19970934 Ver 1_Complete File_19971028

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources LTI9;WA
` • F
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N R
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
November 17, 1997
McDowell Countv
WQC 401 Project #970934
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Frank Vick
NC DOT
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill in 0.04 acres of waters for the
purpose of bridge replacement at Glenwood as you described in your application dated October 22, 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Numbers3107 and 3127 This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Numbers 23 and
26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get anv 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 919-733-1736.
PstPr y,
l
P.E.
on How J r.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
9709341tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
,4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Mark S. Davis Fax:[phone] Nov 10 '97 14:25 P.02
0 North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Con= ssion K2
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
November 10, 1997
Mr. Robert Jobmon, Office Manager
U. S. Army Corn of 1?ngineers
Regulatory 13rm h
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 2$801-5006
SUBJECT: NCDOT Nationwide 404 Permit Application
TIP Project No. 13.2998 - Replace Bridge No. 41 on SR 1147 - Second Broad River
Kv.Eh v11 County, North Carolinas
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., of the North Carolina Department of Transportation is requesting a letter of
coocurrmwe from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the
US. Army Corps of Engineers, i have reviewed information provided by the applicant, and I am familiar with
habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, a$ amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The applicant proposes to replace an obsolete roadway bridge with a double barrel (10' x 9') reinforced
concrete box culvert on new location in the Second Broad River. Construction will also involve foundation teat
borings in the stream bed requiring the operation of testing equipment and/or vehicles in surface waters. The
NCWRC is concerned about potential project impacts to aquatic resources in this drainage; however, we do not
object to the issuance of a 404 permit provided the following conditions be placed on the subject permit:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on the
project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
2. Temporary or pormwent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of
ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All mechanized testing equipment operated in or near surface waters should be regularly inspected
and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials,
4. All work in or p4jaceat to surface craters should be conducted In it dory worm area, If possible. Sand
bags, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to minimize excavefion
in flowing water.
5. Adequate precautions should be taken to prevent direct contact between wet concrete and stream
water. Uncured concrete affocts water quality and is toxic to fisb and other aquatic organisms.
Mark S. Davis Fax:[phone] Nov 10 '97 14:26 P.03
TIP No. B-2998 Page S November 4, 1997
6. Double-barrel reinforced concrete box culverts should be designed so that all water flows throua a
single cell during low flow conditions. Tbio could be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the
upstream end of one of the barrels to divert flow to the other barrel. This will facilitate fish pump
during periods of low flow and also transport sediments downstream more efficiently.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Panding availability of field staff,
the NCWRC may inspect the wank site during or after construction. Nthere are any questions regarding these
cornmet", please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mark S. Davis
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.B., NCDOT
Mark S. Davis Fax :[phone] Nov 10 '97 14:25 P.01
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Old Fish Hatchery
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28788
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE: November 10, 1997 TIME: 2:05 PM
To: Eric Calamb PHONE: [phone]
DWQ FAX: [phone]
FROM: Mark Davis PHONE: [phone]
NCWRC FAX: [phone]
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
Messago: Eric, Attached are our comments concerning the bridge
replacement on SR 1147 in McDowell County, TIP No. B-2998. If you
have any questions, please advise. Thanks, Mark
e„aSfiVpo
w?nM
wa
dn,
?TAA OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
rJ
October 22, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Attention: Mike Smith
z n
Dear Sir:
Subject: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 41 over Second Broad
River on SR 1147; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1147(2), State Project
No. 8.2870801; TIP No. B-2998.
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 November 26, 1996. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 41 over Second Broad River on SR 1147. The
bridge will be replaced with a double barrel (10 ft. X 9 ft.) reinforced box culvert on new
location approximately 320 feet east of the existing bridge. The invert of the box culvert
will be placed one foot below the stream bed. During project construction, traffic will be
maintained using 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.
Rt-*'Et'6

