20021108 Ver 1_Complete File_20020711

s_
3Y e r y
ti
-? 0 2110 8
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 12, 2002 ...A th t5 0 E -
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 wr ruNOS GROUP
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 WATER Qll?LtTY SECTtoN
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 78 on SR 1313 over Muddy Fork Creek, in Alexander
County; NCDOT Division 12. Federal Project No. BRZ-1313(2),
State Project No. 8.2780701; T.I.P. No. B-3101.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 78 over Muddy Fork Creek [DWQ Index # 10-69-4]. Bridge No. 78 will be replaced
with a new bridge along the existing horizontal alignment. The new structure will be
approximately 95 feet in length and 40 feet wide. The proposed roadway typical section
contains two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot grass shoulders. During construction, traffic
will be maintained on an off-site detour route.
Waters of the United States
The existing bridge does not have piers in Muddy Fork Creek and the proposed
construction does not include plans for placement of piers in the creek. The bridge
demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly follow NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As per the
BMPs-BDR, all methods of demolition other than dropping the bridge in the water shall
be considered and implemented where practical. However, assuming the worst-case
scenario that all the spans over the water are potential discharge, removal of the existing
bridge could potentially drop a maximum of 44 yd3 of fill into the creek.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the construction of the proposed project
nor will there be any fill in surface waters (as result of the proposed single span
replacement structure).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. www. NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH.NC 27699-1548
_a
Federally'-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists one federally protected species for
Alexander County, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The bog turtle is federally
designated as. Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance. As such, this species is not
protected under Section 7 of the ESA and a biological conclusion is not required.
Summary
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771 J 15(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR
number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate a 401 General
Certification number 3361 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
w/attachment
L,? &. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, PE., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO
Ms. Missy Dickens, P.E., Consultant Engineer

SR 1313 (Three Forks Church Road)
Replace Bridge No. 78 Over Muddy Fork Creek
Alexander County
State Project 8.2780701
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1313(2)
TIP Project B-3101
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r
s 2002
; 'N S OUP
SECTIOAf
021108
APPROVED:
v rZ
to r 4Wi' D. Gilmore, P.E., Manage
wPvroject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
at r-4 Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Divis on Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
! y
SR 1313 (Three Forks Church Road)
Replace Bridge No. 78 Over Muddy Fork Creek
Alexander County
State Project 8.2780701
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1313(2)
TIP Project B-3101
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 2000
Documentation Prepared By
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller of North Carolina, Inc.:
7 '/.'?Az60
Steven L. Scott,`'P.E., Project Manager '
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller of North Carolina, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation:
Mary ice D ckens, P.E., Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Tho Kendig, AICP, Consultant Engineering Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
?``,?11tr'A /!!
-,A CA
s y ?
_ a `
22568
?O pe?e'Je..?o.•e?e. ? ??
'',,'?? 111 t 111 ?0a,?``

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
' SR 1313 (Three Forks Church Road)
Replace Bridge No. 78 Over Muddy Fork Creek
` Alexander County
State Project 8.2780701
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1313(2)
' TIP Project B-3101
' Division 12:
A. All methods of demolition will be considered and implemented where practical, other than dropping
the bridge in the water. Bridge demolition activities associated with this project will strictly follow
r NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). The
proposed project falls under Case 3 of the BMPs-BDR.
r
rr
r
r
1
A
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
/
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
i
t i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project ............................................................................... 1
A. General Description .............................................................................................................. 1
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project ........................................................................................... 1
C. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... 1
D. Traffic Volumes, Speed Limit, School Bus Usage, and Emergency Medical Services ..... 2
E. Accident History ............................................................................................................... 2
F. Relation to the Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................................... 3
II. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 4
A. Proposed Improvements and Detour Route ......................................................................... 4
B. Estimated Construction, Right-of-Way, and Road User Costs ........................................... 4
C. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................................................ 6
D. Utility Involvement ............................................................................................................... 6
III. Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 7
IV. Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................... 8
A. "Do Nothing" Alternative ..................................................................................................... 8
B. Postponement Alternative ..................................................................................................... 8
C. Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 8
V. Effects to the Man-Made and Natural Environment ....................................................................... 9
A. - Effects to the Man-Made Environment ................................................................................ 9
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
1. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 9
a. Local Planning Activities ................................................................................ 9
b. Existing Land Use ........................................................................................... 9
C. Future Land Use .............................................................................................. 9
d. Prime and Important Farmland ....................................................................... 9
e. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials ................................. 9
2. Community Impact Assessment and Socioeconomic Impacts ................................. 10
a. Neighborhood Characteristics ........................................................................ 10
b. Social and Economic Impacts ......................................................................... 10
C. Religious Centers, Schools, and Other Public Facilities ................................ 11
d. Relocations ...................................................................................................... 11
e. Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 11
3. Historic and Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 11
a. Archaeological Resources ............................................................................... 11
b. Historic Architectural Resources .................................................................... 11
4. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources .................................................................... 12
T ?
a. Section 4(f) Properties .................................................................................... 12
b. Section 6(f) Properties .................................................................................... 12
B. Effects to the Natural Environment ...................................................................................... 12
1. Physical Resources ..................................................................................................... 12
a. Soils ............................................................................................................... 12
b. Water Resources .............................................................................................. 13
i. Water Characteristics in the Project Area ........................................... 13
ii. Water Classifications ........................................................................... 13
iii. Water Quality ....................................................................................... 13
C. Physical Resource Impacts ............................................................................. 14
2. Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................... 14
a. Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................. 15
b. Aquatic Habitat and Wildlife .......................................................................... 16
C. Biotic Resource Impacts ................................................................................. 16
i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .................................................... 16
ii. Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife ........................................... 16
3. Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................................................... 17
a. "Waters of the United States"......................................................................... 17
f
1
1
i. Surface Waters ..................................................................................... 17
ii. Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................ :........................... 17
iii. Impacts to "Waters of the United States" ............................................ 17
iv. Permit Requirements ............................................................................ 18
V. Wetland and Stream Mitigation ........................................................... 18
(a) Avoidance ..................................................................................... 18
(b) Minimization ................................................................................ 19
(c) Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................. 19
b. Protected Species ............................................................................................ 19
i. Federally-Protected Species ................................................................. 20
C. Impacts to the Floodplain ................................................................................ 22
4. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ...................... .............................................................. 22
VI. Conclusions .........................................................................
............................................... 23
t ?
Tables
1 Estimated Construction and Right-of-Way Costs
2 Estimated Area of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
3 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species - Alexander County
Figures
1 Figure 1 Vicinity Map
2 Figure 2A Photographs of Existing Conditions
3 Figure 2B Photographs of Existing Conditions
4 Figure 3 Proposed Functional Design
5 Figure 4 Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
6 Figure 5 Proposed Detour Route
7 Figure 6 100-Year Floodplain
Appendix A: Agency Coordination response letters
Division of Water Quality, January 19, 2000 A-1 through A-2
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
February 2, 2000 A-3 through A-6
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Atlanta Regional Office,
February 10, 2000 A-7
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); March 3, 2000 A-8
SHPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Concurrence Form for
Properties Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
February 3, 2000 -A-9
Appendix B: USDA-NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
I. Purpose of and Need For the Proposed Project

