19970653 Ver 1_Complete File_19970724

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:
LT.WYWA
A&14
[D EHNf?
July 31, 1997
McDowell County
WQC 401 Project #970653
TIP #B-3002, State Project No. 8.2871001
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in waters for the
purpose of placing Bridge No. 60 on SR 1764, as you described in your application dated 21 July 1997. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Numbers 3107 and 3127. These Certifications allow you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 6 and 23 when
they are 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 Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
ton Hoar , . P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/100/6 post consumer paper
a a SPATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 9 7 0 6 5
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JP-
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 21, 1997
40V*
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890 ?04?? c FO
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-18909
ry ?<f
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordnerf
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 60 over South Muddy
Creek on SR 1764; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1764(1), State Project
No. 8.2871001; TIP No. B-3002.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 31 October 1996. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 60 over South Muddy Creek on SR 1764. The
bridge will be replaced on new alignment (Alternative B) within the same corridor,
approximately 40 feet north of the existing bridge (see Figure 2 of referenced document).
During project construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project.
As noted in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared for the subject project,
foundation investigations will be needed for this project. It is anticipated that this activity
may be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact that this project lies in a mountain
trout county.
Enclosed is a project site map, as well as a completed preconstruction notification
form for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 and 401 Water Quality Certification. These
permits are necessary for survey work within South Muddy Creek. The DOT is also
requesting that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments to the Corps
N#9
of Engineers concerning this permit request. The DOT understands that written
concurrence from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for 401 Water Quality
Certification (No. 3127) is not required, although a copy is enclosed for their records.
General conditions of this 401 Water Quality Certification will be followed.
As noted, copies of the CE will be distributed with this permit application. The
DOT plans to apply for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and appropriate 401 Water
Quality Certification at a date closer to bridge replacement.
Thank you for your attention to this project. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone],
extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
v
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-3002
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 6
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) : [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: McDowell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: DYsaltsville
1
I
USGS Quadrangle Map - Glen Alpine
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): NC 226 South from Dysaltsville to SR 1764
to crossing of South Muddy Creek.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: South Muddy Creek
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT,
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(WS-I OR WS-II) ? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN: _
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [x] NO [ I IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 for Bridge Replacement.
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
2

9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: N/A PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical survey equipment for foundation investigations.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Foundation investigation survey for new bridge.
3
f
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: March 26, 1996
See Appendix of CE (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Concurrence form or No Properties (See Appendix of CE).
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO H
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO H
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Agricultural uses
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.(WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
Ile
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
7 9 ? P 7
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
1
McDowell County
SR 1764
Bridge No. 60 Over South Muddy Creek 97 06
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1764(1)
State Project No. 8.2871001
T.I.P. No. B-3002
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/0/,Y//q
D T H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE Nicholas L. Graf P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
McDowell County
SR 1764
Bridge No. 60 Over South Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1764(1)
State Project No. 8.2871001
T.I.P. No. B-3002
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
OCTOBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.