r°
In
2
The DOT committed to conducting an archeological survey for the project prior to
right-of-way acquisition. This survey has been conducted, and the report has been sent to
the State Historic Properties Office (SHPO). This survey revealed one site within the
project area. The DOT concluded that the project will not involve significant
archaeological resources. The SHPO concurrence letter has been attached to this letter.
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 Second Broad Creek. The DOT also
requests that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) provide comments to the
Corps 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, but 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 also requests authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification to replace Bridge No. 41 over Second Broad
River on SR 1147. Comments from the WRC to the COE on this bridge replacement are
also requested.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip. Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,
I ZJ
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, 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
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2998
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): NWP 6 & NWP 23
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: Glenwood
1
USGS Quadrangle May - Glenwood
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): South on US 221 from Glenwood, make right
onto SR 1135 then left on SR 1147 to crossing of Second Broad River.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Second Broad River
RIVER BASIN: Broad
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: _
TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
(ORW), WATER SUPPLY
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 [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
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: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: 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: N/A 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: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL; x
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):
Geotehcnical survey equipment for foundation investigations.
Construction equipment to install double barrel box culvert in
place of a bridge.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Foundation investigations for bridge replacement.
Replace the existing bridge with double barrel culvert.
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
N/A
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 Attached 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: See concurrence form in 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 PROPER'L'Y?
Rural residential, agricultural
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.
, ?_ " I Ire /_
O R'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
? -
ATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 11, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological survey report, Replacement of
Bridge 41 over Second Broad River on SR 1147,
McDowell County, B-2998, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1 147(2), State Project 8.2870801, ER 96-
8520, ER 98-7101
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Q// C E
3 1997
4
'L? D?vrSl pti }
I H1GHvVA1.a
wt t
Thank you fdr your letter of July 10, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by John Mintz concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one site was located within the project area. Mr.
Mintz 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...
T. Padgett
J. Mintz
,,
rv'
t AAI1SSL
o.
,r McDowell County
SR 1147
4?f{Bridge No. 41 Over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
G c? <?
c}
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
O 6
DATE H. ranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE i as raf, P.E.
Di ision Administrator, FHWA
t"
McDowell County
SR 1147
Bridge No. 41 Over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams Ll" Ct4R
Project Engineer ??QpEESS/py;?;?y
s ? Q
SEAL .
• 7521
a es ang, Ph. D., P. E. 4'%- AGINO!k
CRfesident •J :.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
: 9?OaL aA11YU'6
L. Gail rimes, El El Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
"Ov
J es A. Buck, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
c?
McDowell County
SR 1147
Bridge No. 41 Over Second Broad River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
Bridge No. 41 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. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior
to right-of-way acquisition.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 41 will be replaced on new location approximately 97 meters (320 ft.) east of the
existing bridge as illustrated in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a double barrel 3.0 m x 2.7 m
(10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert that will provide a roadway width of 6.6 meters (22
ft.) with 1.8 m (6 ft.) shoulders.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft.)
shoulders for approximately 198 meters (650 ft.) north of the culvert and 275 meters (900 ft.)
south of the culvert. The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing bridge grade.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $508,000 including $83,000 for right-of-way and
$425,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1997-
2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $300,000 including $25,000 for right-of-way and
$275,000 for construction.
,y
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1147 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily agricultural and residential in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Hicks
Branch converges with the Second Broad River at Bridge No. 41.
The existing bridge approach from the south has back to back curves with 80 m radii (22
degree) having a design speed of less than 50 kilometers (km/h) (30 mph). The approach from
the north is located at the end of back to back curves with 50 meter (36 degree) and 75 meter
(24 degree) radii, having a design speed of less than 40 km/h (25 mph). The speed limit is not
posted and assumed to be 90 kilometers per hour (km/h) (55 mph) in the project area.
The projected traffic volume is 670 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 1100 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two percent
dual-tired vehicles (Duals). The posted weight limit is 6.4 metric tons (7 tons).
The overall length of Bridge No. 41 is 27.6 meters (91 ft.). The clear roadway width is 5.8
meters (19.2 ft.). The approaches to the bridge on SR 1147 have a 5.2 meter (17 ft.)
pavement width with 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders. The roadway is approximately 3.0 meters (10
ft.) above the creek bed.
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (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.
Bridge No. 41 has a sufficiency rating of 15.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported in the project area during the period from April 1, 1992 to March 31,
1995.
Overhead power lines cross the Second Broad River 122 m (400 ft.) east of the existing bridge.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Four McDowell County school buses cross the bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 41 include a double barrel 3.0 m x 2.7 m (10
ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert that provides a 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8
meter (6 ft.) shoulders. The roadway grade on the new structure will be approximately the same
as the grade on the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction.
Alternate A (Recommended): Replace the bridge with a culvert on new location east of Bridge
No. 41 approximately 97 meters (320 ft.) as illustrated in Figure 2. This alternate will provide a
design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph).
2
Alternate B: Replace the bridge with a culvert on new location east of Bridge No. 41
approximately 50 meters (165 ft.) as illustrated in Figure 2. The new alignment will have reverse
back to back curves of 235 m radii (7.5 degree). This alternate will provide a design speed of 80
km/h (50 mph). A horizontal design exception will be required.
