19940721 Ver 1_Complete File_19940803

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
F15WA
A&141 *7
E:> IF= F=1
September 1, 1994
Watauga County
DEM Project # 94721
COE # 199202596
State Project No 8.1751201
TIP # B-2178
r^
Fit
You have our approval to place fill material in waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at
Baird's Creek bridge (NC 194), as you described in your application dated 27 July 1994. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 2735. This certification allows you to use General Permit Number 031 when
it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application.
If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to
the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification
and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-
1786.
Sincerely,
*rt bor V,J Nr.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
94721.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

r?
(C(OPY
'Lih
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R.ullwoo?l=Exe?>ie Director
Li C3 T: V,
{_-
f'i3ll+ili v_t+i
cl`
i" i:a it ,'•: i #:.::a t... ,... .:.: k..:., .. .. .,. , i t_t
..
f r':: •.:t {••{ t.:: ?.., .. t;;! } " rt . t t t
i)rC' -.,... .p.. ,,.. •P t 1' rg;:?•-rv: r.•::,-- - •{ -r{•{t i{
..: .. ' :':....-..: r_.. ,..;'•s:"?? t:.7:.i i#'_!i•';::t .,. ,'i::'.'.. {ii .. .. 5?''-{{::! ... .... _ ... .. .. .. .... ...
i_•:..: ,.._ J.
......, ,:.:._._, _... a::,.._,
:? {? 't"; #': {iii i"' 3"i .,. "3 t t t..! ?? +-1.; .. ' r•t : _; !..... . .. . !... ;J ?:.... .... ._ C.
...
_ U
... , i
; . 5 ?..:=- .L ...: .{ T' t_t l.. {_+ y" C! • -t CE', :_. { :! "i'1'•J ,._ r ...: a .:.t. i_r t -f i._ O T -f `_: 'PT 5 , f'i i1
.}. ;...- ?.- .., !_. r: .- t..., ;_ IF .... _. s 3
;:ii:?• -'. i..i {'t'':- ! . ?.t.l. L=:`i-'.... {_:-_!i:::.. .. ?•1• ... '!-iet ?. d
1 _,
., i..
t'.?,.. t {:::: ?.! :rt l t; {Y; ( iii i'i . {.!', t: ;'it ;..',. i.: i'•E ::-`•? ;..? s 1::; .... #::! .•i {... 'l. 1
t..: ;..: 5._.
• C..i e i {.:..? t_+ t hi _ .{.. l ..+•'t-r• ? .... i... ... 'i •i .. •! .
,..: r .,. 5 :..{ -}• .?: ......: ...::... .. ?' i {:: i .(..:.. Y::•! l:a ._ !
(:: M..' J. .3. %t t :..t .. ...... .. J. {::' ? o ,..
., .. ... i ,.i . .,:... i .... {.• r ! i":' .•" rs i•• {::a . } . j.. .{ i.. .?.. .{.. t:
.? ?...t !:.., ,? :• .._., t. C.?`? : , ..: .?.: : t: '! l :1. l•:::.{..
Y.'. ii
r' , '€ .i {.... ;a •?•::,; t. t k. t i
,. . 't +- :..:{ 1. ,.:i C.i _" '-+ ; t'_. 1. r'; ._ .L:,! L. ;... Y"
.. {`i ..t., ..
..... {, ..: /_, r. t'?I t.: t:tUt 'y.' : In : :",::: t_ i '! .i ? ,,! ?. t... ,: .. #.. ^ t I .: -` , , t as ,..i
?_+
, ' : r_:
+:_: f •.
't'd :I. ':: !': cu .. : ei" ...... ?A tii .{. {t {...: #?1 cit ?.. :1. .. i„!i?a i. ._'+."t t: i i#e' ._. .-:ifi#^•i
f 'fir,
i L5,
.; ..:-., r.. '' r... t.. .. {: i .. (., i-. !'} " ...!..:• r•? {'t i ..... .? i.... i #3 .....{.. e
.., •, r.. J.. C.
X.. { {::k #:•c' :: :.
... ",
! { s. t.: 5 , -.. .w t: { ..... .. .. ... ,: , .....
i?
J. .. r.:i 3 ? .... ..... is t:r. .. ... 5 ! i' i
...:. , .,. t t:.1. - ...5 t.: .: ; 1 ..: .. i r :::• :: t ... t:.;. # ' , '.°:• .5 -. f
,..
-:5 i ....... ..... .. : T• :n
t: i .. i.. ...` {:: ._' j_. ,.-• t.r.. „., : '{ , .(..
.1.. •• #•:::::;. .k.. _
.i. t ; >._ :... ; :.: i..: .+ 1 a i_:.i= i..! v..k .?. :.j. r i--_ ? .I. i i ;^! 1: ? {::; ...... .. ... i..: s':::.. (.:: {•i:: .:.i. 'i: .: ?. tt"_t a.:'..i t: 3. E: Y"i „
t.., .: ,-.:... }. ,,.+i_. _t t... .: . r..i ... i t;
! j..., " H.
m ., •
a i" i i• ' :: r•?
, , c.• 5 c.: .i. :. t. { k::::: ! 5 t..t t.:. •' E; (?; {:::,' i •:, _.., t•:: i' ,.... , t ;.. C:{V .: #::r .I. t'i
,
:., (.••..... t..: `.a .1 {.{ y'y {._'
__
_ ,.. 5 .... :....
._. 5...; ... .
{'{ ,.: ! : Y•''t.:. ..:.'! . ... 44.
,....'::
i"•. -r '; "-'-t •*. c:: • • ar. ?• 5 t : rea r • {::::.. .j..: .j.. _
,.., ,.. f:.._ :-5 t i i : , k. {..., i. :::; :{. {::i ..: L... )...._ ,_. F. ... i "i ?{: i
C., • . .... .... ... :::i :s'; :::f ,• ...' k_k .,...'t ,.......
_. i iti::•
.... • ::: t
.
..; , , ., ...i ? •r••{W!t _ ,.i ..,
.s. '=-tii;.' :. t..; ::: F 4..: :::t .... ..: y C! C:
...
C.... .F"_:.:•r t..
to !..:i? .:.-:;;i,t i i i{•=ii _?.. t..l ':fE;at#.. t: i.i iFSe i••F,_i'-..F r•{! (.1
11 ._ .... ;., . .
i...r ::x i it:a t_t', 1 k.k'i.i t :".:f '.'•.ei?•!'i", .L 'f . la ?•`'S i..!,' is {.: I::: a.:... :': {ii7 {...:i. ic:'S:::•
r.' ' t'.:i .... , ....._^. r. .... j'il trt .f. :i. (..: _:i i'i •? r:.. !. .. :.. iri
la?s° i ? >d
Mr. Chapin
Page 2
June 23, 1904
diverse fish i population. , The collection 4 i r.::: {;' ': y
':,:` {..+ {..i ;'fi..[• {-' r?:.:?::`.t
:r.;3. t_.:-:..3..?.{•F! L:L ?'?:t t bass sra, r and rock bass ??•.1c:i:: the ............ Y lower :yr...5.;
, indicates a. ':. ;"i .
;.•{ t is t i {.`..i C:tr:.]r...{u are ' ...:.:]d as spawning t.. s.. by these species.
:_. t_I by Trout
habitat .:.::=- considered excellent at this l o c a t i o n . The T ! stream
area that would be impacted by moving the bridge upstream
contains •_.i deep pool with cii rock !edge overhang and ;::i deep riffle
area.
If. in fact. the `+i ...:.1.: ?_: , has shifted the site :. f e'.-::•,••; this W..
in the original proposal submitted .....:
a change
ist the ` i•e a ..: b?i,j',- "-; on i' `:ia;{;:
i
t1:'.:T a 1992. Our comments d(.:+ not reflect this change. We would
1?•'?..: .?',}..ic_i opportunity 4:{ ; comment ?::+n any change in plans ;`n{ + •i:
like 1
submitted in { the o r i g i n a l t a. i..:..J .. proposal. Based on the site
visit on June 155 19941 the NCWRC WOUld be opposed to shifting
Bridge No. 45 upstream because of impacts to fish h a b i t a t . ,
Thank you for checking into this change in t'd i..:::.: OT project
.?y
plans. if v. ir.: can +:..•tr_ of r' further assistance,
please contact me :..,}.
910/366-2982.
Oft Joe Mlckey
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr.
District 7 Fisheries Biologist
cch Ms. Stephanie Boudreau, i{::„ Region Habitat Biologist
Gordon Mr. , . ,, t••, ?._:._: ?..3 i Environmental Specialist
Mr. Roger Cates, .. ''•i?...: .. 't District ..-.i...i {::E:'.'i' i {::. :: i'..
A
Mr. Steve Loftin
Sincerely, bSignedby
W4".- .1
MEMORANDUM PRINT NAMES:
Reviewer: L
TO: John Dorney WQ Supv.:
Planning Branch DATE: 4
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (USE N/A FOR NOT APPLICABLE) ***
PERMIT YR: 94 PERMIT NO: 0000721 COUNTY: WATAUGA
APPLICANT NAME: NC DOT - BAIRDS CREEK, BRIDGE 45
PROJECT-TYPE: BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PERMIT-TYPE: NW031
COE_#: 199202596 DOT-#: B-2173
RCD_FROM _CDA: DOT DATE_FRM_CDA: 03/03/9'4
REG OFFICE: WSRO
t.v,4,Titcc6xX
RIVER _AND_SUB_BASIN _# : 0 j oy Z, X_
WL_IMPACT? : ON STR_INDEX_NO : 8- ),3
STREAM-CLASS: C ?