Pamela R. Williams ?;:QpFESS/I Yr-
Project Engineer SEA L •.
7521 ?
9'••FNGINE??::
J eLs:W ang,
Ph.D., P. E. n residFor North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. it rimes, ., Unit Head
Cons an
En 'n Bring Unit
1?? 4 4'te??
?imes A. Buck, P. E.
roject Planning Engineer
McDowell County
SR 1764
Bridge No. 60 Over South Muddy Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1764(1)
State Project No. 8.2871001
T.I.P. No. B-3002
Bridge No. 60 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."
I. 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. Location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during final design
phase.
3. The existing bridge and approach fills will be removed to pre-construction contour and
revegetated.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 60 will be replaced on new alignment within the existing corridor approximately 12
meters (40 ft.) north of the existing bridge as illustrat d in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a
new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meterT(28 ft.))and an approximate length of 35
meters (115 ft.). The grade of the new structure will be-approximately the same as the existing
bridge grade.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft.)
grassed shoulders for approximately 130 meters (426 ft.) west of the bridge and 305 meters
(1000 ft.) east of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $723,000 including $73,000 for right-of-way and
$650,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1997-
2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $320,000 including $20,000 for right-of-way and
$300,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1764 is classed as a rural minor collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily agricultural and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge.
Bridge No. 60 is located approximately 45 meters (150 ft) north from the confluence of Hicks
Branch and South Muddy Creek and is about 9.6 kilometers (6.0 miles) southwest of Glen
Alpine.
The existing bridge approach from the east is located at the end of an 110 meter radius (16
degree) curve having a design speed of approximately 55 kilometers per hour (kph) (35 mph).
The approach from the west is located approximately 91 meters (300 ft) from the end of an 180
meter radius (9.75 degree) curve having a design speed of approximately 70 kph (45 mph). The
speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kph (55 mph) in the project vicinity.
The projected traffic volume is 760 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 1150 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and four percent
dual-tired vehicles (Duals) .
Near the bridge, SR 1764 has a 5.3 meter (17.5 ft) pavement width with 1.5 meter (5 ft)
shoulders. The roadway is approximately 5.1 meters (16.7 ft) above the creek bed.
The existing bridge was built in 1962 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel 1-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps, piles
and timber bulkheads.
The overall length of the bridge is 27.6 meters (91 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.8 meters
(19.1 ft). The posted weight limit is 12,712 kilograms (14 tons) for single vehicles and 16,344
kilograms (18 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 60 has a sufficiency rating of 31.8, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to March 31,
1995.
Overhead powerlines cross the bridge from the southeast corner to the southwest corner. A
buried cable pedestal with a sign labeled "Contel" is located in the southeast quadrant. An
unlabeled device that may be a stream gauge is located within the stream channel
approximately 4.5 meters (15 ft) downstream (north) of the bridge. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
No McDowell County school buses cross the bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 60 include a new bridge that will
accommodate a 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft.) shoulders on each side and an
approach roadway consisting of a 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft.) grassed
shoulders.
Alternate A: Replace the bridge on existing alignment with a temporary on-site detour on the
south side. A horizontal design exception will be required because the design speed will be less
than 90 km/h (55 mph).
Replacing the bridge at existing location with an off-site detour was considered. Traffic will be
detoured on SR 1131, SR 1129, SR 1769 down to Dysartville, NC 226 and SR 1758, a
distance of 16 kilometers (10 miles). An eight month road closure period will be anticipated.
Approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles) of the detour route is gravel roadway, however, the roadway
and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour was considered due to the excessive operating cost along a
detour route. A road user analysis was performed based on 760 vpd and an average of 16
kilometers (10 miles) of indirectional travel. The cost of additional travel will be approximately
$547,200 during the eight month construction period. The estimated cost of providing an on-
site detour is $225,000 resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 2.42. This ratio indicates it is more
economical to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
Alternate B (Recommended): Replace the bridge on new alignment approximately 12 meters
(40 ft.) north of the existing bridge with a proposed curve of 195 m (9 degree) curve. This
alternate will improve the bridge approach from the east to a design speed of approximately 70
km/h (45 mph). A horizontal design exception will be required because the design speed will
be less than 90 km/h (55 mph).
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The roadway approach
work will extend approximately 130 meters (426 ft.) west of the bridge and 305 meters (1000 ft.)
east of the proposed bridge.
Other Alternates:
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1764.
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.
3
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 10,100 $ 10,100
Structure (proposed) $ 180,600 $ 180,600
Roadway Approaches $ 65,700 $ 230,900
Detour Roadway and Approaches $ 225,700 N/A
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 142,900 $ 128,400
Engineering and Contingencies $ 100,000 $ 100,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities $ 38.000 73,000
TOTAL $ 763,000 $ 723,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Because of the better design and lesser costs, Bridge No. 60 will be replaced on new location
(Alternate B) approximately 12 meters (40 ft.) north of the existing bridge with a 195 meter
radius (9 degree) curve on the east approach and with a maximum superelevation of 0.06. The
design speed will be 75 km/h (45 mph). Advisory posting will be required on the west approach.
A horizontal design exception will be required.
A 8.6 meter (28 ft.) clear roadway width will be provided on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22 ft.)
