19950685 Ver 1_Complete File_19950629

,r a
JAMES B. HUNT J{L
GOVERNOR
hw...ee.`F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 21, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
561 cS? S
R. SAMUEI. HUNT I I
S[C RETARY
4611 iSS(JE'>
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion for the replacement of Bridge No. 40
on SR 1552 (Grandin Road) over Kings Creek, Caldwell County, State
Project No. 8.2731901, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1552(4), TIP
Project B-2525
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved categorical
Exclusion for the subject proposed highway improvement. This report recordt*
the determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
l
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
RECEIVED
auN 2 91995
FNVIRONMIN1 A?.,:'(;!ENGGS
.o
a
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525
I
14
4
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DATE -);H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
~ Planning and Environmental Branch
DATE Cvision cholas L. Graf, P. E.
Administrator, FHWA
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?c,, .?.d -t? Ixt' clla-
Edward B. McFal s
Project Planning Engineer
Wi son troud CA
Pro' Planning Engineer, Unit Head is 4,
SEAL
6916 '
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager ,? V, PRk'+
Planning and Environmental Branch '"'11aIII00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Summary of Environmental Commitments ...................... 1
II. Project Status ............................................ 1
III. Summary of Recommendations ................................ 1
IV. Existing Conditions ....................................... 2
A. Roadway .............................................. 2
B. Traffic Volumes ...................................... 2
C. Existing Structure ................................... 3
D. Accidents ............................................ 3
E. Utilities ............................................ 3
V. Alternatives Studied ...................................... 3
VI. Cost Estimates ............................................ 4
VII. Off-Site Traffic Detour ................................... 4
VIII. Recommended Improvements .................................. 5
IX. Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6
A. Prime and Important Farmland ......................... 6
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................... 6
1. Historic Architectural Resources ................ 6
2. Archaeological Resources ........................ 7
C. Natural Environment .................................. 7
1. Physiography and Soils .......................... 8
2. Water Resources ................................. 8
a. Waters Impacted ............................ 8
b. Stream Characteristics ..................... 9
C. Best Usage Classification .................. 9
d. Water Quality .............................. 9
e. Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources...... 9
3. Biotic Resources ................................ 10
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 10
b. Aquatic Communities .... .. ................ 11
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities.... 12
4. Jurisdictional Issues ........................... 13
a. Waters of the United States ................ 13
b. Rare or Protected Species .................. 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.
PAGE
C. Federal Candidate and State
Protected Species .......................... 17
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ........................ 18
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................. 19
F. Relocations... .................................. 19
G. Hazardous Materials. ............................... 19
H. Section 4(f) Properties .............................. 19
X. Conclusion ................................................ 19
Tables
Table 1 Anticipated Impacts to the Biotic Community....... 12
Table 2 Federally Protected Species ....................... 15
Table 3 Federal Candidate Species ......................... 18
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 Existing Conditions
Figure 4 100-Year Floodplain
Appendix
Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation
Office ............. .. .......................... A-1
Correspondence from the Wildlife Resources
Commission...... ....... .......................... A-4
Technical References for Natural Resources
Information .......................................... A-5
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525
Bridge Number 40 has been included in the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location of Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 over
Kings Creek is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated as a part of this project, therefore, the proposed project
is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" as defined by the Federal
Highway Administration's environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.117).
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
In order to minimize impacts to water resources at the project site
and receiving waters downstream, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sediment Control Guidelines will be
strictly enforced during the construction of the proposed project.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' General Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5
(a)(23). Since Kings Creek is designated as a trout stream, this project
must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Also, the
proposed project will require a Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) prior to
the approval of Section 404 authorization.
II. PROJECT STATUS
The proposed project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
1995-2001 TIP includes $ 20,000 for right of way acquisition in fiscal
year 1995 and $ 625,000 for construction in fiscal year 1996 for a total
funding of $ 645,000. The proposed project is funded with bridge
replacement funds for bridges that are not on the Federal Aid System.
Cost estimates for the proposed project were updated during the
planning process. Currently, the total cost of the project is anticipated
to be $810,000. This estimate includes $775,000 for construction and
$35,000 for right of way acquisition.
III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 (Grandin Road) over Kings Creek in
Caldwell County will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge
55 m (180 feet) in length (see Alternative 1 in Figure 2). A temporary
detour bridge 23 m (75 feet) in length located 10 m (30 feet) north of the
existing bridge is also recommended. Both the permanent bridge and the
2
temporary detour structure will have clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26
feet) in order to provide for two 3.4 m (11-foot) lanes and 0.6 m (2-foot)
shoulders. Temporary construction easements will be needed on the north