I.A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 78 over
Muddy Fork Creek in Alexander County. Figure 1 illustrates the project area. The proposed action is
included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project with
$37,000 allocated for right-of-way acquisition and $452,000 for construction. The TIP indicates that the
proposed project is programmed for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 2002 and for construction during
fiscal year 2003. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion." The proposed project is not anticipated to
have substantial, detrimental environmental impacts.
I.B. Purpose Of The Proposed Project
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 78 is structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The December 1998 Bridge Inspection Report states that Bridge No. 78 has a
sufficiency rating of 31.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. Replacement of the inadequate structure
will result in safer traffic operations.
I.C. Existing Conditions
The proposed bridge replacement is located along SR 1313, approximately 0.4 mile (644 meters) south of
SR 1318, just west of Taylorsville, North Carolina. SR 1313 is currently not part of a state designated
bicycle route, nor is it listed in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. No geodetic survey
markers are located within the project area. SR 1313, also known as Three Forks Church Road, is classified
as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not a National Highway
System route.
The existing land use within the study area is designated as agricultural/open space, with an agricultural
field in the southwest quadrant of the project and pastures in the other three quadrants. Bridge No. 78,
constructed in 1967, carries SR 1313 over Muddy Fork Creek. Just east of the bridge is an area along
Muddy Fork Creek used as a cattle crossing while just west of the bridge is a wooded stream buffer.
Residential development is sparsely scattered in the area surrounding the project. Two single-family homes
are located approximately 600 feet (183 meters) from Bridge No. 78 on the properties adjacent to the
proposed project. Photographs of the existing study area are shown in Figures 2a and 2b.
The existing bridge has an overall length of 91 feet (27.7 meters) and a deck width of approximately 25.3
feet (7.7 meters), measured from the face of the guardrail. The clear roadway width across the bridge (curb
to curb) is 24.3 feet (7.4 meters) and carries two lanes of two-way traffic. Approaching Bridge No. 78,
within the study area, SR 1313 is a 20-foot (6-meter) paved, two-lane travelway with 6-foot (1.8-meter)
grass shoulders. The three-span structure is made up of precast concrete channels with an asphalt-wearing
surface. The end and interior bents consist of precast concrete caps on timber piles. The current weight
limit posting for Bridge No. 78 is 27 tons (24,500 kilograms).
Within the study area, SR 1313 is aligned in a north-south tangent section. SR 1313 crosses Muddy Fork
Creek at an angle of approximately 90 degrees. The creek flows from east to west and joins the Lower
Little River about 1,000 feet (305 meters) southwest of Bridge No. 78. The southem approach to the bridge
is in a sharp horizontal curve with limited sight distance. The northern approach is in a slight horizontal
curve with adequate sight distance.
As shown in Figure 3, the existing profile along SR 1313 contains a vertical sag with grades of
approximately 4.2 and 3.0 percent. The low point within the study area is just beyond the southem end of
Bridge No.78. The bridge deck contains drains along its concrete curbs that channel water directly into the
creek. A grass shoulder along the west side of SR 1313 drains directly down the fill embankment. Ditch
sections along the east side of SR 1313 end at the bridge embankment and drain to the creek. During site
visits in the Spring of 2000, hydraulic engineers determined that the embankments and grass ditches were in
stable condition, having no drainage problems.
According to the Division 12 Office, right-of-way limits are not recorded along SR 1313. The maintained
section appears to be approximately 32 feet (9.8 meters), based on a 20-foot (6-meter) clear roadway width
and the 6-foot (.1.8-meter) mowed shoulders.
I.D. Traffic Volumes, Speed Limit, School Bus Usage, and Emergency Medical Services
The estimated 1998 average daily traffic (ADT) volume for SR 1313 is 1,400 vehicles per day (vpd). The
2003 (proposed project letting year) ADT forecast shows an increase to 1,550 vpd. Traffic volumes are
predicted to grow to 2,200 vpd by the design year 2023. Truck percentages are expected to remain at four
percent for dual-tired vehicles and one percent for truck-tractors and semi-trailers. The existing speed limit
is not posted within the study area.
/ To date, no written comments have been received from the Alexander County School System. Verbal
comments were collected during a June 8, 2000 telephone interview with Mr. Daryl Moose, the
' Transportation Director for Alexander County School System. During the interview, Mr. Moose stated that
approximately three Alexander County school buses cross Bridge No. 78 twice per day. A proposed detour
during construction would add approximately six miles (9.6 kilometers) onto each of these six trips. Mr.
Moose stated in a subsequent telephone interview on November 29, 2000 that the off-site detour route
' would likely add approximately 20 minutes onto each bus trip, increasing salary costs for the school system.
Verbal comments were collected during a meeting in Taylorsville on October 30, 2000 with Mr. Terry Fox,
the Emergency Management Director for Alexander County. Mr. Fox stated that the proposed detour route
is not expected to substantially impede the response time for emergency medical services.
I.E. Accident History
' Records from the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch indicate that four accidents were reported along
' SR 1313 within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of Bridge No. 78 during the period of November 1996 through
October 1999. This yields a total accident rate of 1141.55 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (acc./100
mvm), which is higher than the statewide average rate for a similar facility (two-lane rural secondary route)
1 of 261.86 accidents per 100 mvm. The non-fatal accident rate of 285.39 accJ100 mvm for the study area's
' section of SR 1313 is also higher than the statewide average rate of 113.64 acc./100 mvm
1
' 2
While information on accident type is not available for one of the accidents, the other four accidents were
reported to involve passenger cars that drove off the roadway. The vehicles in all four accidents were
reported to-have been traveling south at speeds between 50 and 55 miles per hour (mph, 80 and 90
kilometers per hour) prior to their accidents. Three of the accidents were classified as "property damage
only" while the other accident was classified as a "non-fatal injury." The vehicular damage for the four
unrelated crashes ranged from $1,700 to $6,000. Two accidents occurred during daylight hours and two
during the nighttime. While pavement conditions were not available for one of the accidents, three
accidents are reported to have occurred during dry roadway conditions. The sharp horizontal curvature of
SR 1313, located immediately south of Bridge No. 78, and the traveling speeds of the vehicles may have
contributed to the cause of these accidents.
During telephone interviews conducted in February 2000, property owners stated that numerous traffic
accidents take place at or near the sharp curve, just south of Bridge No. 78. One property owner mentioned
that many of the accidents go unreported and often result in vehicles traveling off SR 1313 and damaging
her fences. Please refer to Section III of this document for more information concerning the study area
interviews.
I.F. Relation to the Thoroughfare Plan
The proposed bridge replacement project is mentioned in the August 1995 Thoroughfare Planning Report
for Alexander County, North Carolina, which received local approval in August 1995 and was adopted by
the North Carolina Board of Transportation in October 1995. The plan was prepared by the NCDOT
Statewide Planning Branch in coordination with the County of Alexander and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). Within the study area, SR 1313 currently has a clear roadway width of 20 feet (6
meters). Based on the design criteria for this minor collector, the proposed typical section calls for two 12-
foot (3.6- meter) travel lanes. The proposed action does not affect any recommendations included in the
thoroughfare plan.
. H. Description of the Proposed Action
HA. Proposed Improvements and Detour Route
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 78 over
Muddy Fork Creek in Alexander County, North Carolina. Figures 3 and 4 show the proposed functional
design and typical sections. The proposed roadway typical section contains two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel
lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) grass shoulders. The proposed construction limits are estimated to be
approximately 800 feet (244 meters) long, requiring a proposed right-of-way width that is estimated to vary
between 60 to 100 feet (18 to 30 meters).
The typical section across the proposed bridge contains two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes and 3-foot (0.9-
meter) paved shoulders. It is proposed to replace the existing structure with a new bridge along the existing
horizontal alignment. The proposed vertical alignment ties into the existing grades of negative 4.2 percent
' and positive 3.0 percent, yet lengthens the existing vertical curve. The elevation at the centerline of the
' bridge is proposed to be raised by approximately five feet (1.5 meters). The proposed design speed across
the bridge is 60 mph (97 km/hr), yet the improvements tie directly into an existing alignment with a current
design speed of 30 mph (48 km/hr). The design speed drops to 30 mph (48 km/hr) due to the existing
horizontal alignment. An advisory speed of 30 mph (48 km/hr) and warning signs alerting motorists of the
' sharp curve are recommended.
The total length of the proposed bridge is approximately 95 feet (29 meters). The March 2000 Preliminary
Hydraulic Investigation Report recommends a 35-foot (10.7-meter) long center span is to extend over the
` bank full channel width. It recommends that the end spans be approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters). While
' the stream channel is not expected to require realignment, the bridge abutment slopes are proposed to be
armored with riprap to avoid surface erosion.
' During construction, traffic is proposed to be maintained on an off-site detour route. As illustrated in Figure
i 5, the proposed six -mile (9.6-kilometer) detour route would utilize SR 1318 (Zeb Watts Road), SR 1320
(Ned Herman Road) and US 64/NC 90. The Division 12 Engineer has concurred with this
recommendation.
H.B. Estimated Construction, Right-of-Way, and Road User Costs
Alternative A, the recommended alternative which uses an off-site detour, has an estimated project cost of
' $784,000. This includes $59,000 for right-of-way, $100,000 for engineering and contingencies, and
$625,000 for construction, as detailed in Table 1. Alternative B, which uses an on-site detour, has an
' estimated project cost of $1,220,100. This includes $70,100 for right-of-way, $160,000 for engineering and
contingencies, and $990,000 for construction. The 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program lists
the estimated cost of the project at $489,000, including $37,000 for right-of-way in fiscal year 2002 and
' $452,000 for construction in fiscal year 2003.