travelway with 1 meter (3 ft.) shoulders across the structure.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft.) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
proposed approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced north of
and adjacent to the existing bridge.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 35 meters (115 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.
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A horizontal design exception for the design speed will be required. SR 1764 will be realigned
in the vicinity of the bridge to improve the design speed to 75 km/h (45 mph) as illustrated in
Figure 2. Due to the additional environmental impacts, farmland impacts, right-of-way and
construction costs, improving the horizontal alignment to increase the design speed to 90 km/h
(55 mph) is not justified.
4
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the mountain Physiographic Province of rural McDowell
County (Figure 1) approximately 9.6 kilometers (6.0 miles) southwest of Glen Alpine, North
Carolina. McDowell County's major economic resources include agriculture and industry.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Glen Alpine, 1993); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200);
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps of McDowell County (1995); Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Glen Alpine, 1995); FWS list of
protected species and Federal species of concern (1996); and the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (1996). Research
using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 25, 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 of area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the specific 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 335 meters (1100 feet).
According to the General Soil Map (NRCS, 1995), this portion of McDowell County contains
soils from the lotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association which are characterized as being
nearly level to strongly sloping, somewhat poorly drained to somewhat excessively drained soils
with a loamy, clayey, or sandy subsoil. This soil map unit is found on flood plains and stream
terraces. This soil map unit was confirmed in the field.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Catawba River drainage basin.
5
Water Resource Characteristics
South Muddy Creek is a perennial tributary within the Catawba River basin. The creek flows
north through the proposed project area with a width of 13.1 meters (43 feet) at Bridge No. 60.
The depth of the creek was approximately 0.6 to 1.1 meters (2.0 to 3.0 feet) on the day of the
investigation. South Muddy Creek (stream index no. 11-32-2-(8.5)) has a rating of WS-IV from
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating waters
protected as water supplies generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds and waters
suitable for all class C uses. Class C indicates the creek's suitability for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and other uses. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for McDowell County
(1988) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood elevations have been
determined.
The NCDEM has macroinvertebrate sampling data from Bridge No. 60, at SR 1764 and South
Muddy Creek. 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 for the South
Muddy Creek taken in July 1992 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 27, which has a
bioclassification of "Good-Fair".
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 community. 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. Data for the South Muddy Creek taken in June
1993 indicated an NCIBI score of 40, which has an integrity class of "Fair'.
The McDowell County Watershed Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit the exposure
of watersheds in McDowell 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 (Protected Area) is the area defined as
extending five miles from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which the intake is
located, or ten miles upstream of and draining to a river intake. According to the NCDEM
classification, the project is classified as WS-IV indicating a Protected 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.
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
6
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 mixed hardwood 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 fields and pasture in all
quadrants of the project area (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed
and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders and the
fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium
repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium canadense), plantain (Plantago
rugeli?), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), and birdfoot violet (Viola pedata).
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. Although no animals were observed during the site visit,
the raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and the Eastern meadowlark (Stumella
magna) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs as a narrow strip along the streambanks adjacent to the man-
dominated communities. The dominant canopy trees include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis) and river birch (Betula nigra). The understory consists of ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). The shrub and herbaceous layers include species such as blackberry (Rubus sp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Although not observed during the site visit, the animals previously listed may also be found in
this community along with the Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus).
7
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within South Muddy Creek. Within the project
area, South Muddy Creek is 13.1 meters (43.0 feet) wide. On the day of the field investigation
the depth of the creek ranged from 0.6 to 1.1 meters (2.0 to 3.0 feet). The creek was turbid and
moving swiftly and the creek bottom was only visible in a few shallow areas. The bottom
consists of a fine micaceous silt with some gravel and cobbles. The gravel and cobbles are
covered with silt probably from sediment and nutrient runoff from upstream and adjacent
agricultural fields.
The creek banks are variable in height from 3.0 to 4.5 m (10.0 to 15.0 feet) high. Vegetation
along the banks includes river birch, American sycamore and ironwood. Animals such as the
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog
(Rana utricularia) may reside along the waters edge.' Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), creek chubs, and darters likely inhabit the creek. Due to the depth of the creek
and the heavy sedimentation, macroinvertebrates such as the 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 chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes (segmented worms).
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the following fish species were
collected in the Second Broad River in 1993: rosyside dace (Clinostomus 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 omstedi), and Piedmont darter (Percina crassa). The species
