19940514 Ver 1_Complete File_19940531

t
I __y
d? STA?y?
rl ,
Imo`
MAY 3 1 i994
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
May 24, 1994
.1y
401 I5sut
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Burke County, Bridge No. 83 over Silver Creek,
State Project No. 8.2851001. Federal Aid No. BRZ-
1149(2), T.I.P. No. B-2112.
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
o de Permit in
N; e,15-
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A -23) ssued November
22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers. e pro isions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of the egulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
Foundation borings will be required on this project.
The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or
rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams
and/or wetlands. These activities will require authorization
under Nationwide Permit No. 6.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior
to authorization of both nationwide permits by the Corps of
Engineers. By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT
hereby requests NCWRC review. The NCDOT also requests that
NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.

We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the attached information 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 Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. _./O`Qui n
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, 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. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Burke County
SR 1149
Bridge No. 83 Over Silver Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1149(2)
State Project 8.2851001
T.I.P. No. B-2112
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
AT riFFranklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
150
Nicholas L. Graf P.E.
DD TE F-.R ,
Division Administrator, FHWA
Burke County
SR 1149
Bridge No. 83 Over Silver Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1149(2)
State Project 8.2851001
T.I.P. No. B-2112
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 1994
Documentation Prepared By
JBM Engineers and Planners
2"YZ elz
K nneth W. Smith, P.E.
Project Manager
?n?eaa?ozccc;?A?
0
E 0
S E A, L o ?
s ?
a 11 320 a
a ,
??'ti2aacaavoa0°?
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
-low i?.
/.su B' ett, Jr., P.E., Unit Head
ant Engineering Unit
icy Y&aatr
Project Consultant Engineering Unit

Burke County
SR 1149
Bridge No. 83 Over Silver Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1149(2)
State Project 8.2851001
T.I.P. No. B-2112
Bridge No. 83 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
A comprehensive archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to
construction to identify the presence and significance of any archaeological remains at the
site. This survey is in response to a recommendation made by the Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer in a memorandum dated January 26, 1993 (Attachment A).
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 83 will be replaced on a new location approximately 50 feet upstream (west)
of the existing structure as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2. The recommended
replacement structure consists of a bridge 210 feet long and 30 feet wide. This structure
will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with three-foot shoulders on each side. Additionally,
about 825' of SR 1113 will require realignment in order to provide a safe and effective
intersection with SR 1149.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing grade at
this location so that the bottom elevation of the new superstructure will be no lower than
that of the existing structure.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot pavement width with eight-foot
shoulders (four feet of which will be paved) throughout the project limits.
The existing structure will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,336,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program, is $625,000,
($530,000-construction; $95,000-ROW).
1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southwestern portion of Burke County, approximately 2 miles
south of the Town of Glen Alpine (see Figure 1). Development in the area is rural
residential in nature.
SR 1149 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is not a Federal Aid Highway. This route is designated as a major collector in
the Burke County Thoroughfare Plan.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1149 has a 20-foot pavement width with five-foot to six-
foot shoulders (see Figures 3 & 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the
project area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent that extends approximately 200
feet north and 1,300 feet south from the structure. The roadway is situated about 21 feet
above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 4,000 VPD is expected to increase to 8,800 VPD by the year
2015. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 45 mph in northern third of the project area
and 55 mph in the southern two thirds of the project area.
Bridge No. 83 is a six-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure 3)
was constructed in 1953.
The overall length of the structure is 129 feet. The clear roadway width is 19.2 feet. The
posted weight limit on this bridge is 16 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for TTST's.
Bridge No. 83 has a sufficiency rating of 19.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there are overhead
power lines on both sides of the roadway through the project area.
Eleven accidents, resulting in two fatalities and five injuries, have been reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 83 during the period from May, 1989 to April, 1992. Five
accidents occurred either on the bridge or at the SR 1149/SR 1113 intersection just south
of the bridge. Only one of those five accidents can be attributed to the narrow clear
roadway width of the existing structure. Relocation of the SR 1113 intersection away
from the structure will improve sight distances and turning radii. These improved safety
considerations will provide a safer intersection that will result in fewer accidents.
Twelve school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 83 were studied. Each alternative consists of a
bridge 30 feet wide. This structure width will accommodate two 12-foot travel lanes with
three-foot shoulders on each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot
pavement width and eight-foot shoulders (four feet of which will be paved) on each side.
Typical sections of the proposed structure and approach roadway are included as Figure 4
and Figure 5.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
The new structure will have a length of 190 feet. Improvements to the approach
roadways will be required for a distance of about 200 feet to the north and 250 feet to the
south. A design exception will be required if the existing vertical alignment can not be
economically improved to attain a 60 mph design speed. A temporary on-site detour will
be provided during the construction period immediately west of the existing structure.
The temporary detour will consist of a bridge 120 feet long and 24 feet wide, located
about 40 feet west (upstream) of the existing structure. Approximately 750' of SR 1113
will require realignment in order to provide a safe and effective intersection with SR 1149.
Alternative 1 is not recommended because of its higher estimated construction cost.
Alternative 2 - (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure on a new location
immediately upstream (west) of the existing bridge. The new structure will have a length
of 210 feet. The southern bank of Silver Creek in the vicinity of the new bridge will
require full rip rap protection for a distance of approximately 50 feet upstream and 50 feet
downstream to prevent further erosion. Improvements to the alignment on the approaches
include approximately 1,400 feet of new pavement, 350 feet to the north and 1050 feet to
the south. The design speed of this alternative is 60 mph. The existing structure will
serve as an on-site detour structure during the construction period. Approximately 825
feet of SR 1113 will require realignment in order to provide a safe and effective
intersection with SR 1149. Alternative 2 is recommended because it provides an improved
vertical and horizontal alignment and it has a lower estimated construction cost.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1149.
The Division Office concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of closing the road
during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 1149 and the excessive length
of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
The Burke County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of traffic
on-site during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.