Table 1: Estimated Construction and Right-of-Way Costs
(Based on Current Year 2000 Prices)

Component Recommended
Alternative A
(Off-Site Detour
Alternative B
(On-Site Detour)
Existing Structure Removal $18,400 $18,400
Proposed Structure $202,500 $202,500
Roadway Improvements $2,04,045 $204,045
Temporary On-Site Detour: Roadway,
Structure, Traffic Control and Signing,
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $0 *$365,000
Traffic Control and Signing $5,000 $5,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $195,055 $195,055
Total Construction Cost $625,000 $990,000
Engineering and Contingencies $100,000 -$160,000
Total Right-of-way Cost $59,000.00 -$70,100
Total Project Cost $784,000 $1,220,100
*The total cost of the on-site detour route is $436,100. This includes the $365,000 for
construction, $60,000 of the $160,00 (shown above) for engineering and contingencies,
and $11,100 of the $70,100 (shown above) for right-of-way.
Due to the 6-mile (9.7 kilometer) off-site detour included in Alternative A, an additional cost variable was
evaluated, the road user cost. Road user cost (RUC) is the total estimated operating cost incurred by
motorists to travel along an off-site detour route during construction activities. It is calculated using the
following formula:
RUC = (1) ('I') (D) ($)
The "N" is the expected number of days the road will be closed for construction. The "T" is the average
daily traffic volume expected on the road at the time of construction. The "D" is the distance in miles (or
kilometers) that the average road user would have to travel out of his or her way during the time of
construction. The "$" is the estimated cost of operating a vehicle expressed in dollars per mile (or in dollars
per kilometer). Therefore, the RDU is estimated at $1,086,240, as calculated below:
RUC for Alternative A = (365 days)(1,550 vpd)(6 miles)($0.32/mile) = $1,086,240
The RUC for Alternative A was compared to the total cost of the on-site detour route to obtain a benefit/cost
ratio of 2.5. The total cost of the on-site detour route is $436,100, including $365,000 for construction,
$60,000 for engineering and contingencies, and $11,100 for right-of-way. An on-site detour was
determined to be unjustified based on the combination of three main factors. First, the benefit/cost ratio is
less than 3.0. Second, the Division 12 Office concurs with the use an off-site detour. Third, none of the
5
seven major influence factors listed in the NCDOT Bridge Replacement - Road Closure Guidelines
necessitate the need for an on-site detour.
H.C. Anticipated Design Exceptions
In order to minimize property acquisition impacts and tie the proposed improvements into the existing
horizontal alignment, a design exception is required due to the 30 mph design speed. Alternatives A and B
tie into the existing alignment at similar locations and would both require a design exception. Since the
purpose of the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structure, the
proposed roadway approach ties directly into the existing alignment and does not include additional
modifications outside the proposed study area
H.D. Utility Involvement
Overhead power lines and telephone lines run along the east side of SR 1313. The telephone lines drop
below ground on either side of the stream crossing via utility poles. During construction, the existing
utilities may need to be relocated. Relocation of public utilities will be completed without long-term
interruptions in service. No utilities are attached to the-bridge structure.