Alternate C: Replace the bridge with a culvert on new alignment within the existing corridor
with back to back curves of 80 m. radii (22 degree). This alternate will provide a design speed
of 50 km/h (30 mph). A horizontal design exception will be required.
Other Alternates:
Replacement on existing alignment is not desirable because it provides a design speed of only
40 km/h (25 mph) for the horizontal alignment; when the statutory speed is 90 km/h (55 mph).
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1147.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal (existing) $ 8,740 $ 8,740 $ 8,740
Structure (proposed) $ 67,200 $ 67,200 $ 67,200
Roadway Approaches $ 207,760 $ 193,560 $ 122,060
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 86,300 $ 79,100 $ 62,000
Engineering and Contingencies $ 55,000 $ 51,400 $ 40,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 83,000 44,000 55,500
TOTAL $ 508,000 $ 444,000 355,500
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 41 will be replaced with a double barrel 3.Om x 27 m (10 ft. x 9.0 ft.) reinforced
concrete box culvert on new location (Alternate A) approximately 97 meters (320 ft.) east of the
existing bridge. The approach roadway will extend approximately 198 meters (650 ft.) north of
the culvert and 275 meters (900 ft.) south of the culvert. The design speed will be 100 km/h (60
mph).
A 6.6 meter (22 ft.) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft.) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
new alignment.
The Division Engineer has been coordinated with on the recommendation that the structure be
replaced east of the existing bridge on new location.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, a double barrel 3.0
m x 2.7 m (10 ft. x 9 ft.) reinforced concrete culvert is recommended. The invert of the box
culvert will be placed 0.3 m (1 ft.) below the stream bed. It is anticipated that the elevation of
the roadway will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The length and opening size
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydraulic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Province in rural
McDowell County approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) south of Glenwood, North Carolina.
McDowell County's major economic resources include agriculture and industry.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Glenwood, 1993); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps of McDowell County
(1995); Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map (Glenwood, 1994);
USFWS list of protected species and federal species of concern (1996); and 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 26, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 24.4 m
(80.0 ft.) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of
the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific
replacement structure design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was
assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor' denote the 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 381 m (1250 ft.).
According to the General Soil Map (NRCS, 1995) this portion of McDowell County contains soils
from the Hayesville-Evard association which is characterized by strongly sloping to steep, well
drained soils with a predominantly loamy or clayey subsoil. These soils are typically found on
intermountain foothills and uplands. This soils type were verified in the field.
4
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Broad River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
The Second Broad River (stream index no. 9-41-(0.5)) is a perennial tributary within the Broad
River basin. The stream banks are well defined, approximately 1.8 m (6 ft.) high and vegetated
with black willow, tag alder, American sycamore, ironwood and blackberry. The river flows east
through the proposed project area with a width of 6.1 m (20.0 ft.) at Bridge No. 41. The depth
of the river ranged from approximately 0.6 to 0.8 m (1.5 to 2.0 ft.) on the day of the
investigation. The creek has a Class C rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM), indicating the river'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 does not maintain a macroinvertebrate sampling station within the project area.
There are data from five sampling stations on the Second Broad River, all of which are
downstream in Rutherford County. These stations are located at US 221A, US 74, SR 1538,
and SR 1973. 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 river at
these sampling stations are as follows:
Date Location EPT Bioclassification
June 1994 US 221A 23 Good-Fair
June 1994 US 74 30 Good-Fair
June 1994 SR 1538 33 Good
July 1995 SR 1538 26 Good
July 1995 SR 1973 20 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 Second Broad River taken in June
1994 are as follows:
5
Date Location IBI Bioclassification
June 1994 US 221A 52 Good
June 1994 US 74 46 Fair-Good
June 1994 SR 1538 50 Good
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 the remaining
portions of the watershed. The watershed map indicates that the project area is not within a
Critical Area.
No waters classed 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 area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result
of the project construction.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and low mountain alluvial forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas are discussed under the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the field in the southeast
quadrant, the pasture in the northeast quadrant, and the residential lawns in the northwest and
southwest quadrants (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and
regularly maintained areas. The road shoulders the lawns and fields are dominated by fescue
(Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), wild onion (Allium canadense), and common plantain (Plantago rugelii).
6
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, including vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) and
living and dead faunal components. Although only raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks and a
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) were observed during the site visit, other animals such
as the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several
species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), and the American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) are often
attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Low Mountain Alluvial Forest Community
This forested community occurs primarily along the streambanks adjacent to the man-
dominated areas. The dominant canopy trees include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black
willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus semulata),and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The understory consists of dogwood (Comus florida) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The
shrub and herbaceous layers includes blackberry (Rubus sp.) and common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia).
Although not observed during the site visit, the animals previously listed may be found in this
community along with the woodchuck (Marmota monax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and common flicker (Colaptes auratus).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the Second Broad River. Within the
project area the river is approximately 6.1 m (20.0 ft.) wide with a 1.2 m (4.0 ft.) wide tributary
flowing in from the northwest. On the day of the field investigation, the depth of the river was
0.6 to 0.8 m (1.5 to 2.0 ft.). The river was clear and the bottom was visible. The bottom consists
of gravel and a fine micaceous silt.
Animals such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may reside along the water's edge. Fishes
such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubs (Semot+lus atromaculatus), and
darters (Etheostoma sp.) likely inhabit the river. The macroinvertebrate community includes the
mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), caddisfly (Trichoptera), fishfly (Megaloptera) and
dragonfly (Odonata) larvae under stones in the riffle areas and within the leaf debris as well as
