19930322 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

4-
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLAP DAC

E
',?{ J
O. REF.
NO. OR R 60M. BLDG.
DIV(
,FfOM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

AAIZ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA L
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 14, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SEP 2 0 1993

SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subject: Caldwell County, Bridge No. 106 over Lower Creek,
State Project No. 8.2731501, Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1142(4), T.I.P. No. B-2116, Action ID. 199300560.
Reference is made to your letter of January 13, 1993
which approved this project under.Nationwide Permit 23. Upon
further investigation, it was determined that the alternate
proposed in the project planning report is not desirable from
a design standpoint. It is now proposed that the new bridge
will be constructed on a new alignment slightly west of the
existing bridge. The existing bridge will be used to
maintain traffic during project construction, and will then
be completely removed.
Attached for your information is a copy of the addendum
to the project planning report for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance
with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We anticipate that this project can
still be processed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance
with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4
and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in
the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.

. ?.t _
Sincerely,
c
B. J. O Quin
Ass ant anager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E.., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. F. W. Rosser, P.E., Division 6 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Caldwell County, Bridge No. 106
on SR 1142 over Lower Creek
State Project 8.2731501
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2116
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
4
Da e
-7 Z 9-93
Date
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Caldwell County, Bridge No. 106
on SR 1142 over Lower Creek
State Project 8.2731501
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2116
ADDENDUM
TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JULY 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
8"- 1.?
Byro Brady
Project Planning Engin er
J. A. Bisse t, Jr., P.E. I
Consultant Engineering, Unit Head
i
H. F. Vick, P.E., Assist Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Caldwell County, Bridge No. 106
on SR 1142 over Lower Creek
State Project 8.2731501
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
T.I.P. No. B-2116
I. Background
A Project Planning Report (categorical exclusion) for the subject
project was approved by FHWA in September 1992.
The recommended alternate was to replace Bridge No. 106 with a new
bridge at the existing location over Lower Creek. Traffic was to be
detoured onto a detour structure to be constructed adjacent to the
existing bridge.
II. Discussion
There has been a change in this project. It was determined that due
to recent hydraulic analysis performed on the Lower Creek floodway, the
grades for the on-site detour will need to be raised. Also, the
super-elevation on the new bridge would act as a dam and would not allow
over-topping. Therefore, the Alternate is no longer feasible.
Alternate 1 (Recommended) will be to construct a new bridge over the
Lower Creek similar to Alternate 2 and to use the existing bridge to
maintain traffic (See Figure 2). This alignment is somewhat different
from Alternate 2 in the fact that the bridge is skewed and reduces the
amount of new location construction and reduces the super-elevation
requirements to within acceptable limits. The existing bridge will be
removed following the completion of the new bridge.
Alternate 2 would construct a bridge on new location. This alignment
had problems because the cored slab bridge would have to have additional
widening for sight distance which would add to the cost. Also, a cored
slab design could not meet the super-elevation requirements and would
cause a damming affect which would not allow for over-topping.
III. Environmental Considerations
Neither alternate 1 nor alternate 2 contained any environmental
concerns. Neither the soils, vegetation, or hydrology qualify any of the
study area as wetland. There were no federally or state listed protected
species occurring at this site. And there appears to be no architectural
resources in the vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted and concurred with the above statement.
. - -„
With proper implementation of the Department's erosion and sediment
control measures and "Best Management Practices" no serious adverse
environmental effects will result from the implementation of this project.
BB/plr

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ??,,aa M
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEER 2 U
P.O. BOX 1890 r p d
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 ??'
)WN 2
IN REPLY REFER TO January 13, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300560 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your October 26, 1992 application for Department of the Army
authorization to replace Bridge Number 106 over Lower Creek, on S.R. 1142,
near Gamewell, in Caldwell County, North Carolina. This bridge will be
replaced on the existing location and will be 140 feet long by 30 feet wide.
Approximately 550 feet by 32 feet of rebuilt roadway approaches will be
required. A temporary detour will be constructed and will consist of a bridge
70 feet long by 24 feet wide located 50 feet west of the existing structure.
No wetlands will be impacted. by the work. Possible stream impacts will
include some limited sediment debris during construction and after project
completion. Likely adverse impact will be minimized through the employment of
silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control measures. This
project has been coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers.and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.