6
III. Public Involvement
In February 2000, property owners in the study area were contacted by telephone and were sent letters
summarizing the telephone conversations and current project information. Nine property owners were
contacted pertaining to the five properties located nearest to Bridge No. 78. The purpose of the phone calls
and letters was to inform them of the proposed project, give them the opportunity to ask questions, and
document any comments that they wished to make about the project.
Six of the property owners are opposed to an off-site detour because of the large amount of truck traffic
crossing Bridge No. 78 daily. One couple said that they drive a tractor-trailer, and that many other trucks
cross Bridge No. 78 because of the dairy farms located in the area. The couple also stated that a steep, six
to eight-foot (1.8 to 2.4-meter) drop in elevation exists near this sharp curve. They are concerned about
safety in relation to the absence of guardrail past the existing bridge. One person stated that their family
frequently uses SR 1313 to transport materials for their farm. They said that a detour route in the autumn
would especially create problems for their family. According to the Division 12 Office, the proposed off-
site detour is of sufficient condition to adequately support the truck traffic that is currently using SR 1313.
The design speed along the off-site detour (SR 1318, SR 1320, and US 64/NC90) appears to be better than
or comparable to the design speed for SR 1313.
Five of the property owners stated that many traffic accidents take place at the sharp curve, just south of the
bridge. One property owner also mentioned that many of the accidents go unreported, and result in vehicles
traveling off SR 1313 and damaging her fences. She was frustrated that no additional safety improvements
have been installed after she asked the Highway Patrol to provide metal railings or warning signs. The
property owner said that while closure of the bridge during construction would be an inconvenience, she
would be able to use SR 1318 (Zeb Watts Road) and US 64/NC 90 to access her property. To date, no other
comments or replies have been received.
I
IV. Alternatives Considered
W.A. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative is not practical, as it would eventually require closing the road as the existing
bridge continues to deteriorate. Closing the existing bridge is not desirable due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1313. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor economical.
W.B. Postponement Alternative
The Postponement Alternative would delay the necessary replacement of the bridge. Postponement of the
proposed improvements would allow the deterioration of the existing bridge to continue. This alternative is
not practical or recommended.
W.C. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were evaluated for replacing the existing bridge. While Alternatives A and B have
different methods of providing access during construction, both alternatives replace Bridge No. 78 at its
present location. Alternative A is approximately 800 feet (24 meters) long. It includes provisions for a six-
mile (9.6-kilometer) off-site detour, which utilizes SR 1318 (Zeb Watts Road), SR 1320 (Ned Herman
Road) and US 64/NC 90. Alternative B provides an on-site detour, approximately 1,030 feet (314 meters)
long, which includes the construction of a temporary bridge just west (downstream) of the existing bridge.
A temporary detour bridge is expected to be approximately 65 feet (19.8 meters) long.
Evaluation of the road user cost, summarized on page five of this document, found that the cost associated
with an on-site detour is not justified for the proposed project. Alternative A is the recommended build
alternative, discussed throughout this document as the "proposed project," because it satisfies the purpose of
and need for the proposed action while minimizing impacts to the study area.
1 Permanent realignment of SR 1313 was originally considered by NCDOT but was eliminated from further
consideration due to the impacts to the farm in the southeast quadrant, the additional right-of-way
1 acquisition, and the increasing project scope that such a realignment would require. Since the purpose of
1 the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete structure, the proposed
1 roadway approach ties directly into the existing alignment and does not include additional modifications
1 outside the proposed study area.
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 8
1
V. Effects To The Man-Made and Natural Environment
V.A. Effects To The Man-Made Environment
V.A.1. Land Use
V.AJ.a. Local Planning Activities
While the project is located in Alexander County, it is not located within the municipal limits of any town
or city. Currently, there is no zoning by the County in the project vicinity. The study area's land use is
defined in the November 1993 Alexander County Land Development Plan. This plan is in the very early
stages of being updated.
V.A.l.b. Existing Land Use
The existing land use within the study area is designated as agricultural/open space. An agricultural field is
found in the southwest quadrant of the project and pastures are located in the other three quadrants.
Residential development is sparsely scattered in the surrounding area. Two single-family homes are located
approximately 600 feet (183 meters) from Bridge No. 78 on the properties adjacent to the proposed project.
V.A.1.c. Future Land Use
The future land use designation for the study area is expected to be "limited transition." This means that the
area is anticipated to experience moderate residential growth with the expansion of municipal services from
Taylorsville. The proposed project does not conflict with the Alexander County's future land use plans.
V.AJ.d. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the impact on prime and important farmland of all construction and land acquisition projects. To comply,
National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service) was asked to
determine the location of all-important soils, which may be impacted by the proposed project. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture determines which soil types meet the criteria for important farmland soils, based
on a variety of factors that contribute to a sustained high yield of crops. According to NRCS, while the
proposed project will impact approximately one acre (0.40 hectare) of land containing statewide and local
important farmland soils, it is not expected to impact land containing prime and unique farmland soils. Of
the 168,538 acres (68,205 hectares) of land in Alexander County, an estimated 34,303 acres (13,882
hectares) are identified as prime and unique farmland soils. The impact rating determined through
completion of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006, shown in Appendix B, indicates
that the project's assessment and relative value score is 105 out of a possible 260. A score higher than 160
would indicate that mitigation should be considered
V.A.l.e. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit/GeoEnvironmental Section performed a field reconnaissance of the study
area and a public record review to identify UST facilities, hazardous waste sites (dump sites), regulated
landfills, and Superfund sites. Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should be no