in bold print is considered to be intolerant to stream degradation under the North Carolina
Index of Biotic Integrity used by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) to assess the biological integrity of streams.
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 gentle 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.
8
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES(ACRES)
Bridge No. 60 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.53(l.30) 0.01 (0.03) 0.03 (0.08) 0.57(l.41)
Temporary 0.19 (0.47) 0.008 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05) 0.22 (0.54)
Detour
Alternative B 1.04 (2.57) 0.01 (0.03) 0.03 (0.08) 1.0=(2.68)
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 South Muddy Creek. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.03 hectare (0.08 acre) of stream
bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbances will likely be less). The new
replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the
river in the short term. Impacts to the stream community will not be confined to the 0.03 hectare
(0.08 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's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
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 United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
9
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the South Muddy 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
(0.08 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 60.
Permits
Nationwide Permit No. 23 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.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing.
This may require test borings in streams. The NCDOT will apply for Nationwide Permit No. 6
authorization for this activity. Nationwide Permit No. 6 authorizes "survey activities including
core sampling, seismic shot holes and other exploratory-type bore holes".
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in an April 10, 1996 memorandum (see Appendix). Since the proposed project is
located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a nationwide permit by the COE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required.
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
10
McDowell County, as of August 23, 1996, 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 McDowell County as of August 23, 1996 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR MCDOWELL COUNTY
II Scientific Name I Common Name I Status II
I? Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T ?I
NOTE. "T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Mountain golden heather is a low shrub with yellow flowers and long stalked fruit capsules. It
usually grows in clumps of 10.2 to 20.3 centimeters (4.0 to 8.0 inches) across and about 15.0
centimeters (6.0 inches) high. The plants have a general aspect of a big moss or a low juniper,
but their branching is more open and the plant is often yellow-green in color, especially in the
shade. The plant flowers from June to July.
Mountain golden heather is found at elevations of 853 to 1219 meters (2800 to 4000 ft) on
exposed quartzite ledges. It typically inhabits and ecotone between bare rock and sand myrtle
(Leiophyllum sp.) dominated heath balds which merge into pine/oak forests.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Mountain golden heather. Since the
project area elevation is approximately 335 meters (1100 ft) and does not contain
exposed quartzite ledges, it can be concluded that the subject project will not impact
this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
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
listing. Table 3 includes FSC species listed for McDowell County and their state classifications.
11
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dendroica cerulea SR No
(Cerulean warbler)
Neotoma floridana haemator+eia SC Yes
(Southern Appalachian woodrat)
Contopus borealis SC No
(Olive-sided flycatcher)
Clemmys muhlenbergii T No
(Bog turtle)
Caecidotea carolinensis SR No
(Bennett's Mill Cave water slater)
Speyeria diana SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Carex roanensis C Yes
(Roan sedge)
Delphinium exaltatum" E No
(Tall larkspur)
Hymenocallis coronaria NL No
(Rocky shoal spider lily)
Juglans cinerea NL No
(Butternut)
Lilium grayi T No
(Gray's lily)
Monotropsis odorata NL Yes
(Sweet pinesap)
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla NL Yes
(Northern oconee-bells)
NOTES: ** Denotes Obscure record (the date and/or location of the species observation is unertain.)
C Denotes Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and needing
population monitoring.)
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended.)
NL Denotes species for which the state status is unlisted at this time.
12
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed by the NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act,
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
NCNHP records indicate one state listed Special Concern species, Black vulture (Coragyps
atratus), that is not designated as a federal species of concern (FSC). Habitat for the Black
vulture is present in the project area, but no individuals were observed during the investigation.
A search of the NCHNP database showed no recorded occurrences of any state protected
species within the project vicinity.
IX. 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 "that a comprehensive survey be
conducted by experienced archaeologist" with in project area. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the project area was
conducted to determine if significant archaeological resources might be disturbed. No sites
were located within the project area. No further archaeological work is recommended for this
project. The SHPO has reviewed the archaeological report and concurred with it's findings
(letter of August 9, 1996).
X. 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 relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
13
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central
NorthAmerica. 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. U.S. 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.
McDowell County. December, 1993. Watershed Ordinance for McDowell County.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Feb. 1996. List of Rare Species of North Carolina.
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 New River Basin.
North Carolina 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
NorthAmerica. 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.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995.
General Soil Map McDowell County, North Carolina.
15
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. August 23, 1996. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region,
Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map.
Glen Alpine Quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1993. Topographic map - Glen Alpine Quadrangle.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
16