-2-
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. This nationwide permit does not
relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any required State or local
approval. You should contact Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, [phone], to obtain the necessary Section 401,
Water Quality Certification prior to starting work.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau
N.C. Wildlife Resources commission
320 South Garden Street
Marion, North Carolina 28752
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
1* Q?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
October 26, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
d?
NOV 1 81992
NDS GROU
WE
i
WATER UALtjY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project: Caldwell
County, SR 1142, Bridge No. 106 over Lower Creek, Federal-Aid
Project BRZ-1142(4), State Project 8.2731501, T.I.P. I. D. No.
B-2116
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C)
of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification which is administered through the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge of dredged or
fill material and for which a federal permit is required.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
• OM
Lard
P. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer
N
Caldwell County
SR 1142
Bridge No. 106 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
State Project 8.2731501
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2116
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9 /? z t
ATE L. Ward, .E., Manage
Manning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
9Z c _
f
l-L-5---
DATE Nich s G a , P.E.
FFa2Division Administrator, FHWA
Caldwell County
SR 1142
Bridge No. 106 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
State Project 8.2731501
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2116
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared by Wang Engineerinq Companv:
.t'still 61118"
V0. ARoz 0,1%
% WA
i4 SEAL
12979
Ile
GI N L ,?? •
For North Carolina
tment of Transportation
Z LJ //.G
?RorrEmoiorre, P . E . , Un Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Project manager
Caldwell County
SR 1142
Bridge No. 106 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1142(4)
State Project 8.2731501
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2116
Bridge No. 106 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The
project is not expected to have a significant impact on the human
environment and has been classified by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 106 should be replaced on the existing location
as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 30 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 24-foot
travelway with 3-foot shoulders.
Approximately 550 feet of rebuilt roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 24-foot
pavement with 8-foot shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 140
feet in length should be provided. The elevation of the new
structure should be approximately 2 feet higher than the floor
elevation of the existing bridge.
During construction of the replacement bridge, traffic will
be maintained on-site using a temporary bridge.
The estimated cost of construction, based on current prices,
is $548,000 including right of way and utility relocation costs.
The previously estimated cost of the project, as shown in
the 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program, was $485,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any
possible impacts.
Since the project is located in one of the 25 designated
"trout" counties in western North Carolina, a letter of approval
must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. This letter will obtained prior to construction.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that
a comprehensive archaeological survey is needed for this project.
This survey will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1142 (Calico Road) is classified as a rural local route
in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is part of
the Federal-Aid System (BRZ-1142).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1142 has a 20-foot
pavement with 4-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical
alignment is slightly rolling. Horizontal alignment of the
structure is tangent with an approximate 10 degree curve on the
south approach and 7 degree curve on the north approach. The
structure deck is located about 14 feet above the stream bed.
The posted speed limit is 45 MPH.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
primarily scattered rural-residential and agricultural.
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include
underground telephone lines with an above ground crossing at the
bridge, electric lines and a water line. All are located
immediately adjacent to the existing bridge on the west
(downstream) side. The above ground electric lines cross over to
the east side at the south approach.
The traffic volume for the anticipated construction year of
1995 is projected to be 1900 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
expected to increase to approximately 3600 VPD by the year 2015.
The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge, as shown in Figure 3, was constructed
in 1961. The 2-span superstructure consists of a paved timber
deck on I-beams. The substructure is composed of wood abutments
and one wooden bent. The bridge and approaches have a 10-year
flood frequency based on FEMA flood elevations.
Overall length of the bridge is 70 feet. Clear roadway
width is 19.2 feet. The posted weight limit is 12 tons for
single vehicles and 16 tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 106 has a sufficiency rating of 2.0 compared to a
rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 106 during
the three year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.
None were related to the existing bridge or roadway conditions.
However, with the proposed installation of guardrail on the
bridge approaches, the potential for future accidents at this
site should decrease.
2
School buses cross the studied bridge ten times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 106 were
studied. In each alternative, a bridge 140 feet long with a deck
width of 30 feet would be provided. This structure width will
accommodate two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot shoulders. The approach
should consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot shoulders. The
minimum profile grade on the proposed bridge will be 0.3% for
surface drainage. On both alternatives, the proposed bridge and
roadway will be raised approximately 2 feet to provide for a
facility that would be above the 25-year design storm frequency.
The proposed design speed for both alternatives is 50 MPH.
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the bridge on new
location immediately west (downstream) of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment of the proposed
bridge approaches include approximately 1550 feet of new
pavement. The existing structure will be used to maintain
traffic during the construction period.
Alternative 2 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the
structure along the existing alignment. Improvements to the
alignment of the bridge approaches includes approximately
550 feet of new pavement. A temporary on-site detour will
be provided during construction for maintenance of traffic.
The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 70 feet long
and will be located about 50 feet west of the existing
structure. The detour roadway will consist of a 20-foot wide
pavement with 4-foot shoulders. The proposed temporary
bridge width is 24 feet. This width will accommodate two 10-
foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders. The detour grade will be 3
to 4 feet lower than the existing elevation.
closure
of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service provided by SR