environmental liability concerns for the project. However, unregulated USTs and unregulated landfills may
be encountered during the initial right-of-way process. If a site with an unregulated UST or a landfill is
identified during the right-of-way process, a Preliminary Site Assessment will be performed prior to right-
of-way acquisition to determine the extent of any contamination.
1
1
1
1
1
1
V.A.2. Community Impact Assessment and Socioeconomic Impacts
No adverse effect on families or communities is expected to result from the proposed project. Residential
and commercial relocations are not anticipated. The area of proposed right-of-way acquisition is estimated
at approximately 1.5 acres (0.6 hectare) for Alternative A and 2.6 acres (1.1 hectares) for Alternative B.
During construction, traffic will be maintained via an off-site detour in Alternative A and an on-site detour
in Alternative B.
V.A.2.a. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Alexander County, outside of nearby municipal boundaries. Alexander
County is located in the western portion of the State, bounded by Caldwell, Wilkes, Iredell, and Catawba
Counties. In 1990, Alexander County had a total population of 27,544 with 50 percent males and 50
percent females. With an annual growth rate of nearly 1.7 percent, the U.S. Census estimates the 1999
population in Alexander County to have increased to 31,984 people. During the same period, the U.S.
Census estimates an annual growth rate of 1.6 percent for the State of North Carolina, with a 1990
population of 6,628,000 increasing to approximately 7,650,789.
The racial composition of the county in 1990 consisted of 93.2 percent Caucasians; 6.1 percent African
Americans; 0.2 percent American Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts; 0.1 percent Asians or Pacific Islanders; and
0.4 percent classified as "other races" (1990 U.S. Census). The racial composition of the State in 1990
consisted of 75.5 percent Caucasians; 22.0 percent African Americans; 1.2 percent American Indians,
Eskimos, or Aleuts; 0.8 percent Asians or Pacific Islanders; and 0.5 percent classified as "other races" (1990
U.S. Census).
V.A.2.b. Social and Economic Impacts
While motorists traveling through the proposed study area may experience temporary inconveniences
during project construction, they are not expected to sustain any long-term adverse impacts. The local area
and surrounding communities are expected to have a beneficial impact due to the replacement of the
insufficient bridge..
According to the U.S. Census, Alexander County had a civilian labor force of 15,690 people in 1990.. Of
the total civilian labor force, 15,084 people are employed and 606 people are unemployed, indicating an
unemployment rate of almost 3.9 percent. Alexander County's unemployment rate compared favorably to
the State's rate of almost 4.8 percent during the same time period. Nearly ten percent of Alexander
County's population was living below the poverty level in 1989 as compared to almost 13 percent of the
State's population (1990 U.S. Census).
10
V.A.2.c. Religious Centers, Schools, and Other Public Facilities
1
No religious centers, schools, or other public facilities are located along the proposed project or within the
general study area. Therefore, this project is not expected to adversely affect any public facilities.
V.A.2.d. Relocations
No relocations are expected to result from either Alternative A or B.
V.A.2.e. Environmental Justice
This Categorical Exclusion has proceeded in accordance with the Executive Order 12898 requirement that
each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies,
and activities that affect human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately
high and adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations. The proposed project will not segment
existing minority communities or separate residential areas from nearby. services, such as schools,
businesses, or parks. The proposed improvements are expected to have an overall positive impact on the
surrounding community. Replacing the inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations for the
public.
V.A3. Historic and 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.
V.A.3.a. Archaeological Resources
According to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are no recorded archaeological sites
within the project boundaries. The area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or
significance of archaeological resources. SHPO recommended in a letter dated March:3, 2000 that an
archaeological survey be conducted only if construction is planned on a new alignment. Since the project is
proposed to be constructed along the existing alignment (Alternative A), an archaeological survey is not
required (see Appendix A, page A-8). No further compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act for archaeological resources is required.
V.A.3.b. Historic Architectural Resources
No properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located inside the area of
potential effect for the proposed project. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with this
determination (see Appendix A, page A-9). Since there are no historic properties affected by the proposed
action, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete.
11
V.A.4. Section 4(t) and Section 6(f) Resources
V.A.4.a. Section 4(f) Properties
The study area does not contain public parks, recreation areas, historic sites, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance. No properties subject to protection under Section 4(f) of the
USDOT Act of 1966 will be used or directly impacted by the proposed project.
V.A.4.b. Section 6(f) Properties
No section 6(f) properties are located within the project's study area. Therefore, no right-of-way for the
proposed bridge replacement will be required from properties that have been acquired or developed with
assistance of Section 6(f) funds.
V.B. Effects To The Natural Environment
V.B.1. Physical Resources
Alexander County is situated in the northwestern part of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
geography of the county consists predominantly of gently sloping to very steep uplands. Narrow, nearly
level floodplains exist along most of the streams. Elevations range from approximately 1,060 feet (323
meters) above mean sea level (msl) at Muddy Fork Creek to approximately 1,100 feet (335 meters) at both
the western and eastern perimeters of the project area as depicted on the Taylorsville, North Carolina,
USGS topographic quadrangle map.
' V.B.La. Soils
The geology underlying the area consists of metamorphic rocks of the Inner Piedmont Formations. The
' rock is mainly mica schist with garnet, staurollite, kyanite or sillimanite occurring locally, with lenses and
' layers of quartz schist, micaceous quartzite, calc-silicate rock, biotite gneiss, amphibolite, and phyllite (N.C.
Division of Land Resources, 1985).
' Two soil associations are present in the project area. The Pacolet-Rion Association is situated along Muddy
' Fork Creek and south of the creek while the Pacolet-Cecil Association is located primarily north of the
creek. The Pacolet-Rion Association is comprised of gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils that have
predominantly clayey or loamy subsoil. This association covers approximately 39 percent of the county. It
' is about 72 percent Pacolet soils, 10 percent Rion soils, and 18 percent soils of minor extent. These soils are
' found primarily along ridgetops and side slopes. Creeks flow in meandering courses through narrow
' floodplains in the area. The minor soils in the association include Chewacla, Riverview, and Masada soils.
Chewacla and Riverview soils are frequently flooded and found primarily on floodplains while Masada
soils occur primarily on old stream terraces. Chewacla is listed as a hydric soil for Alexander County.
The Pacolet-Cecil Association is also comprised of gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils, yet it exhibits
predominantly clayey subsoil. This association covers approximately 26 percent of the county. It is
composed of approximately 54 percent Pacolet soils, 36 percent Cecil soils, and 10 percent soils of minor
extent. These soils are found on broad, winding ridgetops that are separated by short side slopes. The
12
minor soils include Riverview, Chewacla, Masada, Davidson, and Rion soils. Davidson soils are associated
with old stream terraces. Chewacla is listed as a hydric soil for Alexander County.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing
season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation
(Cowardin et al., 1979). Based on information obtained from the Soil Survey of Alexander County, (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1995), Chewacla loam is present along both edges of Muddy Fork Creek and
covers approximately 15 percent of the project area.
V.B.1.b. Water Resources
V.B.l.b.i. Water Characteristics in the Project Area
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project region are part of the Catawba River Basin, the eighth
largest river basin in North Carolina. The basin originates from the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge
Mountains and flows into South Carolina and ultimately into the Atlantic Ocean. The headwaters of the
Catawba River originate in Avery, Burke, Caldwell, and McDowell Counties. The Catawba River is unlike
most rivers in the State since it is composed mainly of a series of impoundments. Seven hydroelectric dams
segment the main stream of the river.
Muddy Fork Creek accounts for the majority of surface waters in the project area. Bridge No. 78 is situated
immediately upstream of the confluence of Muddy Fork Creek and Lower Little River. Muddy Fork Creek
is approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide and 1 foot to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meter) deep in the vicinity of SR
1313. The creek is surrounded by pastures and has an intermittent 10 to 15-foot (3 to 4.6-meter) buffer of
woody vegetation along its banks. The creek bed consists of cobble, gravel, sand, and mud with extensive
evidence of heavy sedimentation. During field surveys, biologists found the waters to be muddy, emitting a
strong smell of ammonia. The ammonia smell may have been attributed to the beef and poultry barns,
which were visible on both sides of the creek, upstream of the project area. Approximately 150 feet (46
meters) upstream of the bridge is a cattle and equipment stream crossing. The stream banks at the crossing
were eroded and lacked vegetation.
V.B.l.b.ii. Water Classifications,
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies surface waters of the state based on
their intended best uses. Muddy Fork Creek and its tributaries are classified as "C" waters. Class C denotes
waters suitable for all general uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture.
V.B.Lb.iii. Water Quality
r
' The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality data. The
type of water-quality data or parameters collected is determined by the water body's classification and
corresponding water-quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of water bodies,
' meaning how well a water body supports its designated uses. The waters in the project area are currently
rated as "Partially Supporting."
13
Two benthic macroinvertebrate sampling areas were located on Muddy Fork Creek, upstream of the project.
The samples were taken in 1992 near NC 16, one upstream and one downstream of Schneider Mills. Based
on those samples, the water-quality bioclassification upstream of Schneider Mills is rated as "good to fair,"
while the bioclassification downstream of Schneider Mills is rated as "fair."
In 1985 and again in 1988, benthic macroinvertebrate samples were taken downstream of the study area in
the Lower Little River near SR 1313. The water-quality bioclassification in 1985 was "fair" and the rating
from 1988 was "good to fair." Ratings for fish community structure in this subbasin were obtained in 1993.
At least one site in every subbasin was sampled using the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI).
The NCIBI sample was taken in the Lower Little River, downstream of the project area. According to the
NCDWQ, the NCIBI rating was poor, suggesting that sedimentation may be a major pollutant.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a permit. According
to NCDWQ (1995), there are 107 permitted NPDES dischargers in the subbasin. Of those, seven are major
dischargers, that typically release more than one million gallons per day (MGD) _(3,785 cubic meters per
day). The closest permitted discharger is Schneider Mills, approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) upstream
of Bridge No. 78. Schneider Mills is identified as a major discharger, with 0.78 MGD (2,953 cubic meters
per day) permitted flow. It is the only permitted major discharge upstream of the project area. Several
other dischargers are approximately 5 miles (8 kilometers) downstream of the project area on the Lower
Little River.
V.B.l.c. Physical Resource Impacts
The project will have minimal impacts to both soils and topography associated with constructing the
roadway approaches to the bridge. The primary sources of water-quality degradation in rural areas are
agriculture and construction. Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
project area. Construction related impacts to water resources include: substrate destabilization, loss of
aesthetic values, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature fluctuations
' within the stream channel caused by removal of streamside vegetation. Short-term impacts to water quality
from construction activities are related to increased sedimentation and turbidity. Aquatic organisms are
very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from construction. Appropriate measures must be taken
to avoid spillage and control runoff. Such measures will include an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
' provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (B111Ps -
PSffg and Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the
project. Long-term impacts to water resources may include permanent changes to the stream banks and
' temperature increases caused by the removal of streamside vegetation. Both the short and long-term
impacts to water quality will be greater for Alternative B as compared to Alternative A, due to the need for
greater grading and clearing activities associated with construction of the temporary detour bridge.
V.B.2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes the existing vegetation
and associated wildlife that occur within the project area, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed
project on the biotic communities. The project area is composed of different vegetative communities based
14
on topography, soils, hydrology, and disturbance. These systems are interrelated and in many aspects
interdependent. The following natural community profiles conform to descriptions according to Weakley
et al. (1998, Draft) when applicable. These community names are capitalized in this report. Scientific
nomenclature and common name (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal species listed.
Subsequent references to the same organism include only the common name.
1
1
V.B.2.a. Terrestrial Communities
There are two vegetation communities associated with the project area: pasture/agricultural land and a
wooded stream buffer. Cow pastures and an agricultural field cover 90 percent of the project area, with 75
percent of those lands in pasture. The pastures are covered in a mix of heavily browsed grasses (Poacea)
and weedy, herbaceous species, such as legumes (Lespedeaa cuneata and Mfolium spp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum ojficinale), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), and common chickweed (Stellaria media). The
agricultural field is used for row crops such as corn.
The wooded stream buffer is roughly 10 to 15 feet (3 to 5 meters) wide on both sides of the creek.
However, it is nonexistent in some areas upstream of Bridge No. 78. The trees average 4 to 10 inches (10 to
25 centimeters) in diameter at breast height (dbh). They generally consist of red maple (Ater rubrum) and
river birch (Betula nigra). The shrub layer is dominated by privet (Ligustrum sinense). Weedy vines,
including Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), cover the
woody vegetation.
Terrestrial wildlife in the area is limited, likely due to the modified state of the surrounding lands. These
areas are likely to support domestic predators and therefore introduce species that reduce habitat suitability
for many native species. During field reconnaissance, biologists spotted only two bird species. These
species are indicated in the subsequent list with an asterisk ( * ). The other species are those likely to
inhabit pasture and agricultural fields with moderate woodland borders.
Reptiles in the area are likely limited to a few small, secretive species such as the eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), northern brown snake (Storeria dekayi), ground skink (Scincella lateralis),
and six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus). Amphibian species are not expected to occur in the
study area due to the lack of clean, fish-free breeding pools.
The predominant birds in the study area are 'those adapted to open and disturbed habitats. They include the
introduced house sparrows (Passer domesticus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), native cardinals* (Cardinalis
cardinalis), robins (Turdus migratorius), bluebirds (Sialia sialis), white throated sparrows (Zonotrichia
albicollis), Carolina wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), and
mockingbirds* (Mimus polyglottos). Birds which are less abundant in open areas, yet may be found in the
study area include the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), meadowlark (Sturnella magna), killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
The mammals in the project vicinity are also likely to be those adapted to open and disturbed habitats.
Typical mammals found in pastures and agricultural fields include the harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus,floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), and white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) will frequent the fields bordered by woody
15
vegetation. Other mammals in the study area are those that inhabit barns, such as the house mouse (Mus
musculus), Norway rat (Ratter norvegicus), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus).
V.B.2.b. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
The quality of aquatic habitat in Muddy Fork Creek is expected to be poor due to the water quality and large
amount of sediment in the creek. The impaired water quality is likely caused by animal waste from the
surrounding farms. While the creek conditions are not favorable for fish, one species, the mosquitofish
(Gambusia holbrooki), is tolerant of poor water quality and may exist in the project area. During field
investigations, biologists noticed turbid water conditions in Muddy Fork Creek which prevented direct
observation of fish species. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was not conducted in the project area.
V.B.2.c. Biotic Resource Impacts
V.B.2.c.i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
As shown in Table 2, Alternative A is estimated to impact approximately 0.03 acre (0.01 hectare) of woody
vegetation buffering the creek and 0.87 acre (0.35 hectare) of pasture or agricultural field. Alternative B is
estimated to impact approximately 0.05 acre (0.02 hectare) of woody vegetation buffering the creek and
1.64 acres (0.66 hectare) of pasture or agricultural field. Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal
species that utilize terrestrial areas is anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving,
burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile
organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in the adapted communities will
result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
Table 2: Estimated Area of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
1
1
Community Estimated Area of Impact
Recommended Alternative A
(off-site detour) Estimated Area of Impact
Alternative B
(on-site detour)
Woody Vegetation Buffering Muddy Fork Creek 0.03 acre (0.01 hectare) 0.05 acre (0.02 hectare)
Pasture or Agricultural Field 0.87 acre (0.35 hectare) 1.64 acres (0.66 hectare)
Total Area of Impact 0.9 acre (036 hectare) 1.69 acres (0.68 hectare)
V.B.2.c.ii. Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
Construction related impacts to aquatic wildlife are expected to be greater for Alternative B than for
Alternative A because of Alternative B's temporary detour. Aquatic communities are acutely sensitive to
changes in their environment. Environmental impacts from construction activities may result in long-term
or irreversible effects. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the substrate and impacts
adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can
clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may
also cover benthos with an excessive amount of sediment, which inhibits their ability to obtain oxygen.
These organisms are slow to recover and usually do not, once the stream has been severely impacted.
16
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction enhances erosion
and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts by supporting the
underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials
into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, sand bars may be formed both at the site
and downstream. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may increase water
temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen
concentrations.
pr
Y
V.B.3. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analyses pertinent to "Waters of the United
States" and rare and protected species.
V.B.3.a. "Waters of the United States"
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
V.B.3.a.i. Surface Waters
The NCDWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for the majority of
the year. These channels usually have some or all of the following characteristics: distinctive stream bed
and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge (NCDWQ, 1998). Muddy Fork Creek is the only
perennial stream identified in the project area. Detailed stream characteristics, including specific water-
quality designations, are previously discussed on page 9 of this document.
V.B.3.a.ii. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, as described in the USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual, include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. There are no
jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
V.11.3.a.iii. Impacts to "Waters of the United States"
The existing bridge does not have piers in Muddy Fork Creek. Similarly, both Alternatives A and B do not
include plans for placement of piers in the creek. However, the new bridge approach ramps are likely to
include riprap for bank stabilization along the river channel. Alternative A is estimated to impact
approximately 60 linear feet (18.3 meters) of stream channel while Alternative B is estimated to impact
approximately 95 feet (29 meters) of stream channel.
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly follow NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR). As per the BMPs-BDR, all
methods of demolition other than dropping the bridge in the water shall be considered and implemented
17
where practical. However, assuming the worst-case scenario that all spans over water are potential
discharge, removal of the existing bridge span could potentially drop a maximum of 44 cubic yards (34
cubic meters) of fill into the creek. The proposed project falls under Case 3 of the BMPs-BDR. There are
no special restrictions on bridge demolition activities associated with this project beyond those outlined in
BMPs-PSW and BMPs-BDR
V.B.3.a.iv. Permit Requirements
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative agency of the
Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementation,
permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33
CFR 320-330. Permits will be required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetland communities
and surface waters. The Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for approved Categorical Exclusions is
expected to be applicable for all impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed
project.
In addition, a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #2745) is also required for any
activity which may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a
federal permit or license is issued. If foundation test borings are necessary, a General 401 Certification
Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 will be required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE. NCDOT will coordinate with the USACE
' after the completion of final design to obtain the necessary permits.
V.B.3.a.v. Wetland and Stream Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which
embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain 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: avoidance of impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
1 The maximum length of stream channel that will be impacted during construction is approximately 60
linear feet (18.3 meters) for Alternative A and approximately 95 feet (29 meters) for Alternative B. For
impacts to perennial streams greater than 150 linear feet (45.72 linear meters), NCDWQ requires
compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required by the USACE. A final
determination regarding compensatory mitigation requirements rests with the USACE.
V.B.3.a.v.(a) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the
United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United States EPA
and the USACE, "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts must be determined.
18
Such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of
cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. It is the project's purpose to
replace the *structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge over Muddy Fork Creek. Encroachment
into surface waters may be inevitable, as riprap will likely be needed for bank stabilization along the river
channel.
V.B.3.a.v.(b) Minimization
minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts to
"Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths.
Minimization can be effectively employed along the proposed project. Examples of minimization include:
1. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices.(BMPs) to control sedimentation during
project construction.
2. Reduction of clearing and grubbing activities.
3. Reduction or elimination of discharges into streams.
4. Reduction of fill slopes at stream/wetland crossings.
5. Sensitive placement of drainage structures.
6. Utilization of a spanning structure over the creek.
7. Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management.
8. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
9. Use of responsible litter control practices.