Z

r

"2
.,.,..........

A,

f
?
` 1?
1?
BRIDGE
SITE = `
1
,
i 4t\
}
Muddy Creek Rd t
# 3
.
SR

n G

cn
ail
00 ,....

(
I
SR 1767 ?
J{
N.
?
":...? '
n .".,.........

MC DOWELL COUNTY

N
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 60
ON SR 1764 OVER SOUTH MUDDY CREEK
MC DOWELL COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3002
0 0.5 1 1.5 Kilometers
FIG.
i
MCDOWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 60
B-3002
LOOKING EAST

LOOKING WEST
vie..
LOOKING NORTH
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3

MCDOWELL
COUNTY
B-3002
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000
meters
FIGURE 4
?6??
s ?; SfATE ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
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 60 on SR 1764, McDowell County, State
Project 8.2801301, TIP B-3002, Federal Aid
BRZ-1764(1), ER 97-7127
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 19, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Megan O'Connell concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Ms.
O'Connell has 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,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 09
q.c...?5TA7
? Z
'A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of '1 ransp rtation
FROM: David Brook xf?
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek, 8-
3002, McDowell County, ER 96-8522
GEIVE?
ki
4
ppR ,? ? 1?ot,
X50 A &
?' ? E+VVIFtO?`%
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
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # ??- 11114 (1) TIP # 6. 151- 02- County
M GDotii Ea.L
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description ?EI't-Act oFE. 140. foo ow siL t-rto?q ovg.,?L 5.+4Ti,t
C"4"V_ (Pi4pm URouP Nc
On Afa4t- it 10M,, representatives of the 91 ? 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 projects 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 eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rep
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
N /110
z*,
Date
1:1 AJ * ?-?{l??V
U?u?El
Representative, HPO Date
r
S
State Historic Preservation Officcr 10V V
to
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
11.S. ?E?ARTME.'IT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPA'Z 06
yell Coruerva°on Sernea FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
•
'B FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
_- 300
.RT I (To be completed by Fedora/ AQeney) I3. Oat* of Lana evaiuaoon Aemest ?I Z2, % b l y VON , of
Nam. of P. O -. 5. ' era! genct Uwavoa VV
o( W-- S.
2. !Pe caumv and State
::....:v...::.:::: ::.:.....::...
? fi
:?:,,:II'oQS•s?:c:ttdor• ptttattt:gttt:tekattgt?
<ttte tss:F?FAd+t ssx. eaccly= ss°raamo?et se*r?otraE.t?rts.aftlsas6etfit .:. «:<°? s .... ;`;`
PART U1 era be anmplated by Fedenl Agency)
A. Total Aces To Se Converted Direcyy?
S. Total Aces To Se C mverw Inmr v. Cr To Recame Services
C. Total Aces In Candor
....,..::.
p31RF1Y:?{!'a:bseamisleiea'::Sy:SCS,??Gand:Fvoluetton: ?Iarrrratron
3'#'Fetaf>r?Ges.Statetiridt=,?nd:?rat•Yrncctra;stFarmranc
C:P-rt?t,taceCfFarmtarsti<fnC-.wtmc-CrL--caFC-cvt:tUnirTaSe:Co p.
(X:'¢'asearrtace?Ct'?srsreEarad• En:C-eyts';.'tirisCtCOn-? Wtth•Sarrse•G?*tia.Ref 4
PAF ?,f' "c. sea::tFli??ra 2?Y:SCS? L n rE?afwttorr:.a*md +rx*/md
afFarnrlsrri??ttz 8s Servread'erC.anverteo4"%5ca/s•of 0'?tt3d?PoFrrtsts`:
PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Carridor
-sessment Crrmerra (Klass =Bane are eza/a/ned in 7 C.', 65&VO,
1. Area In Nonurean Use
Z 0-rirnemr to Narntraan Use
3. Percent Ct ComCor Seine rsrmed
4. Protecsen F-!:yided By State and Locat Gavemment
5. Size Ct P-sent Farm unit Cartlcared To Averace
S. cmanon C N°nfarrt+acte r3rmtand
6taaretum
Points
1 15 I
1 1o I
I 20 i
I 20 i
I 10 I
25 1
Alternative C4rrider F,
?Corttdor A I Corridor 8
7-3 1 TT
I i 0110
A S f3o t! n e a t t! • F 3 PA K., •; ;::..'
N -
FAA X. ......
ent
Corridor C i camber o
7. AvaiiacttitV Ct Farm Succort Services I 5 I I I- I
e. Cn-Xsrm Investments I 20 1 I I I
8. Ems Ct Ccnversion Cn Fwm Succorr Services I 25 1 1 I 1
10 Comcanbuity With =xis:tna Aone aural Use to I I Q ( i
. TOTAL =RRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I 40
PART VII (Po be completed by Federal Agency/ f
Relent Value of Farmland (From Part V) I 100 I I loo
Total C.2M=r Assessment (From Fart VI 20OVe ar a bm site
assessment I
7V
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) I 280 I D /40
1. Cameor Selecnrd: 2. i atat Ames of Farmtan°s t0 °e 3.. ate Ci Seieczon: 4. Was A La= Sue dssessmant Usa°?
Converted :y Pmlec l I
m0 .0 G
r-_r
Signature of Perscn Ccrnmec ng i nts ;Tarr. I QA TM
NOTE: !;;,rrz:tt?*? S firm ?Or 9?C'1 5$n.narlt with more than ono AlteMATiv4 COrrlCC+r