chironomid (midge) larvae and oligochaetes (segmented worms) within the substrate.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the following fish species were
collected in the Second Broad River in 1988: fieryblack shiner (Cyprinella pyrrhomeias),
Santee chub (Cyprinella zamema), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), highback chub
(Notropis hypsinotus), greenfin shiner (Cyprinella chloristius), yellowfin shiner (Notropis
lutipinnis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus commerson?),
striped jumprock (Moxostoma rupiscartes), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), flat bullhead
(Ameiurus platycephaius), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), rock bass (Ambloplites
rupestris), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). The
species in bold print are considered to be intolerant to stream degradation under the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the NCDEM to assess the biological integrity of
streams.
7
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic communities by habitat type. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy
sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to ensure sediment does not
leave the construction site.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES(ACRES)
Bridge No. 41 Man- Low Mountain Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Alluvial Forest Community
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.99 (2.44) 0.16 (0.39) 0.02 (0.04) 1.17 (2.87)
(Recommended)
Alternative B 0.96 (2.36) 0.13 (0.33) 0.02 (0.04) 1.11 (2.73)
Impacts to the Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities in the project area, the man-dominated community will
receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Impacts to the Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Second Broad River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of stream
bottom. This represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance will likely be less. Impacts
to the stream community will not be confined to the 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) impact zone. The
new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in
the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential
adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion and sediment
control measures as specked in the NCDOT Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines for
Contract Construction (January 1995).
8
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Issues:
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Second Broad River 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. Up to
0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 41.
Permits
A Nationwide Permit No. 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters
of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency
or department where:
1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act;
2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice to the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in an April 10, 1996 memorandum (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.
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 exploratory operation, and plugging of seismic shot holes and other
exploratory-type bore holes".
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required. However, mitigation requirements on projects covered by Nationwide permits are left
up to the discretion of the USACOE.
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
McDowell County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The USFWS lists one federally protected species for McDowell County as of August 23, 1996,
(see Table 2).
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR MCDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T
NOTE:
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Mountain golden heather is a low shrub with yellow flowers and long stalked fruit capsules. It
usually grows in clumps of 10.2 - 20.3 centimeters (4.0-8.0 inches) across and about 15.0
centimeters (6.0 inches) high. The plants have a general aspect of a large moss or a low
juniper, but 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 m (2800 to 4000 ft.) on exposed
quartzite ledges. It typically inhabits an ecotone between bare rock and sand myrtle
(Leiophyllum buxifolium) 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 381 m (1250 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
10
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. NCNHP records do not document any occurrences of FSC within the project vicinity.
Table 3 includes FSC species listed for McDowell County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dendroica ceru/ea SR Yes
(Cerulean warbler)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia SC Yes
(Southern Appalachian woodrat)
Contopus borealis SC No
(Olive-sided flycatcher)
Clemmys muh/enbergii T No
(Bog turtle)
Caecidotea carolinensis SR No
(Bennett's Mill Cave water slater)
Speyeria diana SR Yes
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Carex roanensis C Yes
(Roan sedge)
Delphinium exa/tatum** E No
(Tall larkspur)
Hymenocallis coronaria NL No
(Rocky shoal spider lily)
Jug/ans cinerea NL No
(Butternut)
Lilium grayi T No
(Gray's lily)
11
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
(continued)
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
uncertain.)
C Denotes Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and
needing population monitoring.)
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.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed by the NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are afforded limited state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
NCNHP list one state protected species, Black vulture (Coragyps atratus), not listed for
McDowell County by USFWS. Habitat is present in the project area, but no individuals were
observed during the investigation. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of any state protected species within the project vicinity.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated April 11, 1996, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated April 4, 1996, requested a comprehensive survey be
conducted for any alternative on new location. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in
the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to right-
of-way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to the SHPO for
review. Further consultation will be conducted if necessary.
12
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
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.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.65 hectare (1.54 acres) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 19,713
hectares (48,685 acres) of prime or important soils found in McDowell County. The impact
rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating,
indicates that the site's assessment and relative value score is 153 out of a possible 260. A
score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in McDowell County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
13
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
McDowell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of this project. This project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
14
V
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. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
McDowell County. December, 1993. Watershed Ordinance for McDowell County.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. February 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 North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995.
General Soil Map McDowell County, North Carolina.
15
t !
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 r•
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. 1994. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Glenwood
quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1993. Topographic map - Glenwood 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
I 4 .
_Qil
4? Sf101w0a b<
` ipa
IAIOS
o
I
:.:^ ?? 3y \ p? s F
..? ..r< V?zz H sn
.J ?.. " ,nnnfllnffll S f' J
..uufa J
`? Y , •a. n..n• . .. P s; n...f ...nu.u,,,? s uno. '•^£-..,
`Pe OJ
r?
u.uun•n•` ?. .ian•P", ,
i
n
.. .M ?vti< ...e
f,
O
a?
1?
® zM
m -avz