WL_TYPE : Sn-?
WL_REQUESTED : i4oj4.v a.,.,+_
WL_ACR_EST? : YIN yN,E vaw *?
WL_SCORE(#): 36 11 41- WATER IMPACTED BY FILL?: Y/6
MITIGATION?: YC s•Z?- r a. s MITIGATION_TYPE: ?"jdIAc-t? r??es
MITIGATION-SIZE: V14 DID YOU REQUEST MORE INFO? : Y/o N`i 700T
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: YON
HAVE PROJECT CHANGES/CONDITIONS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH APPLICANT?: Y/?N
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One)- , ISSUE ISSUE/CON ) DENY
COMMENTS :`?P?-
?? d 1.f J h Od.?l yr A l ?.. O c dc.-TI-c? t a 10 ?pn cf/ C'J
C
d Q
cc: Regional Office Central Files
t
S 1?.??« G v VQG(a? J X.
AUG 2 5 1994 f

r ,
' y a!
v -
nv ?
i V
p'

Y
t
? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh
? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland
? Wet flat
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
• • • • • • • • • • •.. • • • • • • • •, ? • • • . • • . •.•h.. • • • • • •-., • • ! ... • • • • • • •
weigt .. • • a
Water storage x 4.00
=
Bank/Shoreline stabilization 3 x 2.00 =
Pollutant removal * 1 4-1 x 5.00 =
Special ecological attributes x 2.00 -
Wildlife habitat 1 sum::
*Aquatic life value x 3.00
Recreation/Education
Economic value x 0.50 =

Project name f S' Nearest road t Z
County Wetland area 't -O, 3 acres Wetland width ® feet
Name of evaluator ?- " = Date `r 6 gna- J

•
•
•
•
Wetland type (select one)
? Swamp forest ? Shoreline •
? Bottomland hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh
? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh •
O Pocosin O Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland
? Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be a
lied to salt marshes •
pp .
sum
Water storage
Bank/Shoreline stabilization <>> ':rfi _
x 4
00 _
.:. ..........
•
•
Pollutant removal Z .
< > :> `.:: •

Sensitive
t
r
h
d
wa
e
s
e
Travel corridor x 1.50
edand score.
S
ecial ecolo
ical attributes ? •
>
:
? ??
??:
p
g •
:•>
:
;:: ?::.
..
Wildlife habitat :::: <:>
<
Yr
1
50
:
x
.
:
Aquatic life value ?--? '- •

Recreation/Education yl.: •

Economic value x 0.25

Project name '7J c7 T t1- Nearest mad
County. Wetland area acres Wetland width :26 ' &w// feet
Name of evaluator Z ??? o 4?- ?.7 Date-
El Hydrologically connected. O Hydrologically isolated

•
•
•
•
•
•
Wetland type (select one) B?'Other 5
? Swamp forest -
? Shoreline •
? Bottomiand hardwood forest ? Brackish marsh '
? Carolina bay ? Freshwater marsh
? Pocosin ? Bog/Fen •
? Pine savannah ? Ephemeral wetland =
? Wet flat •
The rating system cannot be applied to salt marshes.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60 • • • • • • • • •
0 • • • • • • .
M • ... • • : • • . • • • . • • ...... .

S
W m
Water storage
;::::f:::::? a
x:.•:.:..:,. :•.::.::

!
•
Bank/Shoreline stabilization
_
x 4.00 -
Pollutant removal 2-'°''` •

•
Sensitive watershed :>::: _ x 1
50 •
,
r
.
Travel corridor etland.
R,,

S ecial ecological attributes d t * •
Wildlife habitat x 1.50 -
Aquatic Iite value

Recreation/Education x
x 0.25 _ ><. <'
Economic value `:<`< :<v'~>' •
•••.••••.•...•.•••.•.••..4b••••••....•.••.••••.•.•.•.•..••
Project name '2)V T tt- V?1- Nearest road ,hLx
County- Wetland az ! . - acres Wetland width C W 'feet
Name of evaluator ?? o Date_
iC
? Hydrologically connected. ? Hydrologically isolated
0
w
F-
4n
riP
V I
S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTAWN
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 27, 1994
District Engineer
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Unit
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 45 over
Bairds Creek on NC 194, T.I.P. No. B-2178, State
Project No. 8.1751201, COE Action ID No.
199202596.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace the existing bridge over Bairds Creek on
NC 194 in Watauga County. A Categorical Exclusion (CE)
document was prepared for this project to evaluate
environmental considerations. This document was signed by
the NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration on May 22,
1992, and submitted to your agency on June 2, 1992.
Subsequently, the project was coordinated with your agency
and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). The WRC
reviewed the project based on the information provided, and
your agency issued Regional General Permit No. 31 for this
project on July 1, 1992.
The WRC has notified the NCDOT by letter dated June 23,
1994 that the WRC may be opposed to this project based on an
apparent change in the design since our previous
coordination. The NCDOT's design for this project has not
been significantly changed since the earlier coordination.
This letter is intended to discuss the planning and design
process for this project and clarify any points of confusion.
The existing bridge over Bairds Creek was constructed in
1959, with subsequent renovations. It needs to be replaced
due to its deteriorated condition. This replacement must be
implemented according to modern standards for roadway and
bridge design. The recommended improvements will include
improved roadway approaches extending about 100 feet south