V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Structure $ 285,000 $ 315,000
Roadway Approaches 580,975 757,745
Detour Structure & Approaches 506,770 --
Structure Removal 12,255 12,255
Engineering & Contingencies 215,000 145,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 81,000 106,000
Total $1,681,000 $1,336,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 83 will be replaced on a new location approximately 50 feet upstream (west)
of the existing structure as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2, with a new structure
having a length of approximately 210 feet. Improvements to the existing approaches will
be necessary for a distance of about 350 feet north of the replacement structure and 1050
feet south of the new bridge.
A 24-foot pavement width with eight-foot shoulders (four feet of which will be paved) on
each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 30-foot clear width is
recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current NCDOT
Bridge Policy. SR 1149 is classified as a rural minor collector; therefore, criteria for a
rural minor collector was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 24-foot
travelway with three-foot shoulders on each side across the structure. The design speed
of the recommended alternative is 60 mph.
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site is necessary. Otherwise,
traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to the traffic volumes using SR 1149 and the excessive
length of additional travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a
length of approximately 210 feet. The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to
facilitate drainage. Also, the bottom elevation of the superstructure will be no lower than
that of the existing structure so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year
floodplain elevation. It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will be
slightly higher than that of the existing bridge. The length and height of the new structure
may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on January 18, 1993 to verify documented information
and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred
by a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1)
search for State and Federally protected plants and animal species; 2) search for unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4)
identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Alluvial Forest is the only natural plant community that occurs within the study area. This
riparian area, which lies immediately adjacent to Silver Creek, is extremely narrow through
the project area, grading into man-dominated communities.
The riparian vegetation associated with Silver Creek consists of flood tolerant species
including sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Ater rubrum), river birch (Betula
nigra), elm (Illmus americana), giant cane (Arundanaria gigantea), blackberry (Rebus
sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and grape (Vitis
sp.). This community is contained within a well-defined floodplain on both sides of the
existing bridge but is most extensive to the west, or upstream from the existing bridge. It
grades to more disturbed areas on both sides of the stream.
The southwest quadrant of the project area has been greatly disturbed and is overgrown
with kudzu (Pueraria lobata) with some isolated occurrences of scrub pine (Pinus
virginia) and blackberry (Rubus sp.). The southeast quadrant is entirely man-dominated
with the cultivation of nursery stock consisting of ornamental trees and shrubs.
Much of the remaining area surrounding the project is residential and maintained as lawn
(Festuca sp.) with some encroachment of clover (Trifolium sp.) and dandelion
(Taraxacum sp.). A small plantation of white pines (Pinus strobes) lies on the northwest
quadrant, between the riparian community and residential community.
Wildlife (General)
Riparian communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians in
particular are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle and
some species are totally aquatic.
5
Reptiles and amphibians likely to inhabit the project area include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink, (E.
laticeps), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough
green snake ((Opheodrys aestivus), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus
fuscus), white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus), American toad (Bufo
americans), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), green frog (Rana clamitans), and leopard
frog (R. utricularia).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reports that Silver Creek does not
support a public trout fishery and downstream areas have been previously degraded. Fish
species likely to inhabit Silver Creek include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), shiners (Notropis sp.), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), pumkinseed
(L. gibbosus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabbellare), and tessellated darter (E. olmstedi).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission recommends that erosion and
sedimentation be minimized to protect the remaining fish habitat.
Riparian corridors also act as natural passageways for mammals. They also serve as
refuges for mammals forced from more disturbed upland sites. Mammals likely to inhabit