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
V. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at
the studied bridge site is necessary. Existing roads in the area
were examined and the length of a detour on existing routes was
found to be excessive (19.2 miles).
In view of this factor and the volume of traffic, it is
clear that traffic should be maintained at the existing bridge
site during construction.
1142.
3
VI. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $210,000 210,000
Roadway Approaches 259,500 171,000
Detour Bridge &
Pavement - 0 - 67,500
Structure Removal 8,500 8,500
Engineering &
Contingencies 72,000 68,000
Right of Way & 34,825 23,000
Utilities
Total $584,825 $548,000
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 106 should be replaced at its existing location
as shown by Alternate No. 2 in Figure 2.
The recommended improvements will include about 550 feet of
new raised roadway approaches. This includes 400 feet on the
north approach and 150 on the south. A 24-foot pavement with 8-
foot shoulders should be provided on the approaches. A 30-foot
clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure.
This structure will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with 3-foot
shoulders.
The design speed for this alternate is 50 mph. The existing
12 degree curve on the south approach will be an exception to the
design criteria.
During the construction period, traffic will be maintained
on a temporary bridge which will be located downstream of the
existing bridge. The detour will consist of a temporary bridge
70 feet long and 24 feet wide. This bridge will accommodate a
20-foot travelway with 2-foot shoulders. The detour roadway will
consist of a 20-foot wide pavement with 4-foot shoulders. The
detour grade will be approximately 3 to 4 feet lower than the
existing roadway grade.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, it is recommended
that the new structure be a bridge approximately 140 feet long.
It is anticipated the elevation of the new bridge and roadway
4
will be approximately 2 feet higher than the elevation of the
existing in order to provide a bridge and roadway above the 25-
year design storm frequency. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by future hydraulic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that
Bridge No. 106 be replaced at the existing location and that
traffic be maintained on-site with a temporary detour. (See
Record of Contact in the Appendix.)
Alternate No. 1 was not favored due to its higher estimated
costs and its adverse effects on adjacent prime and important
farmland. Alternate 1 would not improve horizontal roadway
alignment over the existing alignment.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical
exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse
effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with
the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations. No change in land use is
expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation. Right of
way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The project is located at Gamewell in Caldwell County near
the western edge of the Piedmont physiographic province in the
foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. The study area is located
in a rural setting of farm fields and scattered residential
sites. Farming is the major industry in this predominantly rural
county.
5
NOISE & AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air
Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Caldwell
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in
an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not
contain any transportation control measures, the conformity
procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
770 do not apply to this project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction
but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning,
all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Except for a forested area southeast of the bridge and a
100' wide strip of woods along the creek northwest of the bridge,
this study site is surrounded by a flood plain largely altered by
man's activities. Southwest of the existing bridge, a large
grazed pasture extends south for 275' from the creek to a private
drive. A mowed lawn lies south to the drive. In addition to
pasture grasses and weeds, the pasture also contains remnants of
the original forest. Mature river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) and willow trees (Salix nigra) form an
open canopy over the pasture grasses in a 150' wide band along
the south side of the creek. Other than the mowed grasses and
weeds found on the road right-of-way, no other natural vegetation
still exists in this southwest quadrant.
In addition to the weedy species and grasses on the road
right-of-way, the northwest flood plain quadrant contains a 10-
15' wide strip of tall weeds, vines, and shrubs between the road
to the east, the woods to the south, and the cultivated field to
the west. This roadside strip extends 800' north of Lower Creek.
This strip is subject to periodic cutting. Plants found
here include:
Shrubs:
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
Blackberry (Rubus argutus)
Vines:
Honeysuckle (Lonicera Zaponica)
Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
6
Herbs:
Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea)
Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)
Wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis)
Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana)
Poke milkweed (Asclepias exaltata)
Goldenrod (Solidago sp.)
Indian hemp or Dougbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium)
Blue eyed grass (Sisvrinchium angustifolium)
A 75' to 100' wide wooded ridge exists between Lower Creek
and the cultivated field in the northwest quadrant of the flood
plain. This wooded ridge rises 101-15' above the level of the
adjacent field and helps to create a 201-25' near vertical bank
next to the creek. Because Lower Creek is subject to flooding,
this ridge probably was built up when the stream was channelized
some years ago. It now acts as a levee to protect the field from
flooding. Extending several hundred feet downstream, this ridge
supports young river birch-sycamore-cane community. The ecotone
between the ridge and open field is a thick tangle of vines and
tall weeds.
A closed canopy dominated by river birch and sycamore also
contains black walnut (Juglans nicer), red maple (Acer rubrum),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), sweet-gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), and green ash (Fraxinus americana) trees. Giant
cane is the dominant subcanopy species. Other woody subcanopy
species include flowering dogwood and transgressive canopy
species. Vines include honeysuckle, poison ivy, and greenbriar
(Smilax spp.). A sparse herb layer consists primarily of ebony
spleenwort ferns (Asplenium platyneuron).
The floodplain quadrant northeast of the bridge contains
little natural vegetation. Most of the area is under
cultivation, and native plants only occur as weeds in the field
or on the highly disturbed borders of the field and creek bank.
A 5' to 61 deep drainage ditch angles southwest across the field
and empties into Lower Creek 4' east of the existing bridge. The
border of the field next to the creek and 51-6' creek bank
contain seedlings and saplings of box elder (Acer neaundo) and
sycamore, elderberry shrubs, and cane. Herbaceous species
include curly dock (Rumex crispa), evening primrose (Oenothera
biennis), ragweed, goldenrod (Solidaao sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), and mixed grasses. This area will receive little or
no impact from the proposed construction.
Vegetation along the drainage ditch and between the ditch
and the road includes the following:
Small tree saplings: (cut periodically)
Box elder (A. negundo)
Red maple (A. rubrum)
Shrubs:
Elderberry (S. canadensis)
Cane (A. gigantea)
7