0
13)
D :3
?n (D :3 n
m ? ° o

., z
m-q
o _
a 2 5.
?
m=
v' o
m
O :3
Omcn

rma7
0
0iD

r- o m
W
0
CD 0
3
1
N 5
N0
®om 3
(O
z -
Q?
07Z
?
C :3
N

cn O

03
D
W O
v m -?
3

(D 0

? N 0
n
G '1
n
0
m
r
r
O
z

?Z
MCDOWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 41
B-2998
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING EAST
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3
l I

00 YEAR FLOOD ZONE `
MM
1141
\,p 1292
II
ZONE X
1146

1141

ZONE X -
BRIDGE # 41
Bya"?h
IL
221
MCDOWELL
COUNTY
B-2998
1149
?? \\ use
11
J /t(f
ZONE X
SCALE 1:24000
0 1000 2000
meters
FIGURE 4
LL;', t .
? . ?>
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tmn rtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hstoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 41 on SR 1 147 over Second Broad River, 8-
2998, McDowell County, ER 96-8520
G?IV\
a?
???NG& Evc1HC
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. Survey is necessary
only if new alignment is selected.
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 garolina 27601-2807 g??
Federal Aid # p47-- 114-( (4,) TIP 4 5. 1101-0 County iM4,DOwt-,tom
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-efk-,? PAuOOi? 'J.:- 41 004 W-1141 rvEr- 0,-"Ot4e P,RoAp
FWtU2- ( N VO-Z, G¢oun ax
On A124L? It tom 16 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
?_ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the projects area of potential effects.
there are 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:
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
t
State Historic Preservation
4.1)k %,
date
4-
Date
I I q (o
ate
-S 1 G
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
t t
rd f
"ty Boa
co
p
\ th`at?j
McDowell County
School Bus Garage
. P.O. Box 130
Marion, NC 28752
7041652-7610
SCE/L
F?
Mr. H. Frarklin Vick
Dlanning & Environmental Branch
NC Division of Highways
D.C. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Apri'_ 3, 1996
"ear Mr. dick,
??- QPR n R 1996
D!VlgiC?
'p HIGHW S
?i EJECT: Effect of bridge closings for McDowell Co. School
Buses.
E-2847 3 Buses cross bridge #65 over N. Muddy Creek on SR1760
Twice a day. The dosing of thy- bridge would cause a hardship
for these ., bus routes. McDowell Co. Schools last day will be
May 27, 1996 & will resume classes on Aug 9, _996.
B-2998 2 Buses cross bridge #41 over the Second Broad River on
SR 1147 twice a day. Other alternatives are available for these
routes.
B-2999 0 Buses cross bridge #317 on SR1267.
B-8002 0 Buses cross bridge #60 on SR1764.
Sincerely,
Eddie Laney
transportation Director
F,
U.S. OEPAATMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPA_106
yoil Conservaoon Seance
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
8-2998 FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
RT I (To be completed by Fedwe/ Agency) (3. Oat* or Lane Evaiuanort Fteaueat .5&2 17 L I4. sh " I d
,. pry 0, r l A y, f4 a -41 on 6 R- i over Sff. 'ro P, i O .
Z Type of Proles 6. County and State CD . C
rt ?
P.AE;ET IEs(TctiscamptstedbySCS/ 1 DassAwue 8. Z Fscson.Cetpia r .-
;`'-
:3??:aoas:she:?stidorpntaist.ptimg;.uniquestatewids.ortocaf.ienpat?nt-fat?aesd't 4.:.Aassi(sieam?•- aweagsranttaus•
'ftcS' fvi
::.;::-(t8eict;)lxe:f+?pA:dces:nat:apaiy-Jarnor.comt?bets:ad,?EoetaPoaets.ot.tRissfnmr5:...
S..:Fsrmabltt-Landart
• s=' : ..::.;::::-...:;..:-.:...::.?;: Gov?tman[Jtutsds=?->.:s?:>?- ? ::insounEG7Fattteend?ASCo9rteQfet.Fr?PA?
... :...:,.Acres •.». .. • .:: ?>.::;,:• >3?:?c; ?. •;::.. ?:
_ er
Acre:
?...i?fsme-<?Eaad Evafuaeoes•Sysuse? Usad S..•.,Wr++s-atLoeat.5aa?asaesamerx Sysaar
tQ fJat?•EanaEyartaenRii 3ySCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment
Corridor A Corridor 8 Corridor C I Corridor 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Oirec-ly 1 5 `f V t Z 1 0,q1 i
3. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirecav. Cr To Receive Services I O I -1 L4 (:. Total Acres In Comdor 1 1 S 1 , (p ! 1 /-9151 1
PkFCFt1f {Tc:tie compteted bySCSj tatrd:Evalrufka fnlormatiorx
.; :. : r
8 MF tat :?.?te+vrce And'[ceatamtsottarscFarrrtfana
:P?rrtac:aCfi:annarsd-trr;;?t?rtPSCi*tdiaf'Ctivr.:tlnFCTo?Le:C'anverte?=:>`; ,#::... C3.;t3?? ?:.,:::- .. .:: 1'SO: I:> .::?:?0 l I>