the area include opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), shorttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda),
least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), bats (Lasiurus sp. and
Myotis sp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor), chipmunk (Tamias striatus), mice (Peromyscus sp.
and Reithrodontomys sp.), meadow vole (Microtas pennsylvanicus), and cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus).
Birds likely to inhabit the study area include the red-tailed hawk (Buteo. jamaicensis),
bobwhite quail (Colinas virginianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), tufted titmouse (Paris bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), cedar
waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), starling (Sturnim vulgaris), cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), field sparrow (,,4pizella pusilla), and
song sparrow (Melospiza melodic).
Physical Resources
Soil
Buncombe loamy sand (0 to 3% slopes) is the only soil series identified within the project
area. Buncombe soils are very deep, excessively drained soils on floodplains. They
formed in sandy alluvial sediments. They have a sandy surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is rapid and available water capacity is low. The seasonal high water table is
below 6 feet. These soils are subject to occasional flooding for brief periods.
Consultation with the Burke County Soil and Water Conservation District indicates that
Buncombe loamy sand (0-3% slopes) is not classified as a prime, unique or important soil.
6
Water
This bridge replacement project spans Silver Creek, a tributary to the Catawba River and
contained within the Catawba River basin.
Silver Creek has a "best usage" classification of "C" at the SR 1149 bridge.
Approximately 1.7 miles downstream, Silver Creek assumes a "best usage" classification
of "WS-IV", as the City of Morganton's water supply intake is located downstream, in the
Catawba River. Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture. Class WS-IV designates waters
protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds. The project will not have any potential adverse impacts on Morganton's
water supply. The overall safety of SR 1149 is improved by the project thereby reducing
the potential of toxic spills entering the water supply as a result of an accident in the
vicinity of Silver Creek. Also, during the construction period, Best Management Practices
will be implemented to minimize the potential of diminished water quality.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, addresses the long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the use of benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive
to very subtle changes in water quality. Specific data for Silver Creek are not available.
However, the Catawba River, upstream from the mouth of Silver Creek at the Town of
Glen Alpine, received a "good" bioclassification rating during sampling efforts conducted
in August, 1988. The Morganton Wastewater Treatment Plant is permitted to discharge
8.0 million gallons per day (MGD) into the Catawba River. This plant is located
approximately ten miles downstream from the SR 1149 bridge crossing.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Silver Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Observation Point U istream (100 ft.) Existing Crossing Downstream (100 ft.
Substrate Silt, sand, cobble
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width (ft.) 20-30 25-30 20-25
Bank Height (ft.) 10-12 7-10 6-8
Water Depth (ft.) 1-3 1-3 2-3
Water Color Slightly turbid Slightly turbid Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood fringe - sycamore, maple, birch, elm
Wetlands Bank to Bank
7
The general gradient of Silver Creek is moderate and riffle-pool ratios are generally
balanced through the project area. Though some flats are developed behind the riffle
areas, sediment loads will, for the most part, be carried downstream from the project site.
The stream banks are relatively steep and high enough to contain most storm surges;
therefore, overtopping floods will be minimal.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland plant communities will be affected by this project. The stream banks are steep
and well drained and wetland hydrology does not occur in the adjacent communities.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to plants
and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. In the case of state-funded actions, where federal wetland permits are likely to be
required, for example, the FWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action
does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence
of federal actions, the FWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal.
The FWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource
area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and
animals where statewide populations are in decline. Plants or animals with state
designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. These Acts are administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
The FWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were consulted to
identify the potential for occurrences of protected species in the project study area.
Federally Listed Species:
Information from the FWS dated September 20, 1993, indicates that there are six federally
protected species listed in Burke County, (see Table 2). Each species and its relationship
to the proposed project are discussed on the following page.
8
A