and 300 feet north of the bridge. A 24-foot pavement with 8-
foot graded shoulders is to be provided on these approaches,
in accordance with modern standards. This will require
widening the roadway since the existing roadway has a 16-foot
pavement with 3-foot shoulders. This improvement is required
for safety purposes regardless of the structure design
selected, and was discussed in the.CE document.
The CE document also mentioned several alternatives for
the bridge replacement structure. The document proposed a 3
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. However, the
document also discussed the potential adverse effects of
culverts on fish movement. It specifically stated that a
bottomless culvert would be considered for this project.
Should this design not be feasible, then the proposed 3
barrel culvert would include a low flow notch to accommodate
fish passage. These considerations are consistent with the
W'RC's preference for spanning structures, as expressed in
their comments on this project dated June 12, 1992.
Upon further investigation, it was determined that a
bottomless, spanning culvert is feasible at this location.
It is proposed that the bridge be replaced with a
prefabricated single-cell, bottomless culvert, 24 feet wide
and 7 feet high. This culvert will have to be 87 feet long
to extend under the improved roadway. Construction of this
culvert will not require direct disturbance of the existing
streambed. The footings will be constructed in bedrock on
the existing stream banks. Use of this type of culvert will
reduce actual construction time, and eliminate the need for
work directly in the stream during culvert construction.
The design for this bridge replacement is constrained by
several important factors. Immediately northeast of the
existing bridge, NC 194 intersects Mast Gap Road (SR 1117).
Consideration must be given to providing adequate sight
distance for motorists at this intersection, and for allowing
an intersection design that meets modern standards. Just
north of this intersection, there is a steep hillside
currently covered with mature forest. South of NC 194, the
project is constrained by Baird's Creek, the creek
floodplain, and a bridge to a residential development.
Consideration must also be given to the improved roadway
approaches, a proper roadway alignment, and cost. The NCDOT
has considered all of these factors in its proposed design.
The CE document evaluated two alternatives for the
location of the new culvert. The NCDOT is still proposing to
construct the alternative recommended in the CE. The design
of this alternative has not significantly changed since the
CE document was distributed. However, better information is
available regarding the impacts of each alternative. The
advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative
are summarized below.
Alternative 1 (Recommended)
The first alternative involves construction of the
bottomless culvert at the same location as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary
detour structure (two @ 72" corrugated metal pipes) located
immediately west of the existing structure. The centerline
of the roadway will remain in approximately the same location
as the existing condition. However, the new roadway limits
will be widened both to the north and to the south to
accommodate the required improvements.
Fill will also be needed along NC 194 east of the
bridge. This fill will be placed in the floodplain of Bairds
Creek between the existing roadway fill and the creek. This
fill is needed to accommodate the widened roadway and to
straighten the NC 194 alignment, which will improve sight
distance at the SR 1117 interchange. This fill slope can be
stabilized using vegetation. According to design studies,
the fill in the floodplain will have no measurable effect on
flood levels in the project area because the size of the
culvert has been designed to convey flood stage streamflow.
The major adverse impact of this alternative results
from the temporary detour, as was discussed in the CE
document. These effects will be minimized in several ways.
The pipes used for the detour wil"1 be placed on grade with
the stream bottom. These pipes and associated fill can be
removed and the area returned to natural conditions after
construction is completed. Stringent erosion control
measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) will be enforced
during the life of the project. The NCDOT's Sedimentation
Control guidelines will also be implemented.
Alternative 2
The second alternative would require replacement of the
bridge with the same culvert design on new location just west
of the existing structure. Traffic would be maintained on
the existing structure during construction. The existing
bridge and its approaches would be removed after project
completion, and graded to natural elevations.
The CE document identified a permanent loss of
vegetation using this alignment, due to its use of new
location. The document also indicated that this alternative
has a significantly higher cost than the recommended
alternative.
An additional adverse impact has been identified with
Alternative 2 since the planning document was completed.
This alternative would accommodate the relocated roadway and
correct its sight distance problem by cutting back the
hillside.to the northeast of the interchange. This would
involve permanently removing the existing trees and a costly
rock cut. This cut slope would leave bare rock permanently
exposed. Some type of restraint system will need to be used
to prevent rock fall onto the roadway. Although this
rockfall could be minimized, this cut could not be
effectively stabilized to prevent sedimentation.
Alternative 1 was recommended in the CE document because
the construction costs and environmental impacts were
expected to be lower as compared to Alternative 2. This
position is further supported by the impacts from the cut
slope required for Alternative 2, which were not assessed in
the document. Alternative 1 also provides an acceptable
design according to current standards.
The NCDOT has given full consideration to environmental
impacts associated with this project. Attempts have been
made to minimize these impacts where possible. These
measures have included restricting fill slopes, restricting
construction limits to avoid significant natural features,
and careful attention to erosion and sedimentation
prevention. It is the NCDOT's position that this design
reflects the least damaging, most practicable alternative for
this project. It is also the NCDOT's position that this
design is not a significant departure from the design
presented in the CE document and permitted July 1, 1992.
This information is also being provided to the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management to clarify any confusion concerning
the NCDOT's proposal. It is not anticipated that a
modification to the existing General Permit 31 issued for
this project will be required. Please review this
information for consistency with existing permit
authorization. If you need any additional information,
please call Gordon Cashin [phone].
Sincerely,
B.J. n, PE
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
David Cox, NCWRC
Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr., NCWRC
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Barry Jenkins, PE, Preconstruction
Kelly Barger, PE, Project Management
Don Morton, PE, Design Services
A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
T- ?7(%p?-'-/y/•r-? ry 'TAIAKE '7d7N.'/'? ?.
?i{/') -?Tf `. -]. !701 `1 ?C? ELEY. 557A .'t?• /
UK KNO&
R- svCKEYS KHOll't•J ?1? 3'f a - RICH AtTNO , ELEV. SSSS \
!!! ELEV. 4,100 MOb•I 7 ; Me RrT7t0 I
?71 '• • ^ w : GM l
.. IT00 •x) 1139 I 0?2 Mia MM-
/?_:: , - ^ J 1701 ! 'r•` 1
VOey
l.,
o N_l? 1770 \ -?r ?• a/.
C MIN.
T L2? ` ^•' !]11 ?`
.?` ! ?' 1]19 112 :° RIH
I. ?-/?`e - h ' 1719 BEV.5372
•,1191 'A Lr X11` 1]91 1 f \ •1? 1777
' • ' ,` •> e ?I7! ! e L70t 6 1 n s li14 'r^ tp1. ??0v (-•teaT
\ 1797 1709 n Etntl 114! li A POTATO
LI 3.0 in7 1141' 1391 HILL
1104 I
1-0 170. $?ytr • 1 .i!
1
1797 .Y 0••,: •0 ?.e 'O Mml? EII ,tdM ?7, 1779
7°s t).o 171] yry aIllt L71L?
I•or,o ; 17W °f 170f 1 ? ?7r7 ] ?_ 1717 '?. 'y\
'J) q!! ° } 1711 v 1791' ? I. 1701 :i? !777_ !A7 _707 ly
.111171707 •i3o7 ::"''I 1141 \\ v 7;3 ttt 1 •`e o !]I o• C°• 70 133 17N F`
is •` 170 \9 i 17 ?e _ 'e
] ` 1.1 1 ? y+ JJ 7, ? Amans 9 ? 7 l14Z 11 a 1M. 1 fl0 ...
e 1 10 1217 1. ' •? ? _ In SUGARLOAF 1.7 \9 .. . .
L 1100 1 J?? "WE 7. _ .. U 7_t l 1212 ? V1 MIN. J ?.:\ T .+ M
a 'v- '7171) h.3>L `• SM :h71? 1])??i 17-?. I'W A '!]77 1.7 ?
1 h }^
La ]73
? ? ?•. f? •c?!T1 a]1 `. w / 1. ` nos ?
11 1 . t% 17 d 17)1 17111 . Gro`0•. ]] 1' - 1312 .1 1 ir? / ? 1 ?L
rAP a I
n 1.7 PAP •: 1711 1 -
p ?
s !Ian ? 132
'":.. i.:: 'O C 1 1 1
7.1 .3 ?.P
1:: "'' ]tit ya ?4 i o __.• !71 '?/ ?.
Lw ?? CY 1113 Vilim? ` f 0?
K•R•ravill• { 4> 1134
:1'1111 IU MASi.7 :117 .a?. \'1 !7?1 f/O\? C
' :'•171 1 a CAI ,? ??? 1.11E ` 141 / >11
117 19a / IA 1 EAI Lorin HOWARD KNOa
177. ' ° tt:Ew Y h p ? 7' / ELEV. aaas
BOONE
a
1 F :?• 1171 .. ... ?177 ..? P!`.
!337 \ 1170 . i ?J.. 4f 1117 a71 tl.y ICP. 10.!01 ` . •?
I;f'. Ilts V TOM s KN06Romnper 1110 / 111/ 1117 .d. 11.1 I t .:i?'
429
`t` L7 J W
9 I I If I t ROCK)' IAf :?GC.f `3' 1' . ` ,•.>: 71 ] I, ?•
"f
PISGAH !ter Q V911. CrOJCi,? 791-
^I 1170 1171 On?b„_ 0'?1r? ~ •0' 107
1133 fAP 1
; ?•
::a_. '? 1173 . •? .] J.12 _ `•'? ? ... _ ..
\ ?:•? 1 10- "n 131!) L \:; ..
w
1170 .S ( < 1171 _ .9
113
?2 1 laa ;-- ?? J •s 7 ? 1177 ' ?J ? ISf]
It t . 't os '-
JIM
`EF::• _ ,` :j. Mamey
3 - 1170 11
1 t NATIONAL 49 1. -, o? t
.? t 1 ]
trS V + 1171 ':. ylull, C,7,, p i• -- ts.1 _o'
ROWERS 1175 w ! f1 .?
19a GAP Y .112 mill UPI 7
e
EO 16. 0' nv ._ __ S 41 _ . ".
o ! 3 4 5
MILES
C1.1100 ; 4flef e179n+ ,:...... 1 VICINITY MAP
t
Rrdte a] ,; !'•" 121 9 l?rtslon5metnporl Uurol Sow. as ttr
t 88 / west Jefferson J9
s ,
S.
2_11 s. n .S Ind
b0. FO ad \ Baldwin, . G endafp 18
Spry s
lone lie MrGraOr
AT UGA"
lod ?Fltelwood Idlewo s • a Halls Al
tT Q nerwood W I L. NORT11 CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF T'RANSPORTATHON
+r Glove' + OeZp ap • DIVISION OF EIIGi1?VAl"S
Done wnbu
IN t e 6 7 Noy
_%?j Beech
% Mountam
,HAY 9 Derr Fat
S PAkK 1' ?^ 1° • Pur •S, at •.1 millers WATAUGA COUNTY
He It Ill, Cruc S
reek
1 , fear
•
ear
a9ner even is Na lkesbot
rk Sue !k• Dells •;' S IT IS . 1 O .
erry 3 7 Dumal 7 r a?u .? lJ _ Blowing Roca &1751201 (B-2178)
396. 21 / ?l\O A . y '
G....A•rA.r ? 17 - -,?,r. ? LL • ?I 1 1
S `_ t
! r 16 °.e. JV? ` erauson ?U Jllor
ewlan0 a rp?'rrlle?J uplon Ov REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
16 B
v *1 'meof8 YF )Globe fl) LL;? \ n 6 --- OOrn - N
r9ssnor ! FOR. + 90 fO ( 68
-Palters -' SCALE AS SHOWN
moM 11
N ;?Cdee ?
R ,/C A 7 L D 1 E ( ALEXAND'
0111 Idat"\ 1 I +Tarr
HS Ca\tts.d valmea SHEET OFJ JULY 1993
+ Lenoir
in 90 .7.ru.a.....Lrddal- --