o:?•????ttta?:?f:?rm?r?:Re-w::-?t:risCf?dn-Wkh•.SarrreCrHiatrer ReratiyeVaiuet' < 'Ir,•?.: ?,.:::..:::.?c, ...;;.;I: :. [. : ..
:FAfET3fbsT.corn/sleted.bySC3/.taitdEva?attot::s?trarfonl?rarr?:?i+rtter
ofFarmirrtd 3c>Bs3ervieed orC.onverted"IStafa•ot foe Rokrtst;; j { . ;
PART VI (To be eamplered by Federal Ageneyl Corrldoi I !la>omurn I I
?sasamsnt Crirsria 1Tltess erltsrie aro srplained /n 7 CFA 6385(ef) Peinta
1. Area In Nonurean Use I 15 1 [ 5 I I S I I
2. Perimeter in Nonuman Use 10 I 1 O 1 O 111 1
3. Percent Of Comddr Seine Farmed I 20 I S I I I I
d. PrnteCron Provided By State And Lo= Government I 20 I O I 0 I I
5. Size Of P-esent Farm Unit Cormoared To Average i 10 I 5 I I I
S. vn4aaon Of Nonfarmabfe Parmiand 1 25 I I p 1
7. Avaiiawity Of Farm Suddort Services ( 5
8. Cn-:arm Investments I 20 I I rni
IC% 1
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Services I 25 I 0 i 0 1 v-? 1
10. Comeatibiiity With Existina Adnc•itural Use 1 10 1 i I IV I
. qE
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS + 150 I 5 S ' i
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Reiative Value Of Farmiand (From Part v) I 100 I (00 ( ( 0 C ( Vi Q) f
Total Corn=r Assessment (From Part VI above or a Wcai site 150
assessment) I rj 3 55
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above Z lines) I 250 I 155 1 5, )
1. Comaor Seiected. 2. . otai Aces at Farmiands to ce 3. Oats Ct Selecaon: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Cotrvertedby Proles:
yeg C1 NO Q
Signature of Person Comoieang 7 his Parr. A
i
NOTE: C orr'01,2!e ? farm +or envi si?cTPnf with morn than Ona• Ait?m;;pwp Corricor

APR 1 5 1996
H?csIcv of
Fir
/20%tv
T 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
greenfin shiner
spottail shiner
yellowfin shiner
swallowtail shiner
sandbar shiner
creek chub
striped jumprock
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
Scientific Name
Canostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Cyprindla chloriWus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutipinnis
Notropis procne
Notropis scepticus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma rupiscartes
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Other species collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
highback chub Notropis hypsinotus
white sucker Catostomus 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
Group IX
redbreast sunfish
pumpkinseed
bluegill
largemouth bass
B-2941- Catawba Cou
Page 3 April 10, 1996
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lgpomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
nty, Bridge No. 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Menhinick of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte collected the following species in 1991:
Common Name Scientific Name
common carp Cyprinus cwpio
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 rupiscmies
channel catfish ktalurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
B-2998 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 41 on SR 1147 over Second Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in the Second Broad River in 1988:
Common Name Scientific Name
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyn*omelas
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
Cyprinella zamema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinolus
CyprineUa chlorisdus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semodlus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscartes
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupesMs
Lepomis auritus
Etheostoma f labellare
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
Scientific Name
Cyprinella labrosa
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis ludpinnis
Semodlus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
Lgpomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Piedmont darter Percina crassa
seagreen darter Etheostoma thalassinum
B-3002 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in South Muddy Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
rosyside dace 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 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