TABLE 2
COMMON NAME SPECIFIC NAME STATUS

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum E'
Small whorled pagonia Isotria medeoloides E
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T2
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri T
Mountain golden heather Hudsonia montana T
E' - Endangered: A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all of its range.
P - Threatened: A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
* - Indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
American peregrine falcons are found primarily near rocky cliffs, bluffs, pinnacles,
where they prefer to nest. They forage in a variety of habitats, including coastal
waters, open valleys, and even within cities. They eat almost any small- to medium-
sized bird, but more particularly rock doves, pelagic birds, songbirds and waterfowl.
Occasionally, the peregrine will take mammals, beetles, dragonflies and migrating
monarch butterflies. Populations of the peregrine falcon were reduced worldwide
during the 1950's and 1960's as a consequence of the use of DDT.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No nesting sites will be affected by the proposed bridge replacement project; therefore,
no impacts to this species will occur.
Small whorled pagonia (Isotria medeolohles)
This member of the orchid family is a perennial characterized by a smooth, hollow
stem, 10 inches tall, terminated by a whorl of 5 to 6 light green, elliptical leaves. A
single (sometimes two) light green flower appears at the top of the stem in May to
June. Preferred habitat is open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil, located on level
or gently sloping terrain.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project will not involve disruption to any deciduous wooded areas. No
impacts to this species will occur.
9
Spreading avens (Geunt radiatunt)
This perennial herbaceous plant is a member of the rose family. The flowers are bright
yellow and the flowering period is from June through August. It is endemic to balds
on high mountains and often occurs on steep mountain faces and narrow ledges.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur.
Dwarf-flowered heart leaf (Ilewastylis naniflora)
The dwarf-flowered heart leaf is a perennial herb that arises from a rhizome. The
leaves are cordate and flowers are axillary on short peduncles, often found under
leaves and forest litter. The flowering period is April through early May. The dwarf-
flowered heart leaf occurs in deciduous, north slope woods..
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The proposed project will not involve disruption to this habitat type and, therefore, no
impacts to this species will occur.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri)
Heller's blazing star is a member of the aster family. Flowers occur in clusters and are
rarely solitary, blooming late July through August, from the top to the bottom of the
stem. Flowers are lavender to pink or white. The plant occurs on drier mountaintop
cliff edges, in shallow, acidic soils, usually on weathered granite above 3,500 feet in
elevation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area is at an elevation well below 3500 feet and does not support suitable
habitat for this plant, therefore, no impacts to this species will occur.
Mountain golden heather (Hu(1sonia montana)
Hudwnia is a small genus of low, spreading, freely branched shrubs, rarely more than
3-4 dm (12-16") tall. The mountain golden heather has leaves that are evergreen and
needle-like. Its solitary flowers bloom from June through July. The plant occurs on
shrub balds and is endemic to North Carolina.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant; therefore, no impacts to
this species will occur.
10
The FWS also identified candidate species, (species that are currently under status
review), that may occur in the project study area. A list of these species is provided in
Table 3, below.
TABLE 3
COMMON NAME
SPECIFIC NAME
SUITABLE HABITAT
Brook floater (mussel)
A liverwort *
A liverwort *
A liverwort
A liverwort
Sweet pinesap
Butternut
Rock skullcap
Oconee-bells
Short-styled Oconee-bells
Alasmidonta varicosa
Cephaloziella obtusilobula
Plagiochila caduciloba
Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
Monotropsis odorata
Juglans cinerea
,Scutellaria sazitilis
Shortia galacifolia
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla
* Indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
State"Listed Species:
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program indicated that there are no state protected
species within the project study area.
Im acts
The preferred alternative consists of replacement of the structure at a new location,
immediately upstream from the existing bridge. The existing bridge will be used to
maintain traffic during the construction period.
Construction of the new bridge and approach roadways will impact the ecological
community. Portions of the riparian and upland hardwood communities will be destroyed