?'/.IS?CI?? ?3G1
boDS
II
., II II ?
. ?'' S?\\\ 11 11 -?
117
I I /S 1
16
i
I i

CLASS T
r"\p iZpP
o- / /\ LfZ\o(
Cr?P I / / / \ \,-'ODDS
I ?? J J \
PR?t fi??N"C
\Gl? L
SCALE
.

NOIIT11 CAIZOI.INA DEPARTDIEN.r OF TRANSI'ORTATIION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAIGA COUNTY
8.1751101 (6-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET _OF_±
JULY 1994
- ?
2670- -
PRoPas?o

2660- - -

P I
15 + 3162 /
y, ?Rcvu?
ELEV = 2660.33
VC 400 Exs-????
2650- G I - 0.8894 a?,oc
G2 + 6.5905

13+00 14t00 15+00
- L DET
12670"-
ED
- - - - - p>=-?ut.?P. G
0.7207x,
2660 ?? /
IN,
GRou? ? /
2650
10+00 1 1 +00 12+00
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATHON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
8.1751201 (13-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 3 OF 14
JULY 1994
100, LT 1 vu' KT.
SIN 1a+5o -L-oft ?A 14+94-L-
a- 7Y Ww a4')( -7'
slit-Zrl G-7' tJ PCf UP-AL Qo i b(A
Cei ELEV, a(o(,I.S3 5Vr-W, (,o4°
E?iY rJG
NA'?(rfLAt. N
j
tJoR(ti?L
V PcTcfL SvE?t?C?
2670/
a)DD 0'
? (. -) rL, a
- - - 2660

sa:Tl u1J A - K
- 2650 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATHON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
8.1751201 (B-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
SCALE
I = 50/
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET gOFA
JULY 1994