Vines:
Trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)
Honeysuckle (L. japonica)
Poison ivy (T. radicans)
Blackberry (R. argutus)
Herbs:
Ragweed (A. artemisiifolia)
Wingstem (V. occidentalis)
Poke milkweed (A. exaltata)
English plantain (Plantaao rugellii)
Oxalis (Oxalis dillenii)
Hop clover (Trifolium campestra)
Mixed grasses
The quadrant of the floodplain southeast of the bridge
contains the largest concentration of relatively natural flood-
plain forest remaining in the study area. Even with a 6' bank,
the creek occasionally overflows into these woods. Extending
about 400' south along the road, the elevation gradually rises
and the woods become drier as one moves away from the creek.
This community extends east about 100' along the creek to a small
marshy cove.
This floodplain forest is a river birch-hazelnut-cane
community. While river birch dominates the closed canopy, it
also contains sycamore, box elder, silver maple (Acer
saccharium), black walnut, and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera). As one moves away from the creek, yellow poplars
increase in importance and a few mature pines are found.
In addition to hazelnut (Corylus americana), the shrub layer
includes privet (Ligustrum sinense) and tag alder (Alnus
serrulata). Vines include: greenbriars (Smilax rotundifolia and
S. alauca), crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata), Virgin's bower
(Clematis virainiana), and blackberry. Except for the woody
grass, giant cane, the herb layer is very sparse. The herbs seen
include violets (Viola sp.), bed straw (Galium tinctorium),
wingstem, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and geum (Geum
canadense).
Neither of the two alternates will have significant impact
on either of the floodplain areas east of Calico Road. Alternate
1 will move the bridge 50' west of the existing bridge.
Alternate 2 would replace the old bridge with a new one using the
same location that is now used. This would only impact the
previously disturbed edge of the woods nearest the roadway. A
temporary detour will also be constructed west of the existing
bridge.
The minimal removal of vegetation associated with the
construction of approaches should have a negligible impact to
fauna utilizing the area because it represents only a tiny
fraction of the available habitat.
8
Wildlife
The general vicinity of the bridge provides a variety of
cover, forage and nesting sites for wildlife, but fragmentation
and alteration of the natural communities by man may limit
wildlife variety. Birds were the only animals actually seen or
heard. The birds recorded on visits were:
Northern Bob-white (Colinus virainianus)
Eastern bluebird (Salia salia)
Eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna)
Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater)
Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala)
Purple finch (Caropodacus turpureus)
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)
Brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum)
American robin (Turdus migratorius)
Woodthrush (Halocichla mustelina)
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus)
White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
Tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor)
American crow (Corvus brachyrhychus)
Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)
Eastern phoebe (Sayornis Phoebe)
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)
In addition to the birds seen or heard, the feather of a great
horned owl (Bubo virginianus) was found at the edge of the field
northwest of the bridge.
Raccoon tracks (Procyon lotor lotor) were found along the
creek and a woodchuck burrow (Marmota monax monax) was found in
the wooded strip between the creek and field northwest of the
existing bridge. Other mammals that may be found in the area
include:
Gray squirrel (Sciurus c. carolinensis)
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus)
Opossom (Didelphis marsupialis)
Striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis elongata)
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virainianus)
Short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda kirtlandi)
White-footed mouse (Peromyscus 1. leucopus)
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias s striatus)
Species of reptiles and amphibians likely to occur in the
study area include:
Eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroli)
Snapping turtle (Chelyda serpentina)
Eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus)
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)
Five-lined skink (Emeces fasciatus)
Worm snake (Carphophis amoenus)
9