AFn 1 51996;
z
DIVISIcv
op
11 sri? r`?
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 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 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
greenfn 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 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 platycephalus
w
Group IX Page 3 April 10, 1996
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
B-2941- Catawba County, 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 empio
rosyside dace Canostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
creek chub Semodlus atromaculatus
white sucker 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
fieryblack shiner
Santee chub
bluehead chub
highback chub
greenfin shiner
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
white sucker
striped jumprock
silver (v-lip) redho
flat bullhead
margined madtom
rock bass
redbreast sunfish
fantail darter
Scientific Name
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Cyprinella zamema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinotus
Cyprinella chloristius
Notropis ludpinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscwies
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupeso is
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
bluegill
smallmouth bass
largemouth bass
Piedmont darter
seagreen darter
Scientific Name
Cyprinella labrosa
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus salmoides
Percina crassa
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 f labellare
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 f lavescens
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 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Katie Cirilis, Resource Southeast
? J LQ=
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
C ' V 4`N
U
?V`?1RON??tr
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Alleghany, Buncombe,
Catawba, Cleveland, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of March 11, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office (we
received it on March 18, 1996). Our office handles project reviews and
requests of this nature for the western part of the state. including the
above-mentioned counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided in your letter, the following
bridges will be replaced: Bridge Numbers 52 and 56 on SR 1172 over the
Little River (Alleghany County); Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
Swannanoa River (Buncombe County); Bridge Number 82 on SR 1165 over Clark
Creek (Catawba County); Bridge Number 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
(Catawba 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
to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project areas.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should
evaluate possible impacts to the following federally listed species
and/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):
Al l eghanv 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,
0.5 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
Mountain.
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:
however, there is a historical record from the Swannanoa River in
Asheville.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
This 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.
Y ?•
3
Butternut (Jualans 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 (SSpiraea virainiana) - 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.
This species has been found along several tributaries to the Henry
Fork River.
McDowell County
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis) - Federal
species 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. 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.
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
existing structure), (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be
implemented to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g.,
protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In
any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-96-057.
Sine ely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
C) E H N F1
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 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 17 1995
SIC?,
WIG
HWA YS.
6
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,
1..6 LI'L ?-?
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 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

??G?NGY MA
w`r 0 z
Ply o ? o ?
R-4
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
im
FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
YS
Section 60.3 (d)- (3of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community'shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated-through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading orf development permits
involving activities in a regulatory. floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on- the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's F1ood.Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "rio-
rise" submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FEMA.

r
r
-2-
To support a "no-rise" certification for proposed developments
encroaching into the regulatory floodway, a community will require
that the following procedures be followed:
Currently Effective Model
1. Furnish a written request for the step-
backwater computer model for the specified
stream and community, identifying the limits
of the requested data. A fee will be assessed
for providing the data. Send data requests
to:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
1371 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 735
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
or to:
Duplicate Effective Model
2. Upon receipt of the ..step-backwater computer
model, the engineer should run the original
-step-backwater model - to duplicate the data in
the effective FIS.
Existinq Conditions Model
FIS Information Specialist
Dewberry & Davis
8401 Arlington Boulevard -
Fairfax, Virginia 22031-4666
3.
Revise the original step-backwater model to
reflect site specific existing conditions- by
adding new cross-sections (two or more) - in the
vicinity of the proposed development, without
the proposed development in place. Floodway
limits should be manually. set at the new
cross-section locations by measuring from the
effective FIRM or FBFM. The cumulative reach
lengths of the stream should also .remain
unchanged. The results of these analyses will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
revised existing conditions at the proposed
project site.