side of the bridge to contain the proposed temporary on-site detour, which
will be approximately 137 m (450 feet) in length. Please note that the
bridge lengths specified in this report may be increased or decreased once
more detailed hydrologic analyses are done during final design.
Replacing Bridge Number 40 in its existing location will maintain the
0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552 in the vicinity of the
bridge, and the proposed temporary on-site detour will enable the bridge
to be replaced with little or no inconvenience to the motoring public. A
60 mph design speed will be used to design the bridge.
A cleanout of the bridge opening just upstream (south) of the
existing bridge is recommended to ensure optimum flow conveyance under the
proposed bridge. Placing riprap on the west channel bank south of the
bridge for a length of 50 m (160 feet) is also recommended to eliminate
further erosion of the bank and to protect the end bent of the bridge from
scour.
The roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved to tie the
existing roadway to the proposed bridge. The roadway will be improved for
a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadway
SR 1552 in Caldwell County is classified as a rural local route in
the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not part of the
Federal Aid System.
Near Bridge Number 40 over Kings Creek, SR 1552 has a 4.9 m (16-foot)
wide travelway with 1.2 m (4-foot) grassed shoulders. In the vicinity of
the bridge, both the vertical and horizontal alignments of SR 1552 are
good. Bridge Number 40 lies on a 0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section of SR
1552. Photographs of the approaches to the existing bridge are shown in
Figure 3.
The statutory 55 mph speed limit is enforced along SR 1552.
B. Traffic Volumes
In the construction year 1996, the average daily traffic on SR 1552
is anticipated to be 400 vehicles per day. In 2016, the traffic volume on
SR 1552 is expected to increase to 700 vpd. The projected traffic volume
includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailers and 2% dual-tired vehicles.
Three school buses cross Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 twice daily.
3
C. Existing Structure
The existing bridge was constructed in 1966. The superstructure
consists of timber flooring on 1-beams and timber joists. The
substructure consists of concrete encased timber posts and piles. The
overall length of the existing bridge is 42.4 m (139 feet) and the clear
roadway width is 5.8 m (19 feet). The structure is situated 5.5 m (18
feet) over the bed of Kings Creek. Presently, the posted weight limit is
10 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for trucks with trailers. The
sufficiency rating for Bridge Number 40 is 16.0, compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. The estimated remaining life of Bridge Number 40
is two years. Figure 3 includes a photograph of the existing structure.
i- D. Accidents
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge Number 40 during
the time period from August 1, 1990 through July 31, 1993.
E. Utilities
The proposed project will have a low impact on utilities. An
underground telephone cable owned by Southern Bell lies along the north
side of SR 1552. This cable will require relocating.
V. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Three alternatives for replacing Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 were
studied. All of the design alternatives utilize a 60 mph design speed.
Each alternative is shown in Figure 2 and described below.
Alternative 1 (recommended) will replace the bridge at its existing
location with a bridge 55 m (180 feet) in length. A temporary detour
structure 23 m (75 feet) in length will be provided 10 m (30 feet) north
of the existing bridge. Both the permanent structure and the temporary
detour structure will have clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26 feet). A
temporary on-site detour approximately 137 m (450 feet) in length will be
constructed on the north side of SR 1552. This temporary detour will have
a 25 mph design speed. This alternative will retain the existing 0.4 km
(0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552 in the vicinity of the bridge. The
roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved as a part of this
alternative. The roadway will be improved for a distance of 46 m (150
feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge making the project length 146 m
(480 feet).
Alternative 2 would replace Bridge Number 40 on new location. A
bridge 55 m (180 feet) in length would be constructed approximately 10 m
(30 feet) north of the existing bridge. This structure would have a clear
roadway width of 7.9 m (26 feet). SR 1552 would be realigned on the north
side of the existing roadway from the existing curve east of the bridge to
approximately 305 m (1000 feet) west of the bridge, a length of 0.49 km
(0.30 mile). This alternative would introduce two additional curves into
the alignment of SR 1552 in the vicinity of the subject bridge. This
alternative would allow motorists to continue using the existing bridge
while the new bridge and roadway are constructed.
4
Alternative 3 would replace the bridge at its existing location with
a bridge 55 m (180 feet) in length with a 7.9 m (26-foot) clear roadway
width. The road would be closed for approximately 9 months during
construction, and traffic would be detoured onto other (unpaved) secondary
roads in the area (see Figure 1). Detouring traffic off-site is discussed
further in Section VII. The roadway approaches to the bridge would also
be improved as part of this alternative. The roadway would be improved
for a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge,
making the total project length 146 m (480 feet).
Both rehabilitation of the existing bridge and the "do nothing"
alternative were considered early in the project study, but were
eliminated from consideration. Due to the existing bridge's poor
condition, rehabilitating the existing structure is not feasible. The "do
nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge
and would thereby eliminate the traffic service provided by SR 1552.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
Construction and right of way cost estimates for the studied
alternatives are presented below.
Contract Cost
Engineering and
Contingencies
Total Construction
Cost
Right of Way and
Utilities
Total Cost of
Alternative
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
$ 675,000 $ 660,000 $ 358,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 67,000
$ 775,000 $ 760,000 $ 425,000
$ 35,000 $ 50,000 $ 31,500
$ 810,000 $ 810,000 $ 456,500
* Note: The costs shown for Alternative 3 do not include the costs of
upgrading unpaved secondary roads in the project area. This
upgrading would be required in order to provide an adequate
off-site detour (see Section VII). In addition, these costs do
not include the additional road user costs that would result
from increased travel distances.
VII. OFF-SITE TRAFFIC DETOUR