V.B.3.a.v.(c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of
wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of "Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site, if practicable. Authorizations under Nationwide
Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and
the USACE. Final decisions concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the USACE.
V.B3.b. -Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline due to either natural forces
or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species
classified as federally protected be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
19
(USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate laws. As of January 5, 2000, the
USFWS has identified one species threatened due to similarity of appearance (T[S/A]) and two federal
species of concern (FSC) potentially occurring in Alexander County. The NCNHP lists of July 1998
included these species and identified additional species receiving protection under state laws. Table 3 lists
the species, their status, and the availability of suitable habitat within the project area.
1
1
V.13.3.b.i. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and
Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as
amended. One species, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), is federally designated as Threatened Due
to Similarity of Appearance in Alexander County. As such, this species is not protected under Section 7 of
the ESA of 1973. The description of this species is provided for informational purposes, as their status may
be upgraded in the future.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Federal Status: THREATENED (Due to Similarity of Appearance)
State Statue: THREATENED
Bog turtles are a small, 3 to 4.5-inch (7.6 to 11.4 centimeter) turtle with a weakly keeled upper shell
that ranges from light brown to ebony. The species is readily distinguished from other turtles by a
large, conspicuous, bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic
and are infrequently active outside of their muddy habitats, except during specific temperature ranges.
They can be found during the spring mating season from June to July and at other times from April to
October when the humidity is high, such as after a rain event, and temperatures are in the 70°s F (20°s Q.
Bog turtle habitat consists of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically
those that have soft muddy bottoms. Appropriate habitat for the bog turtle does not exist in the project area.
20
Table 3: Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species - Alexander County
Federal State Available
Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Habitat
Vertebrates
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T (S/A) T No
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat FSC Sc No