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 27, 1994
District Engineer
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Regulatory Unit
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Watauga County, Replacement of Bridge No. 45 over
Bairds Creek on NC 194, T.I.P. No. B-2178, State
Project No. 8.1751201, COE Action ID No.
199202596.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace the existing bridge over Bairds Creek on
NC 194 in Watauga County. A Categorical Exclusion (CE)
document was prepared for this project to evaluate
environmental considerations. This document was signed by
the NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration on May 22,
1992, and submitted to your agency on June 2, 1992.
Subsequently, the project was coordinated with your agency
and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). The WRC
reviewed the project based on the information provided, and
your agency issued Regional General. Permit No. 31 for this
project on July 1, 1992.
The WRC has notified the NCDOT by letter dated June 23,
1994 that the WRC may be opposed to this project based on an
apparent change in the design since our previous
coordination. The NCDOT's design for this project has not
been significantly changed since the earlier coordination.
This letter is intended to discuss the planning and design
process for this project and clarify any points of confusion.
The existing bridge over Bairds Creek was constructed in
1959, with subsequent renovations. It needs to be replaced
due to its deteriorated condition. This replacement must be
implemented according to modern standards for roadway and
bridge design. The recommended improvements will include
improved roadway approaches extending about 100 feet south
n
?. a
V
J
and 300 feet north of the bridge. A 24-foot pavement with 8-
foot graded shoulders is to be provided on these approaches,
in accordance with modern standards. This will require
widening the roadway since the existing roadway has a 16-foot
pavement with 3-foot shoulders. This improvement is required
for safety purposes regardless of the structure design
selected, and was discussed in the CE document.
The CE document also mentioned several alternatives for
the bridge replacement structure. The document proposed a 3
barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. However, the
document also discussed the potential adverse effects of
culverts on fish movement. It specifically stated that a
bottomless culvert would be considered for this project.
Should this design not be feasible, then the proposed 3
barrel culvert would include a..low flow notch to accommodate
fish passage. These considerations are consistent with the
WRC's preference for spanning structures, as expressed in
their comments on this project dated June 12, 1992.
Upon further investigation, it was determined that a
bottomless, spanning culvert is feasible at this location.
It is proposed that the bridge be replaced with a
prefabricated single-cell, bottomless culvert, 24 feet wide
and 7 feet high. This culvert will have to be 87 feet long
to extend under the improved roadway. Construction of this
culvert will not require direct disturbance of the existing
streambed. The footings will be constructed in bedrock on
the existing stream banks. Use of this type of culvert will
reduce actual construction time, and eliminate the need for
work directly in the stream during culvert construction.
The design for this bridge replacement is constrained by
several important factors. Immediately northeast of the
existing bridge, NC 194 intersects Mast Gap Road (SR 1117).
Consideration must be given to providing adequate sight
distance for motorists at this intersection, and for allowing
an intersection design that meets modern standards. Just
north of this intersection, there is a steep hillside
currently covered with mature forest. South of NC 194, the
project is constrained by Baird's Creek, the creek
floodplain, and a bridge to a residential development.
Consideration must also be given to the improved roadway
approaches, a proper roadway alignment, and cost. The NCDOT
has considered all of these factors in its proposed design.
The CE document evaluated two alternatives for the
location of the new culvert. The NCDOT is still proposing to
construct the alternative recommended in the CE. The design
of this alternative has not significantly changed since the
CE document was distributed. However, better information is
1
available regarding the impacts of each alternative. The
advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative
are summarized below.
Alternative 1 (Recommended)
The first alternative involves construction of the
bottomless culvert at the same location as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary
detour structure (two @ 72" corrugated metal pipes) located
immediately west of the existing structure. The centerline
of the roadway will remain in approximately the same location
as the existing condition. However, the new roadway limits
will be widened both to the north and to the south to
accommodate the required improvements.
Fill will also be needed along NC 194 east of the
bridge. This fill will be placed in the floodplain of Bairds
Creek between the existing roadway fill and the creek. This
fill is needed to accommodate the widened roadway and to
straighten the NC 194 alignment, which will improve sight
distance at the SR 1117 interchange. This fill slope can be
stabilized using vegetation. According to design studies,
the fill in the floodplain will have no measurable effect on
flood levels in the project area because the size of the
culvert has been designed to convey flood stage streamflow.
The major adverse impact of this alternative results
from the temporary detour, as was discussed in the CE
document. These effects will be minimized in several ways.
The pipes used for the detour will be placed on grade with
the stream bottom. These pipes and associated fill can be
removed and the area returned to natural conditions after
construction is completed. Stringent erosion control
measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) will be enforced
during the life of the project. The NCDOT's Sedimentation
Control guidelines will also be implemented.
Alternative 2
The second alternative would require replacement of the
bridge with the same culvert design on new location just west
of the existing structure. Traffic would be maintained on
the existing structure during construction. The existing
bridge and its approaches would be removed after project
completion, and graded to natural elevations.
The CE document identified a permanent loss of
vegetation using this alignment, due to its use of new
location. The document also indicated that this alternative
has a significantly higher cost than the recommended
alternative.
1
An additional adverse impact has been identified with
Alternative 2 since the planning document was completed.
This alternative would accommodate the relocated roadway and
correct its sight distance problem by cutting back the
hillside. to the northeast of the interchange. This would
involve permanently removing the existing trees and a costly
rock cut. This cut slope would leave bare rock permanently
exposed. Some type of restraint system will need to be used
to prevent rock fall onto the roadway. Although this
rockfall could be minimized, this cut could not be
effectively stabilized to prevent sedimentation.
Alternative 1 was recommended in the CE document because
the construction costs and environmental impacts were
expected to be lower as compared to Alternative 2. This
position is further supported by the impacts from the cut
slope required for Alternative 2, which were not assessed in
the document. Alternative 1 also provides an acceptable
design according to current standards.
The NCDOT has given full consideration to environmental
impacts associated with this project. Attempts have been
made to minimize these impacts where possible. These
measures have included restricting fill slopes, restricting
construction limits to avoid significant natural features,
and careful attention to erosion and sedimentation
prevention. It is the NCDOT's position that this design
reflects the least damaging, most practicable alternative for
this project. It is also the NCDOT's position that this
design is not a significant departure from the design
presented in the CE document and permitted July 1, 1992.
This information is also being provided to the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission and the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management to clarify any confusion concerning
the NCDOT's proposal. It is not anticipated that a
modification to the existing General Permit 31 issued for
this project will be required. Please review this
information for consistency with existing permit
authorization. If you need any additional information,
please call Gordon Cashin [phone].
Sincerely,
B. J. n, PE
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
cc: Steve Chapin, COE, Asheville
David Cox, NCWRC
Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
Joseph H. Mickey, Jr., NCWRC
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Barry Jenkins, PE, Preconstruction
Kelly Barger, PE, Project Management
Don Morton, PE, Design Services
A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
f
u. r
CII„on I *Tel erfon+ ?:. a.... V IC I N I T Y M AP
BI f GestonSmet
;Ridge 121 1ipOr1 I lawel Svrl gf Ilro. o-,9,
.•,`?-' t5•.. 88 West )ellerson .N? yo-, ga 10
5, n. Ind 5^o-' _
Et ..' ill l
no, ?FO ad \ Baldwm. r G..dale IS
Son s
p 1
A T U G A Tod4 Fleetwood Id, I S 6 Hallf M
..,wood W ) L NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATHON
ar Gro.e t •
Delp all wnear s May DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Z [ a
f Done ?
0 Beech a - *_ r?lo .n..., r..l L- 6 I
\!
a ! MounUm I. ,NtY • T
• v? X? Cruc < (S ' tµR `_ - • ' '^' Derr ai
Mdlers? WATAUGA COUNTY
e .He ton a, H -_ ` 471 Purlear reek
No; Ik
f?.. $u a alline )., Is Is f?C J I r !(v IS ' r reekDor
errY lJ
Y T ouunIal a 1 , ' eW .' Q ,
, _, 8.1751201 (B-2178)
/l svs. 11 81 as Rock Q\ Bey '?
4 G.Ir.n.. % I, / r 1
Ferguson
ewland a ,pyme Upton • s \
` 0\/ \ V S REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
?(y' /., YF iGlob* jj) 16 Boomer
T 1 Ineols Q Itl,. \ II S •--- J
ossnor FOR. 90 Q
rTFdte not - -Patters ' +- /•-14n[s-Leek ?__' 6
?- 1, SCALE AS SHOWN
a ong JC A q L D E ( ALEXAND!
nvJle Idle-\
I }Tayl
"'"• Its Colietlfnl V.I. ea
e? r Fi'?*1 ' ! SHEET L OF. JULY 1994
n .6&.* +Lenoir 90
? Ai?lordM? 1 1 --??T ?--- 1+ --- ? ..?rn. •.,,.../Hidtlt 1.
O I 1 ?j 4 5
MILES
J

R\L1h of= /
EY.I :??Ci ?? X3(;1
??? ?i?P ?1pbDS
?? II
', I I 11 ?
??? S?1\\ II it
47
- I I /S 1
I
CmP ?
I
1
/6 i / `tom
I ?
? I
A 4'-
?I
/ / / F`?P iZAP
l.) t-`cT'.n fug`. l3 cn`To c.-.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTDIENTOFTRANSPORTATIION
\C -? l ?1A{ DIVISION OF IIIGIIWAYS
-I-..L _ / Exls-t1nlG
0 \ L;(Z\oC
v
{21? Ct= 1?A`(
tOGE cf=
PAvc
WATAUGA COUNTY
8.1751201 (8-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
SCALE SCALE AS SHOWN
RANK=
I - 50', SHEET =OF? JULY 1994
J
260= - L-
2660
2650
4RoAa?-ez
G?Ap?
_ _
? ? ? NQrcut?a?
PI 15 + 3162 y,
ELEV = 2660.33
VC 400
G I - 0,8894
G2 + 6.5905
13+00 14t00 15+00
- L-DET
2670
QRopclSEt?
of-???. Cc l
0.7207X,
? )t
2660
2650
10 t00 1 1 +00 12+00
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATHON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I
WATAUGA COUNTY
8.1751201 (B-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET 3 OF_q
JULY 1994
4
100 t_T lOV fZ'f.
SIP, 1a+5o -'?fA 14+94 - L-
Wvp a4' )c -7'
l,`7' h1ATLk-fl t lQtg(i pfd
C? ELEv. -a (,(,I.S-s 5v'r-44 (04'
E??Y ?JG
C?EL?oGE
NA"tll?f?AL N
rJow*??L
V Pc'rtf? Sv?K?AC?