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:
?E!
y? -tIGHr?r,?.
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):
Alleghany County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
This species generally is found beneath large flat stones or logs in
shallow clear-running streams and rivers. It is presently known
from at least one location in the Little River, 7 miles east of
Sparta.
Kanawha minnow (Phenocobius teretulus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to large clear streams within the New River
drainage of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is
presently known from at least one location in the Little River,
0.5 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 (Hvbopsis 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
This species is endemic to
occurs in the riffle areas
gravel substrates. There
the Little Tennessee River
River systems. There is a
River.
raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
the upper Tennessee River. It generally
of large rivers that have cobble and
are only a few extant populations left in
Toe River Cane River and Nolichucky
historical record from the Swannanoa
French Broad crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to North Carolina and is known from the
headwater portions of the French Broad River and one stream in the
Savannah River drainage. It was once found in the Swannanoa River
near Black Mountain.
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) - Federal species of
concern. This species is generally found in association with other
acidophiles, such as ericaceacous shrubs, hemlock, rhododendron, and
mountain Laurel.

3

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
Virginia spiraea (SSpiraea virginiana) - Federally threatened. This
species occurs within the scour zone on the banks of high-gradient
streams or on braided features such as point bars, natural levees,
or meander scrolls of the lower reaches of streams. It may occur
within the floodplain, but it is most often found at the water's
edge. There is a historical record of this species along Hominy
Creek near Asheville.
Catawba County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several creeks in the county,
including Brushy Creek, Sandy Run, and Poundingmill Creek.
Cleveland County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
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. brevistvla) - Federal
species of concern. This species grows in various habitats, from
rocks near water falls, in sand at the edge of running water, in
shady deep moist loam soils, and on dry hillsides. It favors cool,
damp, shady stream banks with fertile. moderately acid, soils.

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.
Sinz/Glely,
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
p E H N F1
Jonathon B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric Galamb4
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
A,
D

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 14, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
MAY 1 7 1995
DI vis/C,?I ,-
c?AH1GIgWAYS < it, fiavr?
This is in response to your letter of March 11, 1996 subject: "Request for
Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
?.E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence): continued
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
Mr. Larry Workman (CEORH-PD-S)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington
502 Eighth Street
Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070
May 13, 1996
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for Alleghany and Buncombe Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District. With the exception of Alleghany and Cleveland Counties, these bridges are
located within counties which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Alleghany County has flood hazard areas identified on Flood Hazard Boundary
Maps, but has not had detailed mapping done and does not participate in the program.
Cleveland County has mapping done on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
anticipation of future participation in the NFIP, but does not currently participate in the
program. From the various FIRMs, it appears that both approximate study and detail
study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information
pertaining to these bridges is contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the
county flood insurance study unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Tvpe 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.
i
May 13, 1996
Page 3 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categcrical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
i
May 13, 1996
Page 4of4
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
f ,
f
McDowell County
SR 1147
Bridge No. 41- Over Second Broad River
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1?/ r
to H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Z/ . /1", 2-::Lz2z?
Date ?? Nich L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
s
McDowell County
SR 1147
Bridge No. 41 Over Second Broad River
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 1997
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental B;`hp? i?By:
N CARO
?0OFESSi0 %.
SEAE
ames A. Buck, P.E. i 20335
Project Planning Engineer ':; ?'?.!1'C/ NEB-?
,"FS A.
410- a (JILOILA-'_3 -
G 1 rimes, P. f. -
C ulting Engi ring Unit Head
r
McDowell County
SR 1147
Bridge No. 41 Over Second Broad River
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1147(2)
State Project No. 8.2870801
T.I.P. No. B-2998
I. Background
A Project Planning Report (Categorical Exclusion) for the subject project was
approved by the Federal Highway Administration in November 1996.
The recommended alternative was to replace the bridge on new location
approximately 97 meters (320 ft.) east of the existing bridge (see attached figure).
II. Discussion
The recommended alternative bisects several fields used for farming. Due to the
limited acreage of land suitable for farming in the area and the low traffic volumes on SR
1147, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division 13 Office requested a
lower design speed and the selection of Alternative C as the recommended alternative.
Alternative C will replace the bridge with a culvert on new alignment within the
existing corridor with back to back curves of 80 meter radii (22 degree) (see attached
figure). This alternative will provide a design speed of 50 km/h (30 mph). A horizontal
design exception will be required.
One accident was reported in the project area during the period from April 1992 to
March 1995, which suggests a lower design speed will not compromise safety.
Alternative C will impact 0.20 hectare (.51 acre) of soils defined as prime and
statewide or local important farmland soils. Alternative A impacts 0.65 hectare (1.54
acres). Alternative C will cost an estimated $ 355,500 versus Alternative A's estimated
cost of $ 508,000.
Based on the Division recommendation, reduced cost and reduced impact on
farmlands in the project area, Alternative C is the recommended alternative.
??T 8
'h+n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
March 18, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge Group IX, Bridge 41 on SR 1 147 over
Second Broad River, McDowell County, Federal
Aid Project BRZ-1 147(2), State Project
8.2870801, TIP B-2998, ER 97-8708
Dear Mr. Graf:
We have received the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above project from the
North Carolina Department of Transportation by their letter of February 25, 1997.
We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic 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,
Z&k ?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw?
cc: VH. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