K

-3-
Pronosed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results. of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year flood elevations, ..floodway
elevations, .or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate`Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce the same exact results.
The "no-rise" -supporting data and 'a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit:'
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original PIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. 'Revised existing conditions.step-backwater model.
C. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the additional cross-sections, the
site location with the proposed - topographic
modification superimposed onto the maps, and a
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as

-4-
those made to the revised existing conditions model
to represent proposed conditions, should be well
documented and submitted with all supporting data.
f. Copy of effective Floodway Data Table copied from
the FIS report.
g. Statement defining source of additional cross-
section topographic data and supporting information.
h. Cross-section plots, of the added cross sections,
for revised existing and proposed conditions.
i. Certified planimetric (boundary survey) information
indicating the location of structures on the
property.
j. Copy of the microfiche, or other applicable source,
from which input for original FIS HEC-2 model was
taken.
k. Floppy disk with all input files.
1. Printout of output files from EDIT runs. for all
three floodway models.
The engineering ."no-rise" certification and supporting technical
data must stipulate NO impact on the 100-year flood elevations,
floodway elevations, or floodway widths at the new cross-sections
and at..all.:existing cross-sections anywhere in the model.
Therefore, the revised computer model should be run for a
sufficient distance (usually one mile, depending on hydraulic slope
of the-stream).upstream.and downstream of the development site to
insure proper "no-rise" certification.
Attached is a sample "no-rise" certification form that can be
completed by.a registered professional engineer and supplied to the
community along with the.supporting technical data when applying
for a development permit.
x
ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
t This is to certify that I am duly qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the State of
It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports
the fact that proposed
will not impact
(Name of Development)
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and
floodway widths on (Name of Stream)
and'?will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and
floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of
at published sections in the Flood Insurance Study for
dated
(Name of Community)
the proposed development.
(Date)
SEAL:
(Signature)
(Title)
(Address)
FEMA, NTHD
8/91
0
J
C
0
U

y
0
Z*
a
E-

r
L
A?
.p
U
w
O
w
W rn
J
MU
V ?
?a
W
E., V
z0
? F
w0
Oa
aW
a E"
O?
Gsr W
P4
as
oz
WO
U F
zz
W
aH
z
VO
d6
a
r
0
U (?
A
c>
.o
a
4-4
W
tF.l
O
a
J
a
d
C
O
1-1
F a
A ?
z U
o O
0 C-4
U
Fv?
w . 0 a
O +' U
5 .? a a
rn
x
C's
O OA O
UxU
U ? U
Z0 Z0=
'*,) I 1'?

C
' r4 Cd
.U ?
Os?. ? ? s A A
., o o -o
c3 U c3 °N o
U ~
U U
C
O G, C
O
• V o C C

C 4..,
O
3 ?

O
?' ?
C
a?
+
C C
? 0
V L
L1.
iC. tCn N
•
U
cli
.9
V
O
U
-
,
U ++ H
UO O O U

p 0
O
U
°
v
W L1 C3
vi U c3 v 'o
C C
>
U
C C
'J 4.
0
C) to
¢
'O (y '
4 2 ti .
.? ° 0 C3 C3 52
.? --
Cd
C13 03
-
`
'
O u 2 -
= CJ O v
U C]r U
..^. U + L C3 U U p

U _
t C
Q
?

C 4..
CC) :
.
N U '' C p
C. C
.
y 0
?
>
O C
3
g
• c C3 a e
Cd c3 U y
v 0 O
t)
cli

a 00
O
o
CL 2

U
U
4
p 0
p

0 p C C

0 ? L

>
a
i
?""? bA t
d
C U •+
v C C 0 4 -0-0 O ?
r ('?1

N
t:.
CS
CJ ;b
C3 W C
Cld
C V
v
U
° O U 2 0 c 2 .0
c Z w

Qx0
U.
ti O
?U U a U
?? ??t°
$
w
ty I I I I ?I ,I
w
d

V
U
0
0
U
U
a
U
0
y
a
U
t1
c
.yi
0
Q?Q
C.1
a
fj
0
J?
H
cJ
e •