by land clearing, excavation, filling, draining and paving. As a result, these communities
will be altered and, consequently, the habitat quality lessened to some degree. During
construction, efforts will be made to minimize impacts to the riparian and hardwood
forest communities.
Approximately 0.2 acre of riparian habitat will be impacted by the new construction.
These losses are relatively small compared to the amount of similar habitats that are found
in the region.
Impacts due to the proposed project will mainly affect aquatic organisms. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization, and land clearing are construction
activities that can result in the direct loss of benthic organisms due to an increase in silt
11
load. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply for fish and
other vertebrates.
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to Silver Creek. Construction of
the new bridge structure could create short-term increases in siltation and sedimentation in
Silver Creek. Fill material placement for the approach roadway may enter the stream, and
pier and/or abutment excavation could result in increased turbidity both on-site and
downstream of the project area. Other impacts might include alterations to water levels
and flow due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or groundwater flow; increased
concentrations of toxic compounds from construction, and reductions to sensitive
invertebrate species due to alterations in water clarity and light-incidence resulting from
increased turbity. However, these potential impacts are avoidable. Appropriate measures,
consistent with Best Management Practices, will be implemented during the term of the
project to minimize, control and/or contain the potential impacts.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat:
The Alluvial Forest community is not uncommon but few examples remain intact. The
man-dominated communities contain mostly kudzu and grasses and are not of prime-
quality. The acreage of impact that will occur as a result of this project is not substantial.
Silver Creek is not a designated wild or scenic river.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States". In addition, the project is located in a
designated "trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and provide it to the Corps of
Engineers.
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that -the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include
test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands. These
activities will require authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 6.
12
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity that may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit
is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
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 an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
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.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from publicly
owned recreational land, as described in Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
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 if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect
on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. The
project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
13
The area of potential effect (APE) of the project was reviewed in the field. No properties
over fifty years old were located within the APE, only modern houses and the bridge itself,
built in 1953.
The Deputy North Carolina Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated
January 26, 1993, (Attachment A) stated that his office is aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance in the general planning area.
Since there are no architectural properties either listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 with
respect to architectural resources is required.
Although there are no recorded archaeological sites in the proposed project area, the
Deputy North Carolina Historic Preservation Officer in a memorandum dated January 26,
1993, (Attachment A) recommended an archaeological survey of the proposed project
area. Therefore, an archaeological survey of the proposed project area will be conducted
prior to construction.
This project has been coordinated with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. There
are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland
acreage within these classifications.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Asheville Regional
Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The
ambient air quality for Burke County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the 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 State
Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section
revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
14
Burke County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are is a small business and a single family residence
located within the limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
15