Black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta)
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)
Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis)
Frogs of the genera Rana and Hyla may also occur. No vertebrate
studies were located for this site.
Aquatic Wildlife
Aquatic life is limited in Lower Creek because it receives
heavy run-off carrying pollutants and sediments from the town of
Lenoir and fields along its banks. This creek drains a heavily
developed area. Paved parking lots and streets cause rapid run-
off and contributes to the flooding tendencies of Lower Creek.
The high sediment load is detrimental to bottom-dwelling
invertebrates and does not allow light to penetrate the water.
Both of these factors are important to maintaining a food chain
that can support fish.
A study of Lower Creek done by Dr. E.F. Menhinick in May of
1980 was located. This study was part of an Environmental Impact
Study connected to the structure of a new Burke County landfill.
Lower Creek forms the northwestern boundary of the landfill as it
flows into Rhodhiss Lake (mile 90 of the Catawba River). Because
heavy siltation in this lower portion of the creek prevented
sampling successfully, Dr. Menhinick's sampling was actually done
at the SR 1142 bridge. The following species were collected by
shocking a 400 square meter area:
3 bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus)
1 white sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
7 redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
1 bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
1 pickerel frog (Rana palustris)
6 crayfish (Cambarus sp.)
Dr. Menhinick's report also stated:
"In summary, the low dissolved oxygen, high BOD, high
conductivity, low pH, and low number and variety of fishes
indicate that this is an unusually polluted stream.
However, even if the water were better quality, the heavy
silt load would greatly limit fish populations."
He further cited a sampling done by the N.C. Inland Fisheries
personnel on July 10, 1963. The only fish collected at that time
were 19 creek chubs (Semotilus atromaculatus). The fisheries
report's comments quoted were:
"Lower Creek is a heavily polluted stream of the foothills.
The creek receives its pollution from Lenoir and Balmead and
had an exclusive fauna of turbifex at the time of this
survey. With proper sewage treatment, Lower Creek could
become a small-mouthed bass stream."
10
Even if the sewage pollution is controlled, Dr. Menhinick states:
"Siltation; such as occurs in Lower Creek, harms the stream
by increasing turbidity which reduces photosynthesis and
this affects the food-chain base. It also covers large
areas where food chain organisms live and may cover fish
eggs, thus destroying spawning areas. In most areas of
Lower Creek, pool areas have been filled, thus destroying
one of the most important habitats for fishes ... siltation
will continue to be a major deleterious environmental
factor."
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
According to the Caldwell County Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) survey, most of the soil likely to be impacted by the
proposed project is of the Chewacla series. Chewacla loam
consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in recent
alluvium on flood plains. Slope is less than 2 percent. The
suitability of this soil type for road fill is rated as "poor:
low strength, wetness".
Chewacla loam (Cm), occasionally flooded, is recognized as
farmland soil of statewide and local importance in Caldwell
County. It is not prime farmland. Approximately 0.68 acre will
be disturbed by Alternative 1, and 0.4 acre by Alternative 2.
Alternative 1 will also disturb approximately 0.45 acres of
the Masada series soil. Masada loam (MaD) is also recognized as
soil of statewide and local importance. It consists of well
drained soils that formed in alluvium on stream terraces. Slope
ranges from 2 to 8 percent.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important
farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
project will impact farmland soils and to complete Form AD-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed form is
included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, the recommended alignment will impact
0.37 acres of prime farmland soil. This represents very little of
the total 78,560 acres of prime or important farmland soils found
in Caldwell County. The impact rating determined through
completion of Form AD-1006 indicates that the site's assessment
and relative score is 131 out of a possible 260. A score of 160
or more would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
11
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland
soil, as defined by the SCS, is minimal and therefore, no
mitigation is proposed.
Water Resources
Bridge #106 crosses Lower Creek in southern Caldwell County,
7.9 miles NE of Morganton on SR 1142, 1.31 miles south of its
junction with NC 18 (64). Lower Creek flows into Rhodhiss Lake
(Catawba River) about 5 miles south of this bridge. Stream width
was about 601; average depth was about 10" and velocity was 37
cm/sec, giving a discharge of 1020 1/sec. There were no pools.
Some still-green boxwood shrubs and other debris in the creek was
evidence of recent flooding. A water line crosses through the
creek about 25' west of the existing bridge. This line belongs
to Caldwell County and supplies the homes along Calico Road south
of the bridge with water from the city water supply of Lenoir.
Sewage treatment is via septic tanks in this area. Bottom type
was of medium sand; there was a heavy bed load of medium sand.
The current stream classification for this portion of Lower
Creek is WS-IV (effective August 3, 1992). This classification
designates waters protected as water supplies which are generally
in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules
0.104 and 0-0211 adopted by the N.C. Environmental Management
Commission on February 13, 1992. Local programs are required to
control non-point sources and stormwater discharges of pollution.
This stream is rated as suitable for all Class C uses, i.e.
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Lower Creek is not a trout stream
and is not a tributary of a trout stream.
The Benthic Macrovertebrate Data Base (BMDB) published by
the Water Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management,
N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (May 1991)
lists three samplings taken from Lower Creek between 1984 and
1990. These samples were taken 0.6 miles downstream from the SR
1142 bridge. Bioclassification for Lower Creek was "Fair" on the
basis of each of the three samples, which indicates no
improvement in the water quality of this stream occurred over the
6 year period. A bioclassification of "Fair" implies a low
number of certain indicator macroinvertebrate genera which
primarily reflects the influence of chemical pollutants. The
BMDB report states: "The major physical pollutant, sediment, is
poorly assessed by taxa-richness analysis". Sediment pollution
is a major problem in this stream where it greatly reduces the
available habitat for both fish and invertebrates. As a result,
Lower Creek is of insignificant fishing importance.
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction and after project completion.
Likely adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of
silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control
measures required of the contractor and specified in the State
approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. "Best Manage-
12
ment Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented to
minimize adverse effects of construction activities. No channel
changes, channel fills, or alteration of drainage patterns are
foreseen. Care should be taken to assure that any fill used does
not interfere with the normal stream flow and is kept well away
from the bed of this flood-prone stream. Upon removal of the
temporary detour, the stream and surround land will be restored
to its original condition.
With proper implementation of the Department's sediment and
erosion control measures and "Best Management Practices", overall
environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a
result of this project.
Caldwell County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in
the project area is shown in Figure 4.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-
plain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of
about the same magnitude. The floodplain in the adjacent area of
the crossing is rural/wooded and agricultural. The amount of
floodplain and floodway to be affected is not considered to be
significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible
harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
Neither the soils, vegetation, or hydrology qualify any of
the study area as wetland.
Protected Species
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the United States Department of
the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to
obtain current lists of protected species known to inhabit
Caldwell County. Due to the relatively small area to be sampled,
an on-site survey was conducted by carefully walking through the
entire project area to search for suitable habitat or species of
concern.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E) and Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal Candidate (C)
species have also been listed, but are not provided protection
under this Act. No survey was conducted to determine the
presence of candidate species.
13
11
According to the USFWS, the species of federal concern found
in Caldwell County are:
Plants:
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum)* - (E)
An erect (1 to 5 dm tall) hirsute perennial herb with a
basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves arising from a
horizontal rhizome. Inflorensence terminal, a few - flowered,
indefinite cymc. Flowers actinomorphic with 5 hersute green
sepals, fused a the base, and 5 separate bright yellow petals.
Stamens and pistils numerous, distinct; pistils simple, ovaries
superior and hirsute, persistent as a beak in fruit. Receptacle
ringed with dense, tan, stiff hairs. Fruit a hemispheric
aggregate of hirsute, beaked achenes. Flowers, June to October;
Vegetative, May to October.
Range: Distribution includes the northwestern mountains of
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
Habitat: Endemic to balds on high mountains over 3800' in
elevation. This plant often occurs on steep rock faces and narrow
ledges.
Since this project area is under 1030' elevation, and no
rock faces or ledges occur, this plant is not likely to be on
this site and none were found. Therefore, habitat for spreading
avens does occur at this site nor was any found. This project
will not impact this species.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri) - (T)
A small, erect ( 1 - 5 dm tall), glabrous perennial herb
with a thickened, rounded, cornlike rootstalk. Narrow, linear,
entire, simple, alternate leaves are numerous and spirally
arranged. Flowers (florets) are small and sessile in a compact
head on a common enlarged receptacles, surrounded by an
involucre. The heads are arranged in an elongate, racemiform
inflorescence, flowering from top to bottom. Distinguishing
characteristics are its short stature and its very short pappus.
Fruit a cypsela (achene or nutlet by some authors), 2.5 to 5 mm
long, tan to blackish, somewhat cylindrical but tapered at the
base into a blunt point, ribbed, hairy, particularly along the
ribs; pappus of rather stout, capillary, barbellate bristles,
tan, 1/2 or less the length of the corolla tube. Flowers, July
to September; Fruits, August to October; Vegetative, July to
October.
Range: Northwestern Mountains of North Carolina.
Habitat: Open, rocky outcrops, ledges, cliff faces and woods
at elevations above 2800 feet.
This project's elevation is under 1030 feet and no rocky
outcrops or woods are present. Therefore, suitable habitat for
this species does not occur at this site. This project will not
impact on this species.
Blue-Ridge goldenrod (Solidaao spithamea) - (T)
An erect (1-4 dm) somewhat foul-smelling perennial herb,
arising from a short, stout rhizome. Stems angled above. Leaves
basal and cauline, simple, alternate, elliptic to ovate, serrate,