11
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
n?1c ?l
d ?a.q
?@ ww ws`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
April 28, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY

Subject: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 41 over Second Broa6 -N
River on SR 1147; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1147(2); State Project
No. 8.2870801; TIP No. B-2998; COE ID 199830194 and 199830083.
Dear Sir:
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) and Nationwide Permit 6 for the subject project on 4 December
1997. Since the issuance of these permits, changes in the project's design have been
made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT). Consequently, DOT
needs a permit modification for this work. The replacement of Bridge No. 41 is
scheduled to be let August 1999.
The DOT was granted a 401 Water Quality Certification November 17, 1997.
This letter notifies the DWQ (Division of Water Quality) of the recent changes in design
for the replacement of Bridge No. 41. DOT is committed to meeting the general
conditions of this certification.
Information regarding the project description has changed since the distribution
of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) in a letter dated 9 December 1998. The project
involves replacing Bridge No. 41 over Second Broad River on SR 1147. The bridge will
be replaced with a triple barrel reinforced 12'x 9' box culvert instead of a double barrel
box culvert as described in the existing permit. It will have low flow sills in the exterior
barrels. The culvert is to be staged in order to manage the stream flow. There will be
no need for a temporary causeway within the stream. The culvert will be placed on new
location approximately 320 feet east of the existing bridge as described in the CE
document. During project construction, traffic will still be maintained using the existing
bridge. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the subject project.
The DOT requests that the COE modify the permits for the replacement of Bridge
No. 41. If the DWQ would like to comment on the design changes made for this project
please do so. The DOT also requests that the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) provide comments to the COE concerning the proposed changes in
design.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Ms.
Shannon Simpson at [phone], extension.
Sincerely,
4 " l? • ?lLwu? ,yam
William D. Gilmore, Manaae-
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/sls
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Ron Elmore, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Mr. W.D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer

z\,I el
I
I I z ??
• ?W
W? 7w
a
I yj W
U ?
u
II fI
i
ti
U
m?
VI U
8 I'
ni
Q I .?

1111 F v'3'Sl „0-,Z 30 ?1 ' I I ? I I ?o
w
Q
U
ip ' ? tL ? ?p
ti ? m
O m
U ?

vi 7?.Z n
2
u I 1?,Z ??vS o

4
"
,ni m i b '7J ..Z
vi
a
U ?;•.i U Q ODU? ?

T = (a 3IE U _
O tQ

I`
\
O
V1 "I
Lo N
3
M

m

?,
YE
m
!9 L 91E O
N

O
(VAI)
m U lf'1SNOD
L
m C ?F m
I O I

C
m
O
ti
U
W
2
ti
V,
co
U
10
m I 'I
r
.o
n
ti
O
Z
y
n
v
O?
ti
z
?i
n?
r
c
?nn
4! 1
N)
0?
N
co
C:b
°
t
\ I
?? I rte.
r ?I
-? l
o
o \
X_
TO SR 1 145
SR 1147 BETHEL CHURCH RD.
-A

O
C
y
r
ti
C7 ?,
n?
n?
r?
0
orn
tirn
oc
zy
ti
cj\
I?~ 9
O

-=r
\
°
k
F-,
O ti
CU
Uri Q)oo?
rnrnrn
g?z
0
O O A
4
0
i
n
-? -? 1 T T
\ \ TO SR 1135
o ..
nci
O
I
°i 1 X
?l I I
-rte