GLEN ALPINE
POP. 645

Wx
PRA
BRIDGE NO. 83
1 on f,
inville Idge'N
Its Col,
Howksbill 181
fOrdMNP'( 22
iTable Ro k Tuttle Eci.,
, St. Forest l
? 10 OK
64 ake
i Lake 126 ak Hil
• Jo es
10 0 ' ci 3 -Drexel
10
X10 in 2 t
Brid !w ter. ?? ??
s 7r
B R E
` 16 Pleas4m Crove
'f Sou/h Modntoins
t SYat L. Par,
Ate. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
SR 1149
BRIDGE NO. 83 OVER
SILVER CREEK
B-2112
!.>
I
1/2
SCALE
(mi)
FIGURE 1
d
wr,
N
Ls, W
z
w z
,1
E.. r
a
z

w ¢a
A
?
Lij
¢ z z
?pUw
.a F z >
Iz ow
D,CO CCN c
?-

P

R:7

? z
2
N E
W LU
0
Q w
Z ?
w 0
I- U
J l11
Q ?

$5

LLJ
f
uj
!! J
Q
as

W E

z LLJ
?

rr, a
Lij
O

LLJ
Q

O d

Q a O O °- L)
U?
O CC N W

W
U
U O Z
a. O.. Y?zwm
cnw> LL.

h. : U
cn Z ?
_

i? 0. 03

?I

4 [ 'o
! ?i/
? fy
w
O a
-- z
?O
W Qa ?
~ ~ zo >
z y Z W
oF o????
?aOw
O c? OocN
a CO 02 ?hwJm
E-0 y
a 5 ? m
C
zAaw co
??, • MOUr
0
J
Z Z
0 Q
W W
? N
V Z (? W N CA a
0c 0a m
Q W Q a a`
U)
m
Q
3 3 r
.D
Q
~
CO)
CL a
? -a
V = 0
cn °
s
Cl)
~ ~ c >
-i a H
u u n
3 0y. ly-
It
w
cr
D
0
M
O
zz
H
H

a
oex? z o w
w

Q
o?
O z O rl '? a
i,
d ?z a ?,
zA
oa

NO /I

Z 4
O
DE
O
?
U

a

z
0

U
W

a

? 5

N
m y
v

O
U
0
0
v
13
>
>
>

M ? c •m -t co
e°
E= N t!1 t!f
y
cc a)

O
0)

C1

r
N
? ;
U Q
a
0
w
v
a
a
w
LO
w
D
0
LL
•,750 \ i)
ZONE A BRIDGE NO. 83
A
\ ?o
?0
Silver Creek W D
i 103
10, 1040
t_, l AQ
\\\ eu 1045 ZONE
D X
t Advent 11 It
\ t Cemc`. „ It
-till ZONE AE
, rr ,1 II
1046
. \ \ II
41
it \b
?11 g8?
\ G
\?\ ?J tan itl
100 - YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
It
tt o
n
II rr
ZONE X
II •\ n Q-
n "
tt tt .rl. C7
t ° 1
a n G
%%27tt U ° .?
tU _ E g ZONE A
c4
11 \ 9S?
p p oll,
11 ?•' \ \?? \ 1197
l1 /
"s t0°t' c, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
\ Peasant Rid _ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
_ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
i = ?`Fr? ar i°?+1'?! BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
SR 1149
BRIDGE NO. 83 OVER
SILVER CREEK
\ ,(' B-2112
ZONE X
FIGURE 6
V V4W K?•
recrer c+c?7 cltolY?
(tp?

North Carolina Department of Culturat Resources
lames 11. 1Iont, Jr., Governor
Bclty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 26, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Istoric Preservation
Amyopn1f 1993
- i o Archives :it,
' William "iccl?T:
Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 83 on SR 1149 over Silver Creek,
Burke County, B-2112, ER 93-7958
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1992, 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. Please
notify us if there are any structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential
effect.
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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 (last Jones Slrvel - I ;alvihh, Not-Ili Carolina 27001.2907
Ilistory
Director
ATTACHMENT A -
SR 1149
BURKE CO.
BRIDGE NO. 83
B-2112
SIDE VIEW

NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH