N F 1
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric Galambc----(
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 Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 14, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

MAY 1 7 1996
Dr'vis?C1? ? ,.
L
4 II/GHI AYs
n)A =VV(
50'
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
Huntington, 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 7177
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 constriction 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)] 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