Traffic will be maintained on-site during the replacement of Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552. SR 1552 serves as a connector between NC 18 and
NC 268 in northeastern Caldwell County (see Figure 1). No other paved
roads which connect NC 18 and NC 268 are located in the northeastern
5
11
portion of the county. Road closure during replacement of the subject
bridge would greatly inconvenience school bus traffic, as well as local
farmers, who regularly cross Bridge Number 40.
If the road were closed during the replacement of Bridge Number 40,
approximately 1 mile of additional travel would be required for through
traffic. All traffic which currently crosses Bridge Number 40 would have
to travel on SR 1511 (Howell Farm Road) and SR 1551 if SR 1552 were closed
during bridge construction. SR 1511, is an unpaved, narrow roadway with
limited sight distance. The roadway has a high number of curves and has
several steep cut and fill slopes immediately adjacent to the roadway.
Traffic moving from SR 1510 (Tom Dula Road) to SR 1573 (Howell Farm Road)
would be required to travel an additional 13.8 km (8.6 miles) as a result
of road closure at the bridge.
Improvements to SR 1511 (realignment and paving) would be required
before that route could be used as a temporary detour. SR 1511 is not
anticipated to be paved before the bridge is replaced. Improvements to SR
1511 would be expensive and more damaging to the environment than the
temporary detour and structure proposed under Alternative 1, since SR 1511
parallels Little Kings Creek for most of its length.
In conclusion, SR 1511 is not suited to accommodate detour traffic
from SR 1552, and improvements to SR 1511 would be more environmentally
damaging and expensive than the recommended on-site detour. It is
anticipated that the cost of realigning and paving SR 1511 would exceed
the cost of constructing the recommended on-site temporary detour.
Therefore, the recommended on-site temporary detour is preferred to
detouring traffic off-site.
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 1 (see Figure 2) is recommended for replacing Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552 over Kings Creek. This alternative calls for
replacing the bridge at its existing location with a bridge 55 m (180
feet) in length. A temporary detour bridge 23 m (75 feet) in length
located 10 m (30 feet) north of the existing bridge is also recommended.
Both the permanent structure and the temporary detour structure will have
clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26 feet). Temporary construction easements
will be needed on the north side of SR 1552 to contain the proposed
temporary on-site detour. A 60 mph design speed will be used to design
the permanent bridge and approaches. A 25 mph design speed will be used
for the temporary detour. Replacing Bridge Number 40 in its existing
location will maintain the 0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552
in the vicinity of the bridge.
The roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved. The
roadway will be improved for a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides
of the proposed bridge.
Also as a part of the proposed project, a cleanout of the bridge
opening just upstream (south) of the existing bridge is proposed to ensure
optimum flow conveyance. Debris under the existing bridge caused a
6
sediment buildup just upstream of the existing bridge and created a
meander in Kings Creek. The sediment buildup has limited the existing
bridge's flow conveyance. In order to eliminate further erosion, the west
stream bank on the south side of the proposed bridge will be riprapped for
a length of 50 m (160 feet).
An on-site temporary detour will be provided. This detour will
enable the existing bridge to be removed and replaced with little or no
inconvenience to the motoring public. As described in Section VII., if SR
1552 were closed during bridge construction, motorists would have to use
SR 1511, an unimproved road, to travel through the area. The cost of
improving SR 1511 in order to make it suitable for traffic from SR 1552
would be more expensive than the recommended temporary on-site detour.
Alternative 1 is considered to be the best alternative. Alternative 1
maintains the existing horizontal alignment and maintains traffic on-site.
Alternative 1 causes the least inconvenience to the motoring public and
has fewer environmental impacts than Alternative 2.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In
compliance with the Act, the SCS was asked to review the proposed bridge
replacement project and determine whether any farmland soils will be
impacted. The SCS did not respond within the 45 day review period
established by FPPA regulations; therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy
Act of 1981 (FPPA) does not apply to this project.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
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 general project area was reviewed in the field by North
Carolina Department of Transportation staff. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) met on November 16, 1993 to discuss the project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation provided project area
photographs and aerial photographs and reviewed them with SHPO.
Grandin Baptist Church is the only property over fifty years old
within the general project area. This property is located on SR 1573
(Howell Farm Road) south of SR 1552 (see Figure 2).
7
In a letter dated December 30, 1993, SHPO offered their
preliminary comments. In terms of historic architectural resources,
they were aware of the presence of Grandin Baptist Church in the
general project area. A copy of this SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix (see pages A-1 and A-2).
On March 1, 1994, North Carolina Department of Transportation
staff showed SHPO staff the tax parcel map for Grandin Baptist
Church. The church property is not contiguous with SR 1552 (Grandin
Road) or with Bridge Number 40 and therefore is not within the
project's area of potential effect.
North Carolina Department of Transportation and SHPO are in
agreement that there are no properties within the project's area of
potential effect that are either listed in or eligible for the
National Register; therefore, no further compliance with Section 106
is required.
2. Archaeological Resources
In their letter dated December 30, 1993 (see pages A-1 and A-2
of the Appendix), the State Historic Preservation Office recommended
that the North Carolina Department of Transportation conduct a
comprehensive archaeological survey of the project area. The project
area had never been systematically surveyed. Although there were no
recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries, the
State Historic Preservation Office indicated that the floodplain in
which Bridge Number 40 is located has a high potential for having
archaeological sites.
An archaeological survey of the proposed construction area for
the temporary detour north of the existing bridge was completed on
October 17, 1994 by Deborah Joy and Megan O'Connell, North Carolina
Department of Transportation archaeologists. During the intensive
survey of the study area, no significant archaeological sites were
found. No further archaeological work is recommended. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred with this conclusion in their
January, 1995 letter, which is included in the Appendix (see page
A-3).
C. Natural Environment
The proposed project site lies approximately 22.4 km (14 mi)
northeast of Lenoir near the community of Grandin in Caldwell County.
Caldwell County is a mixture of remote wooded mountains, open piedmont
farmland, and urban-industrial areas. The area immediately surrounding
the project site is dominated by open piedmont farmland surrounded by low
forested hills.
Preliminary resource information was gathered and reviewed prior to a
visit to the project site. Information sources used include the
following: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle mapping (Grandin,
N.C.), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soils mapping of this section of
8
Caldwell County, an aerial photograph of project area (1:1200), North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water quality
classification for the Yadkin River Basin, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected species, and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NC-NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignment on
September 9, 1994. Plant communities were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques: active
searching, visual observation (binoculars), and recording the identifying
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic communities were conducted examining the stream for visible signs
of stream life.
1. Physiography and Soils
Caldwell County is in the northwestern part of North Carolina
and lies within two physiographic regions. The northern part of the
county is in the Blue Ridge Mountain region of the Mountain
Physiographic Province. The Kings Creek project site is in this
section of the county. The southern part of the county is in the
Southern Piedmont Region of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Elevations in the county range from 1776 m (5920 ft) near Grandfather
Mountain in the northeastern part of the county to 828 m (920 ft) in
the southeast. Project area elevation ranges from 330 m (1100 ft) to
336 m (1120 ft). The topography at the project site is relatively
level consisting of slightly sloping floodplains.
The soils found at this project site are primarily Congaree fine
sandy loam, occasionally flooded. The Congaree series consists of
well-drained to moderately well drained soils that formed in recent
alluvium on flood plains. Small areas of Masada loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, and Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
are found along the shoulders of the existing roadway as the
elevation rises toward the northeastern end of the project. While
neither of these soils is listed as prime farmland, the Congaree fine
sandy loam, occasionally flooded, and the Masada loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, are both listed as state and locally important
farmlands.
2. Water Resources
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage
Standards, and water quality of the water resources to be impacted by
the proposed project. Probable impacts to these waters are also
discussed.
a. Waters Impacted
Kings Creek is a tributary to the Yadkin River at river mile 218
in the Yadkin River Basin. This stream flows southwest to northwest
at the project site and joins the Yadkin River approximately 1.6 km
(1 mi) downstream of the existing bridge.
b. Stream Characteristics
Kings Creek is approximately 5.7 m (19 ft) wide at the project
site and has depths which range from 0.3 m (1 ft) to 1.2 m (4 ft).
There are higher water levels at times as evidenced by scoured banks
and accumulated sand and debris on the upstream side of the bridge.
The substrate is composed of boulders, rubble, and sand, all heavily
silted. Turbidity is moderate to high due to run-off from
surrounding agricultural fields.
C. Best Usage Classification
Kings Creek, from its source to the Yadkin River, has been
assigned a best usage classification of Class C by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
1993. Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life,
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The stretch of the Yadkin River receiving waters
from Kings Creek is also classified Class C Tr. The supplemental
classification of Tr is intended to protect fresh waters for natural
trout propagation and the survival of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
the project area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any
kind will take place as a result of project construction.
d. Water Quality
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms. The species richness and overall biomass are reflections
of water quality. No sampling has been recorded for Kings Creek.
The closest sampling of the Yadkin River was done approximately 11.2
km (7 mi) upstream of the mouth of Kings Creek at Patterson on NC 268
in 1990. The bioclass at that site was Good.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists one permitted discharge into Kings Creek. Kings Creek School is
permitted to discharge treated wastewater into Kings Creek
approximately 6.6 km (4.1 mi) upstream of the project site.
e. Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential Impacts to water resources in the project area will
result from substrate disturbance, sedimentation, and increased
turbidity, as well as discharge of toxic substances from construction
machinery and road run-off. Wet concrete contacting the river water
can also cause degradation of water quality. These impacts may
result in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in the stream; an increase
of water temperature; a decline in organisms that serve as the basis
for aquatic food chains; and the smothering of eggs of spawning game
fish.
10
The silt load carried by this stream is already high, and any
additional siltation will further degrade Kings Creek. Just upstream
of the existing bridge, Kings Creek has a large meander. Debris
under the existing bridge probably caused sediment to build and
create this meander. A cleanout of the bridge opening just upstream
will be necessary to ensure optimum flow conveyance, but it will also
increase the risk of further siltation. Except for this cleanout, no
channel changes are proposed as a part of the project. It has been
recommended that the channel bank on the southwest side of Grandin
Road (SR 1552) be riprapped for a length of 50 m (160 ft) to
eliminate further erosion and protect the new bridge.
Strict application of sedimentation control policies and Best
Management Practices will be followed to avoid serious damage to the
aquatic environment both at the project site and receiving waters
downstream.
3. Biotic Resources
This section describes the communities of flora and fauna.
These descriptions include the dominant plants and animals in each
community and their relationships with each other. Scientific
nomenclature and common names, where applicable, are used for the
species described. Subsequent references to the same species only
use the common name.
No animal species were observed directly during the field
survey, but representative listings of animal species likely to occur
in the area are given. Complete listings of the flora and fauna
which may occur in the study area can be found in one or more of the
technical references listed on pages A-5 and A-6 of the Appendix.
a. Terrestrial Communities
The entire area surrounding this project site has been altered
by man's activities, which include road construction and agriculture.
Only a few plants remain that were part of the original Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest that occupied this floodplain before it was
cleared for farming.
Man Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community is dominated by cultivated corn
fields and maintained roadsides. Many of the plants found here in
addition to corn plants are weedy species adapted to disturbed,
maintained areas.
The frequently mowed roadside is dominated by fescue grass
(Festuca spp.). Other herbaceous species here include red clover
(Trifolium pratense), elephants foot (Elephantopus tomentosus),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and dayflower (Commelina communis).
The less frequently maintained road right-of-way and the drainage
ditch between the roadside and the cornfield is dominated by tall
weedy herbs, vines, shrub, and tree sprouts. Herbaceous species
11
include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), jewel-weed (Impatiens capensiiss), wingstem (Verbesina
occi enta is), wild lettuce Lactuca f of ridana), pokeweed P?to a?cca
americana), knotweed (Pol onum ennsy-Fv'an
cum), ragweeds (Ambrosia
trif- -da, A. artemisiifolia , golden rods (Solidago spp.), teartthiumb
(Polygonum sa ittatum), purple-stem aster (Aster punic?eus), ironweed
(Vernonia noveboracensis), and Joe-Pye-weed Eupatoriumistulosum).
Vines present inc u e Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virgins bower (Clematis
virginiana), climbing buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus), grape (Vitis
sp.), cane (Arundinaria giganteeaa), burdock Arctium minus),
greenbrier (Smilax spp.), bouncing Bet (Saponaria fficinaTis), and
trumpet vine (Campsis radicans). Shrubs include blac erry (Rubus
sp.), privet (Ligustrum sinense), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhin_a),
smooth sumac (Rhus labra), ann elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Tree species occurring as sprouts in cut-over areas an a few mature
individuals along the edge of the creek include: box elder (Acer
ne undo), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occi entalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), poplar Lirio endron
tulipifera), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Resident animal species would be few in these disturbed areas.
However, many opportunistic species which may reside in nearby
communities would utilize these areas for feeding zones. Seeds,
berries, fruits, and insects, as well as living and dead animal
matter, attract a wide variety of foraging animals including: eastern
cottontail (S,ylvilagus floridanus), opossum (Didelphis vir iniana),
wood chuck (Marmota monax), white-tailed deer (Odocoi eus
virginianus), white-footed mouse (Perom scus leucopus), isp cotton
rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and raccoon Procyon lotor). Birds likely
to visit the area are American crow (Corvus brachyrhychos), barn
swallows (Hirundo rustica), carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), carolina wren (Thr- yo?ti-orus
ludovicianus), common grackle (uiscalus quiscula), and cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis).
Roadkills may attract scavenging animals such as turkey vultures
(Catharter aura), common crows, and opossums. Reptiles and
amphi fans, including toads, box turtles, snakes, and lizards, may
sun themselves on the roadsides or crawl onto the warm road surface
at night. These may include American Toad (Bufo americanus), eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black racer snake (Coluber
constrictor), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), and
five- iineTskink (Eumeces fasciatus).
b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems
as primary and secondary consumers and as prey species for organisms
higher in the food chain. Aquatic invertebrates, including crayfish
Cambaridae sp.), and some insects are present in Kings Creek.
However, their numbers are limited by the heavy siltation that would
tend to clog gills and smother bottom-dwelling invertebrates in this
stream.
12
Amphibian and reptile species likely to occur in and around this
stream include snapping turtle (Chel d?ra ser entina), northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon), and green frogs Rana c amitans).
According to Joe Mickey, N.C. Fisheries Biologist, the most
likely fish species to occur in Kings Creek include: bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and-it whe sucker (Catostomus
commersoni).
Other fish that have been reported from this area of the Yadkin
River drainage include: highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), redlip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus), fiery black shiner (Notropis
,yrrhomelas), northern hog sucker (Hypenntelium ni ricans), striped
jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes), and margined ma tom (Noturus
insignis).
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from the project construction
are being addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic
impacts. However, it is important to remember that construction
impacts may not be restricted to the community in which the
construction activity occurs. All measures possible should be taken
to ensure no sediment leaves the construction site.
Terrestrial Impacts
Most of the project area has been highly disturbed by previous
roadway construction and agricultural fields. New fill would be
required for either Alternative 1 (temporary detour construction) or
Alternative 2 (permanent realignment of roadway), thereby increasing
the risk of soil erosion. Alternative 3 would replace the bridge in
its present location with road closure and would result in the least
new disturbance. The proposed right-of-way width of all alternates
would be 18.3 m (60 feet).
Construction will result in the loss and displacement of some
plant and animal life, regardless of the alternative chosen.
However, previous disturbance at this site has already limited plant
and animal species, so the impact will also be limited. The
anticipated area to be impacted within this community is presented