smooth to slightly scabrous above, glabrous beneath, and ciliate.
14
Flowers (florets) are small and sessile in a compact head in an
involucre on a common enlarged receptacle. Ray flowers yellow,
pistillate and fertile; disc flowers are numerous (20-60),
yellow, perfect and fertile corolla tubular and deeply 5 lobed.
Secondary inflorescence densely corymbiform. Involucres 3 to 6 mm
long, 4 to 7 mm broad; bracts obtuse to acuminate, appressed,
glabrous, involucral bracts not striate-nerved. Nutlets 2.5 to 3
mm long, pubescent; pappus 2.5 to 3.5 mm long. Flowers, July to
September; fruits, July to October; vegetative, July to October.
Range: The "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina" (1991) lists only Avery and Mitchell
Counties in North Carolina. However, a 1983 study for the U.S.
Forest Service on threatened or endangered species of North
Carolina and Virginia lists Avery, Caldwell, and Mitchell
Counties of North Carolina and also the mountains of Tennessee.
Alabama and Georgia are named, but both are noted as not recently
documented.
Habitat: Rock crevices and balds at upper elevations (above
48001) in the mountains.
The elevation of this project is under 1030 feet and no rock
crevices or balds occur. Therefore, suitable habitat for the Blue
Ridge goldenrod does not exist at this site and none were found.
This plant will not be impacted by this project.
A liverwort (Bazzania nudicaulis)* - (C)
A tiny nonvascular plant (0.8-1.5 mm wide) in wiry mats with
many stems denuded. Leaves are transversely inserted with
underleaves uniformly present and dentate. Plants brownish or
blackish.
Found on rock or bark of fir trees at high elevations, these
plants are usually found only on peaks above 5000 feet.
Mountain bittercress (Cardamine clematitis) - (C)
A stoloniferous perennial with erect stems to 2.5 dm tall,
the lower stem densely pubescent. Basal leaves orbicular,
cordate, crenate, or remotely lobed; stem leaves pinnately
dissected with 1 or 2 pairs of lateral divisions, margins dentate
to crenate. Petals white, 5 - 10 mm long.
This plant grows in high elevation seeps, shaded outcrops,
and streambanks in the mountains of North Carolina.
Bent avens (Geum Geniculatum) - (C)
An erect (4 - 8 dm tall), hirsute perennial herb with basal
rosette of leaves arising from short, vertical rootstocks. Basal
leaves odd-pinnately compound, often simple, with shorter
petioles and prominent stipules. Flowers nodding, actinomorphic,
with 5 spreading sepals, 5 - 10 mm long, fused at base, green
with glandular hairs; petals are 5 -10 mm long, pinkish, whitish
or lavender; stamens and pistils numerous.
This plant is found in high elevation forests on streambanks
and seepage slopes; often associated with red spruce - Fraser fir
forests and yellow birch - American beech forests.
A liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii)*- (C)
A relatively large liverwort with long decurrent leaves on
upper side of stem, with margins turned back. Teeth of leaves
15
fewer than 10, large and several celled; leaves narrowly ovate.
Shoots 1.5-2 mm wide with creeping caudex and upright or pendant
shoots.
Often found among mosses, these plants grow on shaded rocks
or underledges.
Insects:
Diana Frittilary butterfly (Speyeria diana) - (C)
Wings black basally and blue outward. Front wing markings
pale, almost white. Ventral hind wing essentially without silver
spots in discal area. Dark larva are nocturnal and feed on
violets. The adult is little attracted to flowers and can be
baited with dung.
The adults can be found chiefly in the mountains flitting
along woodland roads.
* - indicates no specimen from Caldwell County in at least 20
years.
The NCNHP records show that none of the endangered,
threatened, or candidate species have ever been found from the
vicinity of this project. NCWRC listed no special concerns for
this project site. No species of special concern were found.
This project will not impact on any federally protected species.
State Protected Species
All of the federally listed species described above are also
on the North Carolina protected list, but none occur at this
site. The NCNHP has had no reports of state-listed species
occurring at this site. This project will impact on any protected
state species.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of
330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
Since this project is located in one of the 25 westernmost
North Carolina counties that contain mountain Trout Waters, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to obtain
a letter of approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and to fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. The
final permit decision rests with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification which is
administered through the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources is required for any
activity which may result in a discharge of dredged or fill
material and for which a federal permit is required.
16
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural
resources has been delineated and is shown on Figure 2.
There appear to be no historic architectural resources in
the vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted and concurred with the above
statement. (See letter in Appendix.)
There are no known recorded
project boundaries. However,
been systematically surveyed,
Officer has recommended that
survey be conducted to identify
archaeological remains that may
proposed project. This survey
construction.
d archaeological sites within the
since the project area has never
the State Historic Preservation
a comprehensive archaeological
the presence and significance of
be damaged or destroyed by the
will be accomplished prior to
IX. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that
with proper implementation of the Department's erosion and
sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices" no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
implementation of this project.
17
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1142, BRIDGE NO. 106
OVER LOWER CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
B-2116
7/92 01 mile 9? FIG. I
i
N
?x
O?
C7
.'V
H
C-1
z
0

