20010228 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501 LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 2, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890 010228
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1311 over North Fork Little River,
Montgomery County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1311(3), State Project No.
8.2550301, TIP No. B-3211. Nationwide Permit 23 Application.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Project Planning Report for the above
referenced project. Bridge No. 119 will be replaced on new location to the north of the
existing bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 200 feet long and 30 feet in
overall clear roadway width, with a 22-foot travelway and 4-foot offsets on each side.
Traffic will be detoured on surrounding roads during construction.
There is a narrow wetland system bordering the North Fork Little River,
approximately 3 feet wide. Impacts to this wetland from the proposed construction are
relatively minor, totaling 0.006 acre. The impact to the North Fork Little River from the
new bridge crossing will be 45 feet.
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.

We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Sue Brady at
[phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division,of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. J. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
. ? 1
Montgomery County.
Bridge No. 119. on SR 1311
Over North Fork Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-131 l(3)
State Project 8.2550301
TIP Project B-3211
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
APPROVED:
AND
3 - (?'- po
. Date
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
William D. Gilmore, P .E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

Date Aicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Cf - MR/- JvOL
A
Montgomery County,
Bridge No. 119, on SR 1311
Over North Fork Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1311(3)
State Project 8.2550301
TIP Project B-3211
010228
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch By:

Date Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
3-6-00
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
3-LZ-00
Date

Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
f T
. i
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
B-3211. Monttomerv County
Montgomery County,
Bridge. No. 119, on SR 1311
Over West Fork Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1311(3)
State Project 8.2550301
01022.8-
1. Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Resident Engineer:
Revenetation: The existing bridge and approaches will be removed after the new bridge is
completed, and the area will be revegetated with appropriate plant species.
Moratorium On In-Water Construction: A moratorium on in-water construction activities
will be observed from April l to May 30 of any construction year.
Erosion and Sedimentation Control: Due to possibility of freshwater mussels existing
near the bridge, erosion and sedimentation control measures will adhere to the "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" during construction.
2.Itoadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is -composed mainly of timber and steel -
components, with two bents of mass concrete: The timber and steel components will be removed
without dropping into the water. The:asphalt wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition.
without dropping into the water. There is a potential formatenal from the concrete bents to enter
Waters of the United States during demolition. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
bridge will be a maximum of approximately 28 cubic yards. During construction, Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
Montgomery County,
Bridge No. 119, on SR 1311
Over West Fork Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1311(3)
State Project 8.2550301
TIP Project B-3211
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 119, in Montgomery County. This bridge carries
SR 1311 over the West Fork Little River, in the northeastern part of Montgomery County. NCDOT
and FHWA classify this action as a Categorical Exclusion, due to the fact that no notable
environmental impacts are likely to occur as a result of project construction. NCDOT will replace
Bridge No. 119 on new alignment to the north of the existing bridge, as shown in Figure 2. The new
bridge will be approximately 200 feet (61 m) in length, and 30 feet (9 m) in overall cleat roadway
width. A travelway of 22 feet (6.7 m) will be accommodated, with an offset of 4 feet (1.2 m) on each
side. The new bridge will be at a higher elevation than the existing bridge. The project will require
800 feet (244 m) of new approach roadways.
The estimated project cost is $969,000 including $19,000 for Right-of-Way acquisition and
$950,000 for construction. The estimated cost projected by the 2000-2006 Transportation
Improvement Program was $510,000; including $80,000 in prior year cost, $30,000 for Right-of-Way
Acquisition, and $400,000 for construction.
H. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS:
A design exception will be necessary for this project. The design speed at the bridge will be
25 MPH (40 km/h). NCDOT believes that this design speed is consistent with the local character and
low traffic volume of the secondary road. The roadway is not posted for speed limit, thereby reverting
to the statutory 55 MPH (90 km/h).
III. EXISTING CONDMONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1311 as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The land use of the surrounding area is rural with scattered low density residential
development. Adjacent to the bridge, the land is undeveloped.
Near Bridge No. 119, SR 1311 is a two lane, paved roadway, 16 feet ( 5 m) in width, with
•6 foot (2 m) wide or greater grassed shoulders on each side. The existing bridge carves one lane.
Vertical alignment in both directions is fair, while horizontal alignment is poor.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 119 in 1921. The bridge has an asphalt overlay wearing surface on
a timber floor. This floor is on steel I-beams. The superstructure is a steel pony truss. The end bents
are of timber cap and pile and the interior bents are mass concrete. The deck of Bridge 119 is 24 feet
(7.3 m) above the stream bed. Water depth in West Fork Little River is approximately one foot
(0.3 m) at the bridge vicinity. Bridge 119 is 101 feet (31 m) long, with an 11.1 foot (3.4m) roadway
width. One lane of traffic is carried and the load limit is 11 tons (10 metric tons) for single vehicles
and 14 tons (13 metric tons) for Truck-Tractor Semi-Trailers.
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance records, the bridge's sufficiency rating is 21.0 out
of a possible 100.0. The current traffic volume is 240 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to increase to
560 VPD by the design year (2020). No speed limit is posted in the project area, therefore it is
assumed to be 55 MPH (90 km/h) by statute.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate there were no vehicle crashes reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 119 between November 1, 1993, and October 31, 1996. The Transportation
Director of Montgomery County schools indicates that there are no school busses crossing the bridge;
school busses do not use SR 1311 due to the many curves.
IV. ALTERNATES:
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 119 were studied. Alternate 1 involves a replacement
structure approximately 130 feet (40 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide. Alternate 2 involves a
replacement structure approximately 200 feet (61 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide. Each replacement
structure would accommodate a 22 foot (6.7 m) travelway across the structure with a 4 foot (1.2 m)
lateral offset on each side. The approach roadway will consist of 30 feet (9 m) of pavement width
accommodating 22 feet (6.7 m) of travelway and 4 feet (1.2 m) of paved shoulder on each side. Each
alternate provides a design speed of 25 MPH (40 km/h).
The project alternates studied were as follows:
Alternate One: - Replace bridge on existing location with a new bridge approximately 130 feet
(40 m) long, with improved approaches. Approximately 1400 feet (427 m) of approach roadway work
is required. Traffic would be detoured along existing roads as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate Two: (Recommended) - Replace bridge with a new 200 foot (61 m) bridge to the north of
the existing bridge, with improved approaches. Approximately 800 feet (244 m) of approach roadway
work is required. Traffic would be detoured along existing roads as shown in Figure 1.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. The sufficiency rating of the existing bridge is only 21.0 out
of 100.0, and the existing bridge carries only one lane of traffic. Rehabilitation of the existing
deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
2
V. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated project costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Structure Removal
Misc. & Mob.
Subtotal
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Construction Cost
Right-of-Way and Utilities
Total Project Cost
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
(Recommended)
$301,840 $450,000
1,027,125 156,250
8,065 8,065
365,674 215,685
$1,702,704 $830,000
200,000 120,000
$1,902,704 $950,000
63,000 19,000
$1,965,704 $969,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 119 with a new bridge with improved approaches, placed to
the north of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 1. The new bridge will be approximately 200 feet
(61 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide. This structure will accommodate a 22 foot (6.7 m) travelway with
a 4 foot (1.2 m) lateral offset on each side.
Initial design indicates that completed project will provide a design speed of 25 MPH
(40 km/h). The project will require approximately 800 feet (244 m) of new approach roadway. The
approach roadway will Consist of 30 feet (9 m) of pavement accommodating 22 feet (6.7 m) of
travelway and 4 feet (1.2 m) of paved shoulder on each side. Shoulder width including grassed
portions will be a minimum of 6 feet (1.8 m) on each side. Where guardrail is required, shoulders will
be a minimum of 9 feet (2.7 m) wide on each side.
The existing bridge and approaches will be removed after the new bridge is completed, and
the area will be revegetated.
NCDOT recommends that Alternate 2 be constructed, in order to improve the bridge
approach alignment and to provide the most economical replacement alternative.
Alternate 2 includes a detour via NC 134, SR 1115 and SR 1188 in Randolph County, and
continuing on as SR 1349 in Montgomery County (see Figure 1). The proposed detour would add
4.7 miles (7.6 km) of additional travel to the average road user. All bridges along these routes have a
capacity as good or better than the bridge being replaced. Due to the local topography, it is not
practical to maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction of either alternate.
The Division 8 Engineer concurs with the selection of the recommended alternate. The
Division Engineer stated that road closure during construction will not pose a major problem. Also,
school bus operations will not pose a problem.
3
Bridge 119 is located on the North Carolina Bicycling Highways Piedmont Spur Route. The
project will be designed to accommodate bicycle concerns. The new bridge and approaches will
alleviate an existing hazard for bicyclists, by providing a 4 foot (1.2 m) offset on each side.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) due to its limited scope and
insubstantial environmental consequences.
The bridge project will not have a substantial 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 change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project. No adverse effect on families or
communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic or religious opportunities in the area.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities or wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance are in the vicinity of the project.
Construction of the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain or
associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more than
12 inches (0.3 m).
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this size and magnitude.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
B. Architectural & Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, & implemented by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally
funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on property listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation will be given an
opportunity to comment.
Architectural Resources
A meeting was held with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate potential
effects of the project. Bridge No. 119 is the only historic architectural structure located within the
area of potential effect. Therefore, SHPO recommended that the bridge be surveyed for eligibility for
the National Register, and recommended that no additional historic architectural surveys be
conducted.
4
The area of potential effect (APE) was reviewed in the field by an NCDOT staff architectural
historian. The bridge had been evaluated as part of a re-evaluation study of metal truss bridges by
representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, NCDOT, and the SHPO. Bridge 119 was
determined to be not eligible for the National Register. SHPO concurred with this finding in their
letter dated August 7, 1997 (see appendix).
Since there are no properties in the APE which are either listed or eligible for the National
Register, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on historic architectural resources.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO indicated that there are no known recorded archaeological sites within the area of
potential effect, and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources could be affected by the project.
Therefore, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project. Thus, it is concluded that the project will have no effect on archaeological resources.
C. Natural Systems
Physical Resources
Physiography
The project area lies in the south central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic province.
Most of the streams in this province flow southward and southwestward. The topography of the
project area is characterized as gently rolling to hilly, and the inter-stream areas are fairly broad. The
project vicinity is approximately 600 feet (183 m) above mean sea level. The region receives average
annual precipitation of about 44 inches (111 cm).
Soils
There is no published soil survey for Montgomery County. However, field observations
confirmed the existence of soils consistent with the Herndon soils description throughout the majority
of the project area. Herndon soils are non-hydric. Hydric soils were located immediately adjacent to
the West Fork Little River within a narrow floodplain.
There were few hydric soils within the project area. Those found were exclusively located
immediately adjacent to the river within the weakly defined floodplain. Hydric soil samples consisted
of a silty loam texture that contained a matrix color measuring a dark grayish brown (10YR4/1 and
10YR4/2) with limited yellowish red mottling measuring a color of 10YR4/6.
Surface Water Resources
Water Body Characteristics
The West Fork Little River is in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. In general, this river is
meandering in the project region. The river channel is 35 feet (11 m) to 50 feet (15 m) wide with
river banks that are sloping and steep. The topography of the surrounding terrestrial community is on
steep slopes that lead into the river. A weakly developed floodplain that is approximately 1 foot
5
(0.3 m) to 3 feet (1 m) lies adjacent on both sides of the river. In the project area, the average depth of
the West Fork Little River is about 1 feet (0.3 m) with some pools as deep as 2 feet (0.6 m). Its width
ranges from 30 to 45 feet (9 in to 14 m) averaging about 38 feet (12 m).
Best Usage Classification
The West Fork Little River is designated as freshwater protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, and aquatic life including propagation and survival of wildlife