for each alternative in Table 1.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to the Biotic Community
(Man-Dominated Community)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
tare/acre
0.7/1.8
0.9/2.3
0.3/0.7
* Alternative 1 impacts include those of the proposed temporary detour.
13
Aquatic Community
Project construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment
loads in this already heavily silted creek. Construction-related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates
which are important to aquatic, and some terrestrial, food chains.
Less mobile species, such as filter feeders, may be covered and
smothered by substrate disturbance and sedimentation resulting from
construction related erosion. Increased sediment loads and suspended
particulates may smother fish eggs, reduce oxygen-carrying capacity,
and raise water temperatures. Contact with wet cement will also
affect water quality and aquatic organisms. If spawning habits or
habitats are altered, it could affect game fish populations in the
Yadkin River. The close proximity of the Yadkin River, which is
located approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) downstream, increases the
possibility that erosion at this construction site could also
increase sediment loads in the river.
Bridge construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not come in contact with creek water to reduce the possibility
of a fish kill. Other concerns at this site would be the possibility
of increased concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.)
reaching the stream from construction machinery or run-off from the
new bridge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of
surface waters will be strictly followed to protect the biological
integrity and water quality at this site.
4. Jurisdictional Issues
a. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
Waters of the United States as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(C.O.E.).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. For an area to be designated wetlands, the
following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric
soils, 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, or hydrological indicators, including: saturated soils,
stained oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on
trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
No wetland communities are located within the proposed right of
way limits of the studied alternatives. Construction of the proposed
project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetlands.
14
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). Caldwell County is one of
25 counties designated as having trout waters. Projects in these
counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to the issuance of the COE permit. Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of
the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
In her November, 1993 letter, included in the Appendix (see page
A-4), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Mountain
Region Coordinator, Stephanie E. Goudreau, stated that trout do not
occur at this project site, and there are no other known special
concerns.
Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide
permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters is generally not
required by the Corps of Engineers. A final determination regarding
mitigation requirements, however, rests with Corps of Engineers.
b. Rare or Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
have a detrimental impact to the survival and well-being of any
species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Endangered species receive additional protection under separate state
statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under
N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four (4) federally
protected species for Caldwell County as of April 6, 1995. These
species are listed in Table 2.
15
Table 2. Federally Protected Species - Caldwell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
STATUS *
Mirohexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E
Geum ra iatum Spreading avens E
Liatris e eri Hellers blazing star T
So-hi?f`ago sppithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T
* E denotes Endangered a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.)
T denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.)
Mirohexura montivaga
(Spruce-fir moss spider) E
Animal Family: Dipluridae
Federally Listed: March, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Caldwell, Swain
The spruce-fir moss spider is a very small spider. Adults
measure only 3.0 to 5.6 mm (1/4 - 7/16 in). Coloration ranges
from light brown to a darker reddish brown, and there are no
markings on the abdomen. The carapace is generally yellowish
brown. The most reliable field identification characteristics
for the spruce-fir moss spider are a pair of very long posterior
spinnerets and the presence of a second pair of book lungs,
which appear as light patches posterior to the genital furrow.
The typical habitat of this spider is found in well-drained moss
(and liverwort) mats growing on rocks or boulders in well-shaded
situations in mature, high-elevation Fraser fir and red spruce
forests. No critical habitat has been designated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the
spruce-fir moss spider. No impact to this species will occur
from proposed construction.
Geum radiatum
(Spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June-early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery,
Mitchell, Stokes, Transylvania,
Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell,
Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an
indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers.
Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
16
Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately
compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger
than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and
Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations
of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760
feet), and 1759 meters (5800 feet).
Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and
humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the
spreading avens. It can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact this Endangered species.
Liatris helleri
-(Remblazing star) T
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: Late June - August
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell,
Watauga
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock
outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina.
Of nine historic populations, only seven remain in existence.
Hellers blazing star is a short, stocky plant that has one
or more erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green
basal leaves. Leaves are acuminate and diminish in size and
breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 0.4 m (16 inches) tall and
are topped with a raceme of small 0.1-0.2 m (4-8 inches)