?n
a
r
C
tt
r
r
n
0
c
z
H
C
M
W
L-j
Co
0
x
y
a
b
b
C
a
n
z
C
-3
x
a
b
b
x
0
a
n
C
y
z
t?
a
H
d
C7
C
H
Ci7
E
Y
ZONE X
G?
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
1000 0 1000
I'll Z
i

ZONE X
ZONE
X
LENOIR
MORGANTON AIRPORT
PROJECT SITES
B-2116
ZONE X
1: X
ZONE X
Lc;32

/ /o,
ZONE X 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
ZONE X
ZONE X
ZONE X
B-2116
BRIDGE NO. 106
CALDWELL COUNTY
FIGURE 4
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
I Uate Ut Lana tvaluation Hequest May 8, 1992
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
T.I.P. No. B-2116 (8.2731501) None
Proposed Land Use County And State
Highway Caldwell County, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received By SCS -
.Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes NT Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(It no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). I
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres,:; 7.0 .,4 _ 3.1 'Acres:. % 3cl
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name-Of: L.ocal.Site Assessment Svstp-, Date LaO,• Xailuation• Returned By SCS.

P Alternative Site Rating
ART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 1.82 I 0.37
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 0
C. Total Acres In Site 1.82 0.37
PART [1[ (T.o be:completedby:SCS) Land Evaluatsont?infotoa r{r
A: Totat Aq_res Rr> iae Qrt&Uniquw ?prmIand t _ -
B:. Total Acres Statewide.And Local' Im
pOCtanL l`8rfiahd`
C;` _:P.erc enta":Of.Fart. ltnd tti Coonty 04;tocatEi t ?T`cY+ a £#>yd
O' ` Pet¢eniage, Of Fasittitand'JrG.ovt. JUriSdicftSDrr.UVttttr58l1tsYE?r Mier: Rrlr;?4 '? , ``
. ± Q T
+`t3ac A
t
ems':
PART V (To be completed by SCS). Land Evaluation-Criterion
Ate

-
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points 4
j ?
1. Area In Nonurbac 16'
i Il ! 1
2. Perimeter in Nonur . Jse /O (o
3. Percent Of Site Beina -med 2.0 Q
4. Protection Provided Bv sate And Local Government ZO p
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area - -
6. Distance To Urban Support Services - - -
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average !0 O !O
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland Z$' p 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services S S i 5-
10. On-Farm Investments 20 /0 I
11. Effects Of Conversion On FJ''rm Support Services -T 0 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0 O
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 43 i 2
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 7g,1 89
Total Site Asse$sment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment/
1
y 3 'f{ Z
TOTAL POI NTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 / 21. Y / 3
I Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AO-1006 (10-83)

i
RECORD OF CONTACT
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Date: August 21, 1992
By: Jeff Williams
Person Contacted: Mr. Robert Pless
Firm: NCDOT, Division 11 Construction Engineer
By Phone : _? , or In Person: _ . Time i t : oo ( am ?, pm_) -t
(called _ or call received ? )
Subject: Bridge Replacement Project, T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2116,
Caldwell County.
Topics Discussed: The recommended alternative was discussed.
Conclusions Reached: Mr. Pless stated that he concurred
the subject bridge should be replaced at the existing
location and that traffic should be maintained with a
temporary on-site detour (Alternate No. 2).
Remarks: None
cc: Leigh Cobb - NCDOT, Planning & Environmental Branch
STAIZ
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
rp JUL 201992
D/vl SION OF ??.
'?, GHWq YS
?'??sE,aRC???r
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categoricai
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
807
cc: L. J- ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 276012
B. Church
T. Padgett

r
Replace Bridge No. 106 on SR 1142 over Lower Creek,
Caldwell County, B-2116, 8.2731501, ER 92-8535
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
July 16, 1992