S?C"f l u?1 A - ?
SCALE
i = 50
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATHON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WATAUGA COUNTY
8.1751201 (B-2178)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 45 ON NC 105
2670
Woo rt.-Q(,6a.0'
(?s0 iEl- alouo.5'
-r
' - - - 2660"

SCALE AS SHOWN
SHEET q OF
. - 2650"
JULY 1994
NC 194, Bridge No. 45 over
Bairds Creek, Watauga County,
State Project No. 8.1751201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-1451(6)
TIP Project B-2178
V
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
,
5q 2jja
Dat L. J. Ward, P. E., Man ger
?klanning and Environmental Branch
S?iz G
Date Nich s L. Graf, P. E.
P)gDivision Administrator, FHWA
NC 194, Bridge No. 45 over
Bairds Creek, Watauga County,
State Project No. 8.1751201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-1451(6)
TIP Project B-2178

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
6(J'w1a
Ed Lewi s
Project Planning Engineer
/W/ay Af el
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
H. rank Iin Vic , P.'E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and
,?tttttttt????
A CA
Unit Head ? t
SE
r.*
14
p;' NOM
Environmental ???''•9'LM `??.?.•'?
?'• attttltt ?'`
z Z y'z
NC 194, Bridge No. 45 over
Bairds Creek, Watauga County,
State Project No. 8.1751201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-1451(6)
I. D. No. B-2178
Bridge No. 45 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. -No substantial environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion."