Crotalus horridus horridus Timber rattlesnake - Mountain
population
-
SR
No
Invertebrates
Leptoxis dilatata Seep mudalia -- T No
egathymus cofaqui Cofaqui skipper - SR No
apilio cresphontes Giant swallowtail SR No

Vascular Plants
Allium cuthbertii Striped garlic - C No
Anemone berlandieri Southern anemone - C No
is hirsuta var. adpressipilis Hairy rockcress - C No
Berberis canadensis American barberry - SR No
Cordalis micrantha spp. micrantha Slender corydalis - C No
Cyperus granitophilus Granite flatsedge - SR No
Eupatorium incarnatum Pink thoroughwort - SR No
ellaea wrightiana Wright's cliff-brake - E-SC No
cnanthemum torrei Torrey's mountain-mint - C No
Spiraea betulifolia spp. corymbosa Shinyleaf meadowsweet - SR No

onvascular Plants
Orthotrichum keeverae Keever's bristle-moss FSC E No
Status Nomenclature:
E - Endangered - These species are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T - Threatened - These species are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance -These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to consultation under Section 7 of the ESA of 1973.
FSC - Federal Species of Concern - These species may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
SC - Special Concern
SR - Significantly Rare
C - Candidate
21
V.113.c. Impacts to the Floodplain
1
Alexander county participates in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While Flood Hazard Boundary Maps have been prepared by
FEMA, no detailed studies have been conducted in the project area. The bridge crossing occurs in an area
where approximate methods have been used to establish the floodplain and where base flood elevations
have not been determined. As illustrated in Figure 6, the crossing is found on Alexander County Flood
Hazard Boundary Map Panel 370398 0001 A, effective date June 9,1978. No impact on the floodplain is
anticipated since the proposed structure will be similar to the existing bridge.
V.11.4. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Noise levels could increase temporarily during construction. The proposed project will not substantially
increase or decrease traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have substantial impact on noise levels. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772).
The project is located in Alexander County, which is currently designated as an "attainment" area and is in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is an air quality
"neutral" project. As such, it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project
level CO analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment
area. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation satisfies the 1990 CAAA and NEPA assessment requirements for air quality.
22
I
I VI. Conclusions
I
I Alternative A is the recommended build alternative because it satisfies the purpose of and need for the
proposed action while minimizing impacts to the study area. Based on the studies performed for the
I proposed project, it is concluded that the project will not result in substantial adverse social, economic, or
environmental impacts. The project's "Categorical Exclusion" classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4
and 23 CFR 771.117, is appropriate. The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of the inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
23
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alexander County
{ OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 78
= DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Figure I
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Over Muddy Fork Creek
+. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project B-3101
Vicinity Map
I I
p 1 mile
PHOTO 112o Looking
13
Photographs or Existing Roadway Conditions
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alexander County
OF TRANSPORTATION Reploce Bridge NO. 78
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Figure 2A
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Over Muddy Fork Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Pro !ect B-3101
PHOTO "I: Looking to the north, along SR 1313
0 #3o West face of Bridge No. 78
PHOTO 114.-East

A 'A i.
?ate'; '•???_~ ??qiK ?.•
gyp.. •v ? .
o. 78
photographs of Ex sting Bridge Conditions
i-i?ty
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alexander Co-
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Br'dge No. 78
_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Figure 2B
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Over Muddy Fork Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
T.I.P. Project B-310:
SR 1313
6.0' 20'-0' (CLEAR ROADWAY) 6.0'
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
(EXISTING)
SR 1313
-L-
RADE POINT
I'/1' , J/q'/I'/q'/I'-«
TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
(PROPOSED)
-L- SR 1313
I
-5 • U -U n
3'-0• 12'-0' UAUnA I
121-0• -O I -?

/g•/I' X RADE POINT

TYPICAL SECTION ON BRIDGE
(PROPOSED)
PLEASE NOTE: 1-v
FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN
WILL BE DETERMINED.
BASED ON THE FINAL
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
Proposed Typical Section
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
c PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Alexander County
Replace Bridge No.78 Figure 4
over Muddy Fork Creek
T.I.P. Project B-3101
?It
11.0' WHERE GUARDRAIL REQUIRED
1•/1'
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
1 1312
, / 1 ' 0 1
;
* % 1338
1 `S ' 131 1 '1 \ g 1
28
"
9 i L-- 16
\ S 1329
' i'
7 -
133 1332 7!
a 3 • 1
31 3 • 2 *-A 1524
N . 4
\ "1 S'? 13 1 •2
g 131 I CO 13411 l Q/?1

1314 7
N
t I
I 1408
1407
Wi ; I
`p51
1133 . 2 l0 3 f
1315 ?
1307 13 7 1326 3 1409
W 1313 _ -? " 1327 eq
1 1328

i \ \ r i 16 F oak--
J
l `
J 1318 erwv. N& TO _
All Healing
Springs ud -? _
1320 B
318
-"? i - .21 90
64 r 1. 3
64 I I
\ Lile un
1
BALD KNOB
i ELEV. 1887 -?- alty-'
Proposed Detour Route
I I
0 1 mile
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alexander County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge NO. 78
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS over Mudd Fork Creek Figure 5
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Muddy
° ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project B-3101

1
1
ZONE A
P1,
v
1N
N
M 0.
N
M
Rrd.13 4
i State Hwy. 90
8k
N ~ ?.• .a ZONE A ?' •?
ZONE A
Cr
d o xooo'
;.. o xooo'
....
::: • ...... :• y:
Approximate Scale In Feet
The map above was obtained from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Alexander County Flood Hazard Boundary 10 0 -Year F i o o d p i a i n
Map Panel 370398 0001 A, Effective Date
June 9, 1978.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alexander County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 78
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Figure 6
S PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Over Muddy Fork Creek
*. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project B-3101
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE LETTERS,
Received as of June 25, 2000
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, January 19, 2000 A-1 through A-2
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
February 2, 2000 A-3 through A-6
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Atlanta Regional Office,
February 10, 2000 A-7
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), March 3, 2000 A-8
SHPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, February 3, 2000 A-9
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11? State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
NCDENR
? James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
? Bill Holman, Secretary
i Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 19, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NC Division of Water Quality GoCki
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 78 on SR 1313 over Muddy Fork
Creek. in Alexander County, State. Project No. 8.27 T.I.P. B-3101.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated January 6, 2000, in which you requested scoping
comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge
' will span the Muddy Fork Creek in the Catawba River Basin. The DWQ index number for the stream is 11-
69-4 and the stream is classified as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider
the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
1 of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
' closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
' practicable.
D. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
' structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
' DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
E. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
' be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
F. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
' should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
' G. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
1 approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
' Activities.
' 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper A-1
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
01/19/00
Page 2
H. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
I. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
J. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
K. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
' Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
' please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
A-2
1
Imo`
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

February 2, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
® P.O. Box 25201
' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
' Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 78 on SR 1313 (Three Forks Church Road) over Muddy
Creek, Alexander County, North Carolina (T.I.P. Project No. B-3101)
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and are providing the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
i
Our records indicate that, with the exception of the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), there are
no endangered or threatened species recorded from Alexander County. The southern population
of the bog turtle, extending from portions of southern Virginia to northern Georgia, is federally
listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance. This designation prohibits collecting turtles
from this population and bans interstate and international commercial trade. However, this
population of the species is not currently considered to be biologically endangered or threatened
and therefore is not subject to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. We do, however, consider
the bog turtle in the southern portion of its range as a species of Federal concern due to habitat
loss and would appreciate your assistance in protecting this species and its habitat if surveys
indicate that it does occur within the area potentially affected by the proposed project.
Although we do not currently have any endangered or threatened species recorded from
Alexander County, we have enclosed a list of species of Federal concern that may occur within
the impact area of the project. Species of Federal 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 to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if surveys
A-3
indicate that any of these species do occur within the area potentially affected by the proposed
project.
Any environmental document prepared for this project should provide a complete description of
the aquatic and terrestrial resources in the project area and a complete description, analysis, and
comparison of the available alternatives and their potential effects on these resources. Preference
should be given to alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction techniques that avoid
or minimize encroachment and impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources. We recommend that
the existing structure be replaced with a bridge, not a culvert. The new bridge design should
include provisions for the roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to
reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential
effects from the run-off of storm water and pollutants. The bridge design should not alter the
natural stream and stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should
be placed outside the bank-full width of the streams. The bridges and approaches should be
designed to avoid any fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or flood
plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain
portion of the approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain
and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the affected areas. Adequate erosion- and
sedimentation-control measures should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet
concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream. Heavy equipment should
not be operated in the stream channel, and any cutting and removal of woody vegetation along
the stream banks should be avoided to the maximum extent possible.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Mr. John Fridell of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-00-057.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
' cc:
' Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006

A-4
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, ALEXANDER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
1
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Alexander County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
ALEXANDER COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) raftnesquii
T(S/A)'
FSC*
Nonvascular Plants
Keever's bristle-moss
KEY:
Orthotrichum keeverae
FSC
Status Definition
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
December 20, 1999 A-5 Page I of 2
I
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
December 20, 1999 A-6 Page 2 of 2
ul)
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE
Parkridge 85 North Building
3125 Presidential Parkway - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
[phone]
Fr 10 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina
1 Department of Transportation
1 P.O. Box 25201
1 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
1 ??`?? r r f,r,
Dear Mr. Gilmore: .,
i This acknowledges your letter dated January 6, 2000, soliciting comments on the
proposed improvements to Bridge No. 78 on SR 1313 in Alexander County, North Carolina.
It appears that the improvement will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Therefore, we have no comment.
Sincerely,
Jerrold W. Gotzmer, P.E.
Director
A-7

SrA7E d
1 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
r State Historic Preservation Office
r David L. S. Brook, Administrator
r James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
r
r March 3, 2000
® MEMORANDUM
' TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ct?
Deputy State Hist c Preservation Officer
r
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 78 on SR 1313 over Muddy Fork Creek, B-3101, Alexander County,
ER 00-8693
Thank you for your letter of January 6, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
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 an archaeological survey be conducted only if new construction is planned
on a new alignment.
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.
' cc: T. Padgett
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
- - - . .. __._ 1 - ^----- -_- -.,.,1,,,, .,c,o M10. '711 _GCnc 91Q_d4l11
A-8
-C,.unt
IP • J 1? Federal Aid 1
CONCLRRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
rief Project

>n representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
eviewed the subject project at
' A scoping meeting
?? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
kll parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
i
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
r- Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as •P r o er-h e S 1 3 Z are
/ considered not eligibl for the National e ister and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
9
there are no National Register listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Pigned:
3
epresentativ t CDOTI 1)ate
1
HwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
1 ~y - Z 3 Z()
1
Vepc sentative, P Date
rate Historic Preservation Officer. r ..Date
1 If a survev report is prepare:!, a Final c,?pv of this [orm and the attached list will be- included.
A-9
APPENDIX B
USDA-NRCS FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date of Land Evaluation Request
April 21, 2000
Name of Project Federal Agency Involved
Alexander County, NC. SR 1313 (Three Forks Church Road) FHWA
Replace Bridge No. 78 over Muddy Fork Creek. State Project No.
8.2780701, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1313(2), TIP No. B-3101
Proposed Land Use County and State
Roadway right-of-way Alexander County, North Carolina
PART 11 (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received by NRCS 0

1
1
Does the site contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). W ? Acres Irrigated
a Average Farm Size
0
Major Crop(s) //
Cc e C o (ln Ct s4 o e Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name ofli-and Evaluatio System Used
,C_?C S.4 Namgg of Loc Site Assessment System
lore/ Kef'Ve41 LAS Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
- z y- z o c o
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 2.76 ac. 1.79 ac.
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres in Site 3.35 ac. 2.38 ac.
( PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland 6 0
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland /
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted G >;'
D. Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland to be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
1-0
d
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 /5-
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 /0
3. Percent of Site Being Fanned 20 J5
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government - 20 O
5. Distance from Urban Built-up Area 0 Z)
6. Distance to Urban Support Services 0 O
7. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10 /0
8. Creation of Non-Farnable Farmland 25 O
9. Availability of Farm Support Services 5 5-
10. On-Farm Investments 20 /0
11. Effects of Conversion on Farts Support Services 25 C
12. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 5
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part to 100 SO
Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local
site assessment) 160 j
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 /0-5-
Site Selected: Date of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) B-1 Form AD-1006 (10-83)