lavender flowers. Fruits are present from September to November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can
be found growing on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in
grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers
shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not support suitable habitat for
Hellers blazing star. No impacts to Hellers blazing star will
occur from proposed construction.
17
Solida o spithamaea
Blue Ridge Goldenrod) T
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: April 29, 1985
Flowers Present: July to September
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell
Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb 1-4 dm
(4-16 inches) tall that arises from a short stout rhizome. The
yellow flowers are borne in heads arranged in a corymbiform
inflorescence. Calyx is represented by a pappus of numerous,
capillary, upwardly barbellate white bristles, 2.5-3.5 mm long.
Solidago spithamaea grows above 1400 m (4,600 ft) in dry rock
crevices of granite outcrops on the high peaks of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. No critical habitat has been designated for Blue
Ridge goldenrod.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for this
species. No impact to Blue Ridge goldenrod will occur from
proposed construction.
C. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are eight (8) Federal Candidate 2 (C2) species listed
for Caldwell County. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for
which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for
informational purposes, should they become protected in the
future. Table 3 lists these federal candidate species.
The North Carolina status of these species is also listed
in Table 3. Plants or animals with state designations of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are
given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the
N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
18
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species (and their State
Status) listed for Caldwell County
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
(Scientific Name) Federal State
Eastern woodrat
(Neotoma floridana ma ister C2 SC No
Diana fr- itillary butterfly
(Speyeria diana C2 SR No
A liverwort
(Bazzania nudicaulis) C2 C No
Mountain bittercress
(Cardamine clematitis) C2 C No
Bent avens
(Geum geniculatum) C2 T No
Sweet pinesap
(Monotropsis odorata) C2 C No
A liverwort
(Pla iochila sullivantii C2 C No
var. su ivantii)
Riverbank vervain
(Verbena ri aria) C2 C No
Explanation of State Status Categories:
= Threatened. Threatened species are those likely to become an
endangered species in the state if not protected.
SC = Special Concern. A species of plant in North Carolina that
requires monitoring. These may be collected from the wild and
sold under specific regulations.
C = Candidate. Species which are rare in North Carolina for various
reasons and are likely to merit listing as Endangered or
Threatened if they continue to decline.
SR = Significantly Rare. Species very rare in N.C. whose numbers are
significantly reduced by habitat destruction, disease, or direct
exploitation. Usually more common somewhere else in their
range.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, nor were any of these species observed.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The bridge replacement project is located within the
jurisdiction for air quality of the Winston-Salem Regional Office of
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. The proposed project is located in Caldwell County, which
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the
19
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this attainment area.
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552 over Kings Creek. No additional through lanes
are planned, and the project will not substantially increase traffic
volumes. Due to the aforementioned factors and low anticipated
future traffic, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be
insignificant.
Noise levels could increase in the area during construction, but
this increase 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 for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772)
and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA), and no additional reports
are required.
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Caldwell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Kings Creek is not included in a detailed flood
study. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map with the approximate
limits of the 100-year floodplain is included as Figure 4. The
floodplain in the vicinity of the project is rural and wooded with
mostly agricultural uses. There are no buildings in the project
vicinity with floor elevations below the 100-year floodplain. The
proposed bridge replacement will not adversely affect the floodplain.
F. Relocations
No businesses or residences will be relocated as part of the
proposed project.
G. Hazardous Materials
No hazardous waste sites were identified in the project
vicinity.
H. Section 4(f) Properties
The proposed project will not impact any properties eligible for
protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966.
X. CONCLUSION
Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 (Grandin Road) over Kings Creek in
Caldwell County will be replaced at its existing location with a 55 m
(180-foot) bridge. A temporary on-site detour including a 23 m
(75-foot) detour bridge located 10 m (30 feet) north of the existing
bridge is also recommended.
20
No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a part
of this project, therefore, the proposed project is considered to be
a "categorical exclusion" as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration's environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.117).
EBM/tp
Upton l6?` -
2 Globe 311
0
e
i , Y} 90
r Inreek
al arson
/C A t.. D /
Collett .isle Valmes
\ \ ?? +Lenoir,'. 90 `
\ Y
\ ..? ' -Gamewel lout e /
\ d„? c t B
dL Hudson O 321
NNBato Gram e i
`all O\ W
'r`4 ? -otJ
_ 1. 1159 113
F ? ?h
1161 ?_?-- 2.1 , .8 1131
1149 1162 1132 F±; ry'
508 RIDGE 1.3 Ferguson N i?a
1 5071 Elkvill a o Jy 1 134 1224
??P4 .... N FA ; , 2.9 W
? t, 1131
Laytown ?J9 150 p Fp "?t 1130
4 fAS Wi 1 kes Co.
a" 2.0
5 \K 134
W 1552
i
,b 1507
? 1. 1" _11 i Ca. J. l i .? _, r•, ? ... ? '. ? S / I
I--- ------ ndin
ty 1512 1573 1552 ` 1130
q ?b v!.
11
BRIDGE NUMBER 40
s 1129
CALDWELL COUNTY
1511 b
adkin Valley -- ^•..1= BUTTE MTN. 59 H 1 `
1571 1554 Fp$ ?$ r
1569 \
? \
t 3
558 '4 b 1598 1 5 ?`
New Hope -
Ch. ,e 1700
Caldwell Co. 1552
1.3 ; ti ? 6 1 Hollow \
b Springs
1551 } 157 1701 Ch.
t t s 1 1 ?`>, - --
s 1555 1.0
1550 .5 Zp NORTH CAROLINA Dls'PARTMENT Oh'
v TRANSPowrATION
DIVISION OIL HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
Kings I11iANCH
Creek j REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON GRANDIN ROAD (SR 1552)
OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2525
FIG. 1