I. 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. A nationwide permit is likely to be
applicable. Concurrence from NCWRC is needed since the project is in one
of the 25 trout counties. A 401 water quality permit will be required.
There are no jurisdictional wetland plant communities located in the study
area. Best management practices will be utilized to minimize these
impacts. Consideration will be given to a bottomless culvert during the
permitting and design phase.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 45 should be replaced at the existing location with a
cast-in-place reinforced culvert as shown by Alternative 1 (Figure 2).
Only minimum approach work is required to tie the culvert to existing
approaches.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a triple 9' x 7' box
culvert should be provided.
Traffic will be maintained on-site by a temporary detour structure
located immediately west of the existing structure.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 395,000 which includes
$ 95,000 for the right-of-way costs.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the Transportation
Improvement Program, is $ 290,000.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 194 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal Aid System
(FAS 1451). NC 194 is also considered to be a North Carolina Scenic
Byway. The North Carolina Scenic Byways Program brings attention to the
beautiful countryside and historic areas in North Carolina. The route
runs through Banner Elk and Boone and serves the outlying rural area north
of Valle Crucis.
2
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 194 has a 16-foot pavement with
3-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). Vertical alignment is flat. The
horizontal alignment consists of curves on both approaches in excess of 29
degrees. The structure is situated 9 feet above the creek bed. Posted
speed limit is 55 MPH. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge
is woodland. Development in the surrounding area is residential.
The-current traffic.volume of 1200 vehicles per day (vpd) is expected
to increase to approximately 2000 vpd by the year 2011. The projected
volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired
vehicles (DT).
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1959. The
superstructure consists of a timber deck with I- beams on rubble masonry
abutments. The substructure is composed of rubble masonry caps.
Overall length is 25 feet. Clear roadway width is 19.2 feet. The
posted weight limit is 20 tons for single vehicles and 29 tons for trucks
with trailers.
Bridge No. 45 has a sufficiency rating of 34.2 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported on Bridge No. 45 during the period from
July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1991. Both accidents occurred at the
intersection of NC 194 and SR 1117.
Six school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 45 were studied as
follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) will involve replacement of the bridge
along the existing roadway alignment with a cast-in-place reinforced
concrete box culvert (3 @ 9' x 7'). Traffic will be maintained on-site
with a temporary detour structure (two @ 72" corrugated metal pipes)
located immediately west of the existing structure. Environmental impacts
as a result of constructing Alternative 1 are less than under
Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 would involve replacement of the bridge with a culvert
on new location just west of the existing structure. The replacement
structure would be a cast-in-place box culvert (3 @ 9'x7'). Traffic would
be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Alternative
2 would result in a greater loss of plant species.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by
NC 194.
3
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated cost of the studied alternatives is as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Structure & Approaches $ 255,000 $ 337,000
Structure Removal $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Temporary Detour $ 16,000
Engineering & $ 25,000 $ 34,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, Utilities $ 95,000 $ 71,000
Total $ 395,000 $ 446,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the studied
bridge site is necessary. Otherwise, traffic would have to be detoured
along existing unpaved secondary roads with poor vertical and horizontal
alignment and over bridges with poor sufficiency ratings. No acceptable
detour route was found due to the excessive length of additional travel.
In view of these existing factors, it is clear that traffic should be
maintained at the existing site during construction.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 45 should be replaced at its present location with a
cast-in-place reinforced concrete box culvert. According to the
preliminary hydrographic study, a triple 9' x 7' reinforced concrete box
culvert will accommodate the flow of Bairds Creek at this point. The
structure dimensions may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows of Bairds Creek as determined by further
hydrographic studies.
Alternative 1 is the recommended alternative because construction
costs and environmental impacts will be lower as compared to Alternative
2. Alternative 1 (Recommended) has a higher design speed than Alternative
2. Also, the sight distance problem for motorists looking north along
NC 194 from SR 1117 (Mast Gap Road) will be improved more easily under
Alternative 1. Therefore, it is recommended to improve the subject
project as outlined under Alternative 1.
The recommended improvements will include about 100 feet of improved
roadway approaches. A 22-foot pavement with 6-foot graded shoulders
should be provided on the approaches. The elevation of the new crossing is
expected to be approximately the same as the elevation of the existing
bridge.
4
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The project is located north of Valle Crucis in Watauga County in the
Mountain Physiographic Province. The project is located in a rural
setting. Several homes are near the project site. The study area is
forested and disturbed.
Topography in the area ranges from gently to strongly sloping.
Elevation ranges from 2660' to 2700' above mean sea level (amsl).
Topography in the study area is gently sloping adjacent to Bairds Creek
and strongly sloping northwest of the bridge/creek crossing.
A disturbed scrub/shrub upland community is located adjacent to the
creek at the existing bridge and to the west of the bridge. This
community is open and supports few trees. Weedy grasses and shrubs
predominate adjacent to the creek. Observed plants include blackberry
(Rubus sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus 9la-bra), various composites and grasses.
Several trees, including tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
northern red oak ( uercus rubra), are located along the stream banks. A
maintained lawn exists to the south and west of the bridge. The hillside
located between the road and the hardwood forest community is disturbed
and is also dominated by blackberry.
A hardwood forest upland community is located immediately west and
north of the bridge. The area is strongly sloping and the elevation
increases from the roadway to the hardwood forest community. The ground
is very rocky. Several exposed boulders are located uphill of the study
area. The dominant canopy species are deciduous hardwood trees. A number
of oaks such as northern red oak, white oak ( uercus alba) and southern
red oak ( uercus falcata) are found in this community. Additional tree
species include Pignut hickory (Cater a_ labra), red maple (Acer rubrum) and
cherry birch (Betula lenta). The understory is dominated by thorn
(Crataegus sp.). Due to seasonality, the ground cover was not observable
at the time of the field survey. Remnants of last seasons' growth include
squaw-root (Conopholis americana).
No wetland plant communities are located in the study area. Only
Waters of the US will be impacted by the proposed project.
Construction will impact Disturbed Scrub/Shrub and the Hardwood
Forest communities. Plant community impacts are presented in Table 1.
These estimates are preliminary and may change with final design.
Table 1. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Disturbed Scrub/Shrub 0.3 0.3
Hardwood Forest 0.1 0.1
TOTALS
0.4 0.4
Note: Estimated impacts are based on 60' right-of-way width. Values shown
are in acres.
5
The project impacts a disturbed area. A small amount of the Hardwood
Forest community will be impacted from proposed construction. Potential
impacts include vegetation loss and regrowth of species adapted to a
disturbed environment.
Construction of either alternative will result in similar vegetation
losses, but construction of Alternative 1 (Recommended) will result in a
temporary vegetation loss since proposed construction consists of
replacement on existing location and construction of a temporary detour.
Construction of Alternative 2 consists of permanent vegetation losses
since construction is proposed on new location. The existing facility
would be removed and re-vegetated.
It is recommended that stringent erosion control measures and Best
Management Practices should be enforced during the life of the project.
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be implemented. It is also
recommended that vegetation removal should be minimized. The existing
facility (Alternative 2) should be graded to normal elevations and
re-established with native vegetation.
The following avian species may be found in the study area:
red-tailed hawk (Buteo 'amaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
mourning dove (Ze a da macroura , red-headed woodpecker (Mel?anerpes
er throcephalus), raven (Corvus corax), cedar waxwing (Bom y cilla
ce rorum) and American goldfinc (Carduelis tristis).
Anticipated amphibians and reptiles in the study area include: seal
salamander (Desmognathus monticola), mountain dusky salamander
(Desmognathus ochro haeus), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata),
redback salamander Plethodon cinereus), slimy salamander (Plethodon
lutinosus), southern red back salamander (Plethodon serratus , mud
salamander (Pseudotriton montanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), r), green
frog (Rana clamitans); eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
five-lined skin (Eumeces fasciatus), southeastern five-lined skink
(Eumeces inexpectatus , ringnec sna a (Diado his punctatus), queen snake
(Regina septemvittata) and eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus).
Several mammals may inhabit the study area. They include the water
shrew (Sorex alustris), least shrew (Cryptot?is Parva), star-nosed mole
(Cond lu-ra cristata , eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
woodchuck (Marmota monax), pine vole (Microtus pinetorum) and the raccoon
(Procyon lotor).
Recent fisheries information is not available for Bairds Creek
according to NCWRC. The potential exists for rainbow trout (Oncorhyncus
mykiss) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) since these species have
been found in nearby streams.
Bairds Creek is listed in a 1968 publication (Fish) as a small stream
with limited fishing importance. Anticipated fish species in Bairds Creek
include suckers (Catastomus spp.), warmouth (Lepomis ulosus) and rock
bass (Ambloplites rupestris).
6
Replacement of the bridge with a culvert might hinder normal fish
movement and stream dynamics may be altered. The proposed culvert will
divide the stream into three separate channels and may form a barrier to
the migration of certain aquatic species. Construction at Bairds Creek
may increase siltation and sedimentation to the creek. These potential
impacts may reduce the number of sensitive species, including filter
feeders and nonmobile organisms in Bairds Creek.
Construction of Alternative 1 (Recommended) is more desirable than
construction of Alternative 2 since Alternative 1 impacts are temporary.
The temporary detour or permanent roadway (new location) will impact an
area with strong slopes. Construction in this area may increase erosion
and siltation. Installation of a culvert designed with no floor slab or a
bridge that spans the entire stream width would limit the impacts to the
creek. One of these designs should be considered during the design and
permitting phase. If a conventional culvert is used for bridge
replacement then it should be placed at least 12 inches below the stream
bottom (for fish movement). A low flow notch will be cut into one cell of
a multi-celled concrete box culvert, and deflectors will direct water into
this cell during low flows. If pipes are used for temporary detour
construction, then they should be placed on grade with the stream bottom
in order to minimize the impacts on the stream. Placement of a culvert
with no floor slab that spans the entire creek would reduce impacts as
compared to a standard multi-celled culvert. Stringent erosion control
measures and Best Management Practices (BMP) will be enforced during the
life of the project. Sedimentation Control guidelines will be
implemented. The temporary detour piping and approach fills will be
removed and the area returned to natural conditions after construction is
completed.
Soils information was obtained from the local Soil Conservation
Service office in Watauga County. Soils information is provided from a
survey completed in December, 1991. Watauga County is currently being
surveyed to update soil information.
Two soil mapping units are located in the study area. Cullowhee
fine-sandy loam and Chestnut-Ashe complex. The majority of the creek
floodplain is mapped Cullowhee fine-sandy loam. This mapping unit is
found on 0-3 percent slopes and is occasionally flooded. This soil is
somewhat poorly drained and has grey mottles in the 12" to 24" layer of
the profile. This soil is classified as having hydric inclusions.
The Chestnut-Ashe complex is located in areas with slopes ranging
from 50 to 95 percent such as the hardwood forest and is very rocky. The
Chesnut-Ashe complex is classified as a non-hydric soil.
The project is located in the Watauga River Basin. Bairds Creek is a
tributary of the Watauga River. The creek is approximately 20' wide in
the study area, has a depth of approximately 1' and is fast flowing. The
bottom composition varies from boulders to cobble and silt. Best usage
classification of Bairds Creek is C (DEM). Best usage recommendations for
Class C waters include aquatic propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
7
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or within 1 mile
downstream. Bairds Creek is not designated a Public Mountain Trout Water
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were taken in the Watauga River
less than 5 miles downstream of the study area. The bi ocl ass was rated
from good to.excellent.. The bioclass is a measure of the taxa richness
and the presence of intolerable organisms. Ratings in Watauga River have
oscillated in earlier sampling years, but have recently stabilized within
the excellent category. Benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality.
Non-point sediment sources will be identified and efforts made to
control sediment runoff. Strict adherence to BMP's will be followed
during the construction phase of the project. Sedimentation Control
guidelines will be implemented prior to construction and maintained
throughout the life of the project. The culvert should be placed at least
12 inches below the stream bottom (for fish movement). A low flow notch
should be cut into one cell of a multi-celled concrete box culvert, and
deflectors should direct water into this cell during low flows. If pipes
are used for temporary detour construction, then they should be placed on
grade with the stream bottom in order to minimize the impacts to the
stream.
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Criteria for wetland determinations are described in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
1987). Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
Provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Impacts in the study area fall under the broad phrase "Waters of the
US". Waters of the US includes, in general terms, navigable waters, their
tributaries and associated wetlands. The bank-to-bank surface waters of
Bairds Creek fall under this category. There are no jurisdictional
wetland plant communities located in the study area.
The proposed project will impact the surface waters of Bairds Creek.
No jurisdictional wetland plant communities are located in the study area.
Bairds Creek is not a designated trout water. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable. Nationwide Permit 23 approves
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded in whole or
in part by another federal agency where that agency or department has
determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulation
for 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 in a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively has a significant
effect on the environment.
8
The project is located in one of the 25 trout counties. Concurrence
from the NCWRC is required for projects that occur in these counties.
Correspondence with NCWRC has been initiated (see Appendix, A-3).
State permits are administered through the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). One state permit that is required
is the 401-Water Quality Certification. This certificate is issued for
any activity which. may result in.a discharge and for which a federal
permit is required.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to locate any occurrences
of protected species in the study area.
Six federally protected species are listed by the USFWS for Watauga
County as of January 30, 1992. These are as follows:
Common Name
Virginia big-eared bat
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Spreading avens
Mountain bluet
Heller's blazing star
Blue ridge goldenrod
Scientific Name
Plecotus townsendii virginianus
GG aucomys sabrinus coloratus
Geum radiatum
Houstonia montana
Liatris helleri
So idago sphamaea
Virginia big-eared bat
The Virginia big-eared bat is distinguished by its very large ears,
usually 1" or longer. This medium sized bat has brownish fur and is
approximately 4" long. The species is widespread in the western United
States, but the eastern subspecies is fragmented into several populations.
It inhabits caves only. Hibernation sites average 12° C or less. No
caves are located in the study area. No impacts to the Virginia big-eared
bat will occur.
Carolina northern flying squirrel
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal mammal
approximately 12" long. It is capable of gliding by means of a membrane
that is located along the sides of the body between the fore and hind
limbs. In addition, the broad tail aids in gliding. The Carolina
northern flying squirrel is distributed in widely scattered areas at high
elevations in the transition zone between the coniferous and northern
hardwood forests. The study area does not occur at high elevations nor
does it support suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying
squirrel. No impacts will occur.
Spreading avens
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. The study area does not support
suitable habitat for this plant. No impacts to spreading avens will
occur.
9
Mountain bluet
This perennial herb has a basal rosette of leaves. The flowers are a
bright yellow and the flowering period is from June through September.
The Mountain Bluet inhabits areas similar to the spreading avens, high
elevation rock cliffs. The study area does not support suitable habitat
for this plant. No impacts to the plant will occur.
Heller's blazing star
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 3500' in elevation. The
study area does not support suitable habitat for this plant. No impacts
to Heller's blazing star will occur.
Blue-ridge goldenrod
The blue-ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb that arises from
a stout rhizome. The yellow flowers are borne in heads and the flowering
period is July through August. Three populations are known; two in Avery
County and one in Mitchell County. The blue-ridge goldenrod occurs at
elevations above 4600' in dry rock crevices of granite outcrops on the
high peaks of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The study area occurs well below
4600' and does not support suitable habitat for this plant. No impacts
will occur to the blue ridge goldenrod.
No records of state protected species are located in the study area
according to the NCNHP files.
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. It is also subject to
compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, as amended.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there are no National
Register-listed or eligible properties located in the area of potential
effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project
area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. There are no publicly owned parks, historic sites,
recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state or local significance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore,
the project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
10
Since there are no properties either listed or eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places in the area of potential
effect of this undertaking, no further compliance with either Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 or with Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 is required (see Appendix
pages A-1 and A-2).
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
The structure is to be replaced at the existing location. Therefore,
the project is exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
Watauga County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The area of drainage basin for Bairds Creek at the
subject location is 3.35 square miles. The approximate 100-year flood
plain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of flood plain
area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Watauga 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.
EL/plr
WATAGGA COUNTY
.fit 2 `
• Zionval, `
,,"W;AT UGAI
(envaod 2 Tod F.
ar Grovey H
1 9 ilai OOlle Beech
Crs u A v '
o` fain Crucie `? 6 's ,
KK +K
I 05 .4?
even 9
Devils 15x "`•? o /?
% 64 ?-x _ l 221 Blowing Rock,
4 rov 321 Q /
b 1.2 FAP ?/ 1311
PQ CrpP?f ,o : i-? 4 1313
?? GO>J 1149 1.155 Viwas/ 131 1
1 121 MAST.2 t i 17
21 ~-?2 1.4 GAP
0 X94 .9
`? • 1142
,
4§5
/ 7
22 `? - o. 41
1120 i 1115
Rominger BRIDGE NO. 45 111.3
c? 1
.? Cr ? cn
C elr J f
29
1122
1166 ROCKY FACE :C-Q ?•
Valle Crucis?Q p 1160
1130 1122 _rcfl 1.152
1 Vr t\
'o-
} 1135
5 1132 .3 1112
i 1136
1122 FAS
1131 ? L? 1 134 1112
'`
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 45
WATAUGA COUNTY
T. 1. P. PROJECT B-2178
FIG. 1