(Class Q.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macro-invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses surface waters by
sampling for selected benthic macro-invertebrate organisms that are indicative of water quality. The
West Fork Little River has had designated sampling sites established at SR 1311 within the project
area. The results of monitoring performed in July, 1997, indicate that the West Fork Little River had
an "excellent" water quality rating by the DWQ (DENR, 1997).
DENR's NPDES report lists two dischargers located downstream of the project area. These
two facilities are the Troy Wastewater Treatment Plant (approximately 4.8 miles or 7.7 km) and the
Biscoe Wastewater Treatment Plant (approximately 9.6 miles or 3 km).
Wetlands
Within the project area, the wetlands are associated with the weakly developed floodplain of
the West Fork Little River and would be considered a Palustrine Forested Broad-leafed Deciduous
Seasonally Flooded (PFOIC) wetland community as defined by the USFWS (Cowardin, 1979). This
wetland community is strictly associated with the. floodplain and is approximately 3 feet (1 m) in
width. The vegetative layers are limited in diversity. The canopy is dominated by red maple. The
shrub layer is dominated by hazel alder, ironwood. The vine layer is non-existent. The herbaceous
layer is dominated by jewel weed, New York fern, and sedges. Hydric soils were confirmed within
the floodplain.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the habitat communities observed in the project area, and the
relationships between the biotic communities. In the case of natural terrestrial systems, plant
communities are discussed as described in the Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina - Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Disturbed communities are described
consistent with field observations.
Terrestrial Communities
One natural community type, Dry Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest, was identified within the
project area. The other terrestrial community in the project area are maintained communities
consisting of roadside shoulders and embankments. Community composition is reflective of the
current and past land uses of the area.
6
Dry Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest
This terrestrial community occurs throughout the southern portion of the project vicinity
along both sides of West Fork Little River, south of SR 1311, and along the west side of West Fork
Little River north of SR 1311. It is typical of dissected lands near rivers and creeks. The canopy is
dominated by mixtures of oaks and hickories, with white oak most prevalent, along with red oak,
mockernut hickory, sweet pignut hickory, and shagbark hickory. Tulip poplar and sweet gum are also
common. The sapling and shrub layers consist of red maple, flowering dogwood, hop hornbeam,
black haw, gooseberry and American holly. The herb and vine layers are sparse, consisting of
common greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, sassafras, muscadine grape, Virginia creeper, and
blackberry.
The forest floor is heavily covered with leaves and fallen branches, providing habitat for
various reptiles, amphibians and small mammals such as the American toad, slimy salamander, three-
lined salamander, marbled salamander, ground skink, and eastern hognose snake, which live under
the litter layer, feeding on various species of beetles, ants, and other insects, as well as herbaceous
plant material.
Spring peepers, are common occupants of this community type; however, because of their
camouflaged color patterns, close amity with trees, and the time of year the site visit occurred, these
species were difficult to observe. Insects and spiders are the primary food items of these species.
Other species associated with this type of community are the golden mouse, which builds its
nests in vines or shrubs a few meters off the ground, and the eastern box turtle, a common species
feeding on plant material, insects, and small animals.
Stumps, roots and tree cavities provide shelter for numerous avian and mammalian species
which include: red-eyed vireo, downy woodpecker, wood thrush, gray squirrel, and raccoon. The
white-footed mouse utilizes this terrestrial habitat to build nests in hollow trees from grass, leaves and
shredded bark.
Some predators likely to occur here include eastern-screech-owl, black rat snake, gray fox
and copperhead.
Maintained Communities
Maintained communities are lands in which the vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-
successional state. These communities include roadside shoulders and embankments. This
community type has had some degree of past or continued human disturbance. As a result of man-
influenced disturbances, this community type differs significantly from the natural community
description. Fescue is the primary plant component of this community. Various other species
associated with forest edge are also a component of this community type which include Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy, Virginia creeper, muscadine grape, pokeweed, johnson grass and blackberry.
An electrical utility corridor is adjacent to the eastern side of the roadway corridor,- outside
the project area. The utility corridor is situated adjacent to SR 1311 on the east side and traverses
through the agricultural field to the south of SR 1311 before the West Fork Little River.
7
Resident fauna in maintained communities is limited by continual habitat disturbances and
consists mainly of small animals. Species such as eastern harvest mouse and white-footed mouse
likely inhabit this terrestrial community. Insects, earthworms and other invertebrates are also
abundant in this terrestrial community.
Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor between other habitats, or as a
foraging zone for species of adjacent woodlands.
Aquatic Communities
The West Fork Little River is the only aquatic community type in the project area. Species
composition, diversity, and population of this aquatic community is indicative of physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. DENR's BMAN monitoring
sites in the project area at SR 1311 indicate that the West Fork Little River had an "excellent" water
quality by the DWQ. Water quality of aquatic communities is also indirectly influenced by the
adjacent terrestrial communities.
Limited sampling for aquatic species was performed consisting of actively searching the river
substrate within the project area. Each species observed was examined and noted. The following
macro-invertebrate species were noted during the field investigations: Asian clam, Eastern elliptio,
Carolina creekshell, and crayfish. No other systematic sampling for vertebrates or vascular plants
was performed for this study although data from published reports is provided. Fish sampling was
conducted by the DWQ which resulted in a "good" rating, approximately 6 miles (9.7 km) upstream
of the project area at SR 1115 in Randolph County. Fish tissue samples of all metals indicated that
the levels of metals were lower than Federal Department of Agriculture (FDA) and Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) criteria (DENR, 1997).
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of river ecosystems, as primary and secondary
consumers, and as prey items for organisms higher in the food chain. Invertebrates, such as dobson
flies, dragon flies, mosquitoes and black flies, and craneflies are likely to be the dominant aquatic
insect species. Crayfish, snails, and surface beetles (whirligig beetles and water striders) were
observed in the river.
The aquatic community serves as a major food source for many terrestrial organisms such as
raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles, and amphibians. It also serves as a means of
predator avoidance for many animals.
Algae growth was not evident in the West Fork Little River, indicative of high dissolved
oxygen content and stable nutrient conditions. Relatively high flows rates associated with this river,
limited riverside agricultural fields and vegetated buffers between agricultural areas and the river help
prevent eutrophication.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Surface Water Resources
Although some permanent impacts to surface waters will occur, they will be an incremental
increase since a bridge crossing already exists.
8
Most impacts will be temporary in nature during project construction and are likely to be
limited to the project area. Construction activities which will result in temporary impacts to water
resources include: clearing, grubbing, earthwork, and in-stream construction activities. Temporary
impacts include: increased sedimentation and siltation, and a corresponding decrease of dissolved
oxygen during construction.
Siltation during construction will be the most serious impact to the West Fork Little River.
Minimizing the amount of clearing and grubbing activity and the duration of construction will
decrease impacts from turbidity and sedimentation on the river. Minimizing in-stream construction
activities can decrease impacts to water resources. Strict adherence to, and enforcement of,
sedimentation and erosion control practices will minimize stormwater runoff and sediment loading
into the waterway.
There will be one wetland community type associated with the floodplain of the West Fork
Little River that may be impacted by the proposed action. This wetland community is relatively
narrow in size, approximately 3 feet (1 m) wide. Assuming an 80 feet (24 m) right-of-way, it is
estimated that 264 square feet or 0.006 acre (24 square meters or 0.002 hectare) of the wetland
community will be impacted by both alternatives. Wetland values and functions such as flood flow
retention and ecological diversity will be lost as a result of either of the proposed alternatives.
Although similar water resource impacts will be associated with both of the proposed
alternatives, Alternative 1 will have the least overall impact to water resources as it requires less
clearing activities. Alternative 2 is aligned to the north of the existing bridge; therefore, resulting in
additional clearing of the river banks and compounding additional disturbances.
Wetland Community
Alternative Palustrine Forested (PF01C)
1 264 square feet (24 square meters).
0.006 acre (0.002 hectare)
2 264 square feet (24 square meters).
0.006 acre (0.002 hectare)
Estimates given are based on proposed 80 feet (24 m) ROW.
Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic communities.
This section quantifies and qualifies these probable impacts, in terms of area impacted
(cleared/modified), and ecological consequences to the communities during the construction and
operation of the proposed roadway.
Terrestrial Communities
Portions of the two terrestrial community types (maintained and Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory
Forest) in the project area will be cleared or altered as a result of the project construction.
Estimations of area impacted for each community type are given in Table 1. These are based on
9
80 feet (24 m) right-of-way widths. Impacts to maintained communities include: roadside shoulders
and embankments.
TABLE 1. Anticipated Terrestrial Community Impacts
Community Type -
Alternative Maintained Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
1 11,761 square feet (1,069 square meters).
0.27 acre (0.11 hectare) 9,765 square feet (888 square meters).
0.22 acre (0.09 hectare)
2 3,395 sq.feet (309 m).
0.08 acre (0.03 hectare) 21,245 sq.feet (1,931 m).
0.49 acre (0.20 hectare)
Estimates were determined for impacts resulting from bridge, approaches and/or temporary detour.
Estimates given are based on proposed 80 feet (24 m) ROW. These estimations take into
consideration that some roadway exists for each of the approaches.
Aquatic Community
Both alternatives will involve the crossing of the West Fork Little River, the only aquatic
community in the project area. Impacts will be direct and indirect.
Direct impacts to the aquatic community will be attributable to excavation, filling, and
siltation. These impacts will result in temporarily decreasing species composition, diversity, and
populations, thereby corresponding to lower water quality. Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as
filter and deposit feeders, are particularly affected to excavation and filling operations.
Sedimentation can alter the composition of benthic communities either temporarily or permanently in
the proximity of the project. Siltation during bridge construction may adversely affect mobile aquatic
organisms, and macro and micro algae. The temporary increase in suspended particulates in the water
column could clog feeding apparti of suspension feeders, reduce the photosynthetic ability of algae,
clog gills of fish and crustaceans, bury larvae of amphibians and insects, and diminish reproductive
abilities in these organisms.
The slight modifications to the terrestrial communities caused by this project will result in
minimal indirect impacts to the aquatic community.
Based on this information, permanent degradation of the aquatic community is not expected
to occur due to direct or indirect impacts. The majority of the aquatic community impacts associated
with construction of this bridge replacement project will be due to siltation. These impacts will be
predominantly temporary in nature.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be strictly adhered to in order to minimize siltation,
thereby ensuring the biological integrity of the aquatic community, especially in light of the relatively
"excellent" water quality. The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) has identified
the Little River and its tributaries from its confluence with the Pee Dee River to the headwaters as one
of 25 areas in North Carolina that have formally been proposed as aquatic Critical Habitat (PCH).
These habitats are considered essential for the continued survival of several Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) listed mussels. Therefore in addition to BMPs, "Design Standard In Sensitive
Watersheds" will be implemented and adhered to during the construction of the project.
10
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
"Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) include wetland areas and surface waters. A
wetland community associated with the floodplain of the West Fork Little River has been delineated
with the boundaries flagged in the field. This wetland community is relatively small in size,
approximately 3.3 feet (1 m) wide. Although a survey of the wetland boundaries has not been
performed, estimates were based on an 80 feet (32 m) right-of-way width. Both alternatives for this
project will impact 264 sq feet (80 m). Surface waters within the project area consist of the West
Fork Little River and would be crossed by this bridge replacement project for a distance of 30 feet
(9 m) for Alternative 1 and 45 feet (14 m) for Alternative 2.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a permit will be required
from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredge or fill material
into "Waters of the United States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 will likely apply for
this project.
Nationwide 23 Permit
A Section 404 NWP 23 (33 CFR 330 Appendix A, Section B.26) may be applicable for all
impacts to "Waters of the United States" found in the project area. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal
agency or department where:
"... that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the council of environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(and) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination."
This project will require a Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certificate from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of the NWP. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "Waters
of the United States." The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a
Section 404 permit. NWP 23 also requires that the Corps issue a Public Notice prior to issuing its
permit and that the District Engineer can add project specific conditions to the authorization.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
11
purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of
"Waters of the United States", specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined
by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (46 m) of streams may require compensatory
mitigation in accordance with 15NCAC2H.0506(h). Written DWQ approval is required for this
mitigation plan which may utilize the state's Wetland Restoration Program. A final determination
regarding mitigation to "Waters of the United States" rests with the USACE and DWQ.
Regional Conditions of NWP 23 and the 401 Water Quality Certification waiver require
compensatory mitigation for impacts greater than 1 acre (0.4 hectare). Final construction plans
should be compared to a surveyed wetland delineation to determine if this threshold has been
exceeded.
Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action which has the potential to have a detrimental impact to
the survival or well being of any species federally classified as protected is subject to review by the
USFWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMF), under the provisions of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered species receive additional protection under
separate statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under N.C. General Statutes
(G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S.113-331 to 113-337 of
1987.
Federal Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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. An endangered species is considered
to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A threatened species is considered to be a species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists five federally protected species for
Montgomery County, as of the list published January 15, 1999. Descriptions and biological
conclusions for each species are given below.
12
TABLE 2. Federally Protected Species for Montgomery County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Felis concolor cougar eastern cougar E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T**
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E*
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E 77d
* Obscure record - the data and/or location of observation is uncertain.
** Proposed to be de-listed.
E - denotes Federally Endangered.
T - denotes Federally Threatened.
Vertebrates
Eastern Cougar
The eastern cougar is a large cat that is up to 7.5 feet (2.3 m) in total length, and weighs up to
150 lbs. The fur of the eastern cougar is light brownish, with whitish underparts and a dark-tipped
tail. There are undocumented reports exist of black cougars. The paw prints of the eastern cougar are
up to 3.5 in.; the claws are retractable and thus are usually not seen in prints, unlike most dog tracks.
The eastern cougar usually buries scat.
The eastern cougar is found in remote areas, such as mountains, gorges, and swamps, with
large deer populations. The eastern cougar is possibly in remote areas of the North Carolina
mountains and coastal plain areas. Within the last couple of decades, undocumented sightings have
been reported from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Pisgah and Nantahala National
Forests, the Blue Ridge Parkway, northern portions of Uwharrie National Forest, and from
southeastern counties in North Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and
National Park Service have conducted tracking surveys and constructed scent stations, but have found
no hard evidence of eastern cougars to date.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Although suitable habitats exist within the dry mesic oak - hickory forest community of the
project area, the project region does not have enough remote forest conducive to eastern cougar. A
review of the NCNHP database on March 25, 1998 did not indicate any known occurrences of the
eastern cougar near the project area, nor has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the U.S. Forest
Service and National Park Service found evidence of eastern cougars to date. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the eastern cougar.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - RCW
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and white
except for a small red spot behind the eye in the male. The back of the RCW is black and white with
horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The
RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
13
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for
foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory,
and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are greater than 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres ( 202 hectares). This area must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are infected
with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 12 feet (3.7 m) to
100 feet (30 m) above the ground and average 30 feet (9 m) - 50 feet (15 m) high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in
April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No suitable habitat in the form of mature open pine stands occur within the project area for
the RCW. A review of the NCNHP database on March 25, 1998 did not indicate any known
occurrences of the RCW near the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the
RCW.
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle is a large, blackish bird that measures 32 in. to 43 in. long, with a white head
and tail, and a yellow bill. The wingspread is about 7 feet (2.1 m). Immature birds lack the white
head and tail, and have a dark bill and pale markings on the belly, tail, and under the wings. The
lower section of the leg has no feathers. Nests are cone-shaped, 6 feet (1.8 m) to 8 feet (2.4 m) from
top to bottom, and 6 feet (1.8 m) or more in diameter.
- Bald eagles in the southeast frequently build their nests in the transition zone between forest
and march or open water. Nests are typically constructed in dominant live trees that provide a good
view and clear flight path, usually less than 0.5 mile (0.8 km) from open water. Winter roosts are also
usually in areas dominated by trees, but may be somewhat farther from water. The bald eagle is
known to occur at Jordan Lake. Immature birds occur there year-round, while adults appear in
warmer months.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Currently, the bald eagle is proposed to be de-listed from the Federally threatened protected
species status. For this project, no suitable habitat was observed at the project area nor the project
region in the form of large contiguous forested areas in close proximity to large open water habitats.
A review of the NCNHP database on March 25, 1998 did not indicate any known occurrences of the
bald eagle near the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
14
Vascular Plants
Smooth Coneflower
The smooth coneflower was once found in all of the Atlantic Coast states from Pennsylvania
to Georgia and on the Gulf Coast in Alabama and inland in Arkansas. Populations are now limited to
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
This perennial herb grows from simple or branched rhizomes. It grows up to 5 feet (1.5 m)
tall, has a smooth stem, and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest and are smooth to slightly
rough, tapered to the base, elliptical to broadly lanceolate, and measure 8 in. across and 2.8 in. wide
and are distinguished by long petioles. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are smaller
than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color, solitary, and 0.8 in. to 1 in. across.
The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong prismatic, four-angled, and 0.02 in.
to 0.16 in. long; seeds are 0.2 in. long.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands, glades,
cedar barrens, roadsides, power line right-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. North Carolina
populations are found in soils derived from diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are
in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants. Natural fires and
large herbivores are important in habitat maintenance of the smooth coneflower.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Although suitable habitat in the form of roadside shoulders which contain abundant sunlight
occurs in the project area, this species was not observed during field investigations conducted on May
6, 1998. In addition, the lack of a precise dates and/or locations of this species occurring within
Montgomery County questions whether this smooth coneflower actually occurs within this county. A
review of the NCNHP database on March 25, 1998 did not indicate any known occurrences of the
smooth coneflower near the project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the smooth
coneflower.
Schweinitz's Sunflower
The Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatus perennial herb that grows from 3.3 feet (1 m) to
6.6 feet (2 m) tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuburous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and
only branch above mid-stem. The narrowly lanceolate opposite leaves are 7.2 in. long and 1 in. wide.
The leaves are rough feeling above, and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath. Leaves are
opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become alternate on the upper stem. The 2.2 inch
(56 mm) broad flowers are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and
arranged in an open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is smooth, gray-black achene
approximately 0.2 inch (51 mm) long.
The Schweinitz's sunflower grows best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and along
the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods. Common soils that this species is found
in are moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content
(Iredell). Natural fires and large herbivores are considered to be historically important in maintaining
open habitat for these sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing, controlled burning, and
logging help maintain its open habitat.
15
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Although a limited amount of suitable sunflower habitat occurs within the project area in the
form of roadside shoulders and embankments, no species of sunflower were observed during field
surveys conducted on May 6, 1998. Although this species is easiest to differentiate during its
flowering season (September through frost), no sunflower species of any kind were identified in the
project area. Therefore, no additional surveys are necessary. A review of the NCNHP database on
March 25, 1998 did not indicate any known occurrences of the Schweinitz's sunflower near the
project area. Therefore, project construction will not affect the Schweinitz's sunflower.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, thus it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
If the project disposes of vegetation by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
Land around the bridge is un-zoned. The bridge is located in a sparsely settled rural agricultural
area. Farms and their associated dwellings, as well as traditional dwellings and mobile homes
characterize the area. Montgomery County has no published soil survey, thus the soil type cannot be
determined. The bridge is located such that no substantial effect on potential prime farmland should
occur.
16
1 1 1 1 r, ?. ?
4
111G •il_ly
6 1115 ry.f n'
0 1225
Randol h Count b „,y 1115
b 1_5 v c7 ' 1 PF_ x'71
n ? • ? L t
Montgomery County 1.5 1357 1354 s
34 -
Ab
1307 COO. • ?? ? • J °1 ?
/ WYSNER / cn & R
MOUNTAIN 1
1310 2.7
13x9 1354
r 1306 2.0 73
1309 1• 74
1311
Flint 2? , 2 1
Mill \ , , • ` / . ??(l ,
?• 1
1.0
1310 / ,'1340
?• ? 9 1348
I 'Q2 1352 \
I t^'A
/ 1351 n n Alle•d. A
f 1350__ (` `T
1 1 V
1349 , ?•9
EO t
1346
ONT 220
1. 1--
w, 10
Sa Az -
• \ '} aa• I / ' - _ f 1 SEAR
•
•
Detour Route ?-
Departmentof
ways
ment & Environmental
h
EAss1ys1sBmncb
a,wh
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 119 on SR 1311
ttle River
Over North Fork Li
B-3211
Figure 1

4

0?
1 uW t"? 7

•s;

;
'
'?6/
* e rr..
r
,?
y
.

?
11[ ti ?n ] 'i>w T 1 St hl ..n,A ??i? .} R }G ? -
y
Tl •
N?'•' y
.,,?,.,
i.
r?2
.. a ?.,
s
?k .' °?? ??
? ?"
at
?? _,.
' rr? .
`r
?
?J
?
?
t
4
W
+,Y
F ?/?
'
V 5 :?9
" T4•-';T,'
?
? ?
?
p
,
( / ?1 1 •ti. ^r

r 1?
t
1yyl CJ
?
tR??
}%
}_
? Abp
?? F f ( `
??,•

-44

'1

? N
rr'
^
1 ,
E ?
? ?i? 'MS2
\
?
t i? ?4 94/' = n
•
¢
?
?fe wsF
Strr'f ? art`lY 4. ? ?' ?
, ?
?}
,

'
r p
k 1 . hlY fi P
r
4,

` ' i L
? f
Q
l 1
1 F ? f `; ?' ?
`' <
'
1'Y^. ,/ :vi1` i
R'l
y 'Y
.?
7
A '
?f
_?1.?+
}
? ,- n -
T
C O
f?D
fD c+'
© J?•r,h:,
Ii
4`=AOIr .

® L_l
N 1.?y ? ? y O
O O d Q O
'? R y
QG

fD (D C.. Q
"? i
/
? p?I

eY
R

N
A- C,
")
=
O

R u,?
C
(J

t,
AR
1...

Looking east across
Bridge 1No.119
Looking west across
Bridge No. 119
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch
Montgomery County
Replace Bridge No. 119 on SR 1311
Over North Fork Litle River
B-3211
Figure Three I
.+?? •.` SEAT( •,
J`
s` r.s
A:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 20, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 119 on SR 1311 over North Fork Little
River, Montgomery County, B-3211, Federal Aid
Project MABRZ-1311(3), State Project
8.2550301, ER 97-8342
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On March 18, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 119 is the only structure over
fifty years old in the area of potential effect. The bridge, a Pratt pony truss built in
1921, should be evaluated for National Register eligibility. We recommend that no
additional historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic'
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
c
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.
SinWely,
[David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
STATE
t ? y r^1 1
t 1 n)
• hr A?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August-7, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Metal Truss Bridge Evaluations
ER 98-7177
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of ?archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1997, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluations for the above projects.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register a.
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Avery #83. Bridge #83 is eligible under Criterion C because it is a
representative design of the Roanoke Bridge & Iron Company and is one of
few remaining Pratt pony truss briages in the central mountain region of the
state.
Randolph #434. Bridge #434 is eligible under Criterion A for transportation
and Criterion C for design and engineering. Located at a major crossing over
Deep River, it was an important link on the early state highway system. Built
by the Atlantic Bridge Company of Greensboro, the bridge is one of only four
steel deck truss bridges in the state.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Buncombe #663 and Haywood #246. These bridges are examples of the
relatively common Pratt through truss bridge, and lack special historical
significance.
Clay #27. Bridge #27 is an example of the relatively common, though locally
rare Pratt through truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Haywood #72. Bridge #72, built by the state in 1920, is an example of the
relatively common Warren pony truss bridge, and lacks special historical
significance.
Nicholas L. Graf
8/7/97, Page 2
Haywood #374. Bridge #374, manufactured by the prolific York Bridge
Company in 1912, is an example of the relatively common Pratt pony truss
bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Henderson #6, Montgomery #119, and Randolph #226. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common, though locally rare, Pratt pony truss
bridge, and lack special historical significance.
McDowell #48, McDowell #281, and Randolph #123. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common, though locally rare, Warren pony truss
bridge, and lack special historical significance.
Rutherford #28. Bridge #28, manufactured by the Atlantic Bridge Company
of Charlotte in 1920, includes two spans of the relatively common Pratt
through truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Haywood #13, Stokes #63, Surry #138, and Wilkes #59. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common Pratt pony truss bridge, and lack special
historical significance.
In general, the evaluations meet our guidelines and those of-the Secretary of the
Interior.
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,
e?m' Di
G David Bro
ok
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw

Preservation Officer
cc: H: F. Vick
-Church
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Coma- ssion®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Pipkin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Col r _J
Habitat Conservation Program a? J
DATE: February 10, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Replacement of Bridge No. 119 on SR 1311 over the North Fork
Little River in Montgomery County, North Carolina. TIP No. B-3211.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 January 25, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition.that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo
January 25, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that,
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3211 - Bridge No. 119 crosses the North Fork Little River. The Little River at the
project site contains aquatic habitat that has been described as very significant in the
Pee Dee River basin. Although, there are no federally listed endangered species at the
bridge site, numerous state listed and federal species of concern occur in the vicinity.
To protect the local populations of fin fish that occur at the project site we request that
no in-water work occur between April 1 to May 31. Due to the high probability of
fresh water mussels in the river at this site, we also request that NCDOT use sediment
and erosion control measures for sensitive watersheds. If there is a need to do
significant bottom disturbing activities, we request that NCDOT schedule a field
review with the NCWRC Nongame and Habitat Conservation staff to evaluate
potential impacts to the aquatic resources in the Little River.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.