41
!•? ° c ?? - , ?? ?i,
` ¢r4
.2
All
el"
I y 1:i I li A !J,f w
r
k.S
ALTERNATIVE 2'
"sit
fl ^r x +
x t .11 ?wa. •e • I, • 1
'W.+'i1r X A y w7
4 ?V x'1 - 1 T i i ?w ?r A Y. -tt.
?iYr', s'y`1?.'.
' Pte......,
Ak_
VQ
441
V

4 ?S ti
?` i r y? _ .?Ns(s
? W ?{ 1 •4 .- 'SAY

S S..t'+aW ? ? J" 4a .. Y VAC v' : t 1 ' ' y Y -}' 1

? Z S
kA e??
+r c, k ?yt ,4 sx' ? 2 '

`a 40 f

W
0
0
-

y d
? '- ?7;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
A DIVISION OF HIG IWAYS
9 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Lrts,n BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 45
WATAUGA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B-2178
0 feet 100 FIG. 2
WATAUGA COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 45

ar.
qt,

NORTH APPROACH
SOUTH APPROACH
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

.?1
I I

100 YEAR
FLOOD LIMITS
BRIDGE NO. 45
= ?J
1
I

„
• u
D CRF?K
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
13TIANCH
LIMITS OF
100-YEAR FLOOD
4/92 FIGURE 4

ZONE
O ?a STATE

North Carolina Department of
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
November 20, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Replace Bridge No. 45 over Bairds Creek
on NC 194, Watauga County, B-2178,
6.503266, GS 92-0037
Dear Mr. Graf:
? y
v
ural Re*rcc?es m
cc?ivor? . j
iar>
r
lives and History
rice, Jr., Director
On.October 15, 1991, Robin Stancil, Historic Preservation Office, met with
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a "meeting
of the minds" concerning the above project. We reported our available
information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources, along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area
photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for our use
afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at
the meeting, we would like to summarize our concerns regarding this project.
In'terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no National
Register-listed or eligible 'properties located in the area of potential effect.
We feel that the one house over fifty years of age in the project area is not a
distinctive representative of its type.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We,
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of formal
notification which will indicate how NCDOT addresses our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
A - 1
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
November 20, 1991, Page 2
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.
incerely,
r/
Y
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?-C. J. Ward
B. Church
A - 2
. ? STA)Z
?s
J.
.Oq Pw. ?•
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
May 26, 1992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis Stewart
Manager, Habitat Conservation Program
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Gordon Cashin `
Environmental Specialist
N.C. Department of Transportation
SUBJECT: Watauga County, Bridge No. 45 and •r--idge No.
53.over Bairds Creek on NC 194 B-21781
B-1427)
The Planning and Research Branch of NCDOT is currently
preparing our final planning document for two bridges on NC
194 in Watauga County. Our Hydraulics engineers have
recommended culverts for both bridges, despite our
biologist's suggestion that a spanning structure might be
preferable., To resolve this issue for our document, I
thought it would be best to request your input.
The first bridge is designated # 45, and is located at
the intersection of NC 194 with SR 1117. We are currently
proposing to replace the existing bridge witha three barrel
culvert in the same location. This will require a temporary
detour.to the north. The second bridge, # 53, is located on
NC 194 a mile east of the first bridge. We are currently
proposing to replace this bridge in the existing location
with a three barrel culvert, and will close NC 194 during
construction.
Please give us some input on the type of structure your
agency would prefer for these two bridge projects. If you
need any additional information, please give me a call at
[phone].
cc: Ed Lewis ?
Joe Mickey, NCWRC
A-3
An Fnual Oooortunity/Affirmative Action Employer