>?d ro D7 Fl-o H >ro >ro r
ft :J
"' rto o a
rt W o Eg
n
n rt
m a a tv H> 10
j0
i (D b
no m ro
h H.
rt
nE
Pi o
(n 0r_
_
rt a rt n ?3 m p (n (n
Pi 14 m 0 m m Pi Pi m Pi m
rt a n?nn rt a rt a °
H. Pi m :j 1.4 P. H. rn
.4
ro P)
Pi N "'
d
(D' m to Lnn ,
m u rt
0 a m (

H ° F-' t
wC r N ? t? 0 (
D
(D 0
r_ m
( F, N
D N
( (D 00 (D 00 •

? rt K i m r M 1-h r
° ° 00: O 0 ta
(D
a9 a
£ '
ot h'• ? m
art
(D P) r m C)
p Caro o -o t-n
b i p a0 ta Pita O
ta La -10 m aU)
ac >
(D
a F, ft U)
1 rt
n rt
rt0
rt n 0
' l r rt
n w U)En
t a n
w N n 0
0) (DD ta m 10-h
N
.

m 1
rt N

E
4 0 P)
t P)
m N tv t( m FC
• re rt
W W
f.'

<
C)
m Z
L U) N?
M m
N n zz U?
O m
Z m < w
?y
? ? 7 r
C Z m CrfS7!Y
cn-4 NO
8 1 p z
m° -?
m
71
I c, l
E '
?? , K.. t ?t•I \ I
lt; I \,
?z
1 I'# d
Lr
d
rJ
s ?
sr±?
ILA
10
t ¦ 0
a *\
• S t
E
•' t
WWI%
.F
SV?
Na
1{
!

10
.a ,
,
F[?' N ??. ?t? _ Y t fir. y'/ • I x?r '? ?
I it
k `

!
?
j 5f
t

EXISTING CONDITIONS
EAST OF BRIDGE
LOOKING WEST
WEST OF BRIDGE
LOOKING EAST
SIDE VIEW OF BRIDGE
NORTH C AROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPO
DIVISION RTATION
OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH

REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON SR 1552 OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDW ELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2525
3
N
O
Z
m
x
?'LO 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: KINGS CREEK
1
N

1
40
l ?

The 100-Year Floodplain
N
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IIIG11WAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
?. BRANCH
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON SR 1552 OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
T. 1. P. NO. B - 2525
0 feet 2000
L- I . 4

M d'? M
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 30, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552 over Kings
Creek, Caldwell County, B-2525, ER 94-7687
Dear Mr. Graf:
e,00;? CE/
SAN 0 4 ,
Fes-m,01SIC v
OF
S, n Dr Arc?ives?and4
On November 16, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of the following historic
structures in the general project area:
Grandin Baptist Church. On SR 1573 just west of the junction with SR
1562.
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. The floodplain in which
Bridge 40 is located is considered to be of high probability for the location of
archaeological sites.
It
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by a NCDOT
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed bridge. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
A-1
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
December 30, 1993, Page 2
K
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.
Sinc ,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
r
f
A-2

K;
North Carolina Department of Cdltural Resou
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 40 on Grandin Road (SR
1552) over Kings Creek, Caldwell County, Federal
Aid BRZ-1552(4), State Project 8.2731901, TIP B-
2525, ER 95-8077
Dear Mr. Graf:
JAN 17 1995
io l Arc i 2fi9fory Q=J
Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Ms.
Joy has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
iSinG ely,
1 G?" V `?= J
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
A-3 ?
109 East Jones Street - Ralcirh. North Carolina 27601-2807 QP

_ A

® Nort Carohna Wiffife Resources Commissio"?"'
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ' (? ?c.e.GX.Lc-
DATE: November 1 1993
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping Meeting for Bridge #40 on SR 1552 over
Kings Creek, Caldwell County, TIP #B-2525-
Due to temporary staffing shortages, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be unable to send a
representative to the scoping meeting for this project. Kings
Creek is somewhat degraded and does not support trout in the
project area; therefore, trout are not an issue to the NCWRC.
However, we anticipate commenting on this project through the 404
permit process because Caldwell County is considered a trout
county by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our comments will
reflect that this stream does not support trout.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
t
A-4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES INPUT
Borror, D.J., N.F. Johnson, C.A. Triplehorn. 1989. An Introduction to the study of
Insects. New York, Saunders College.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daniels, R.B., H.J., Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems
in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vickburg, Miss.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. "Federal Manual for
Delineating and Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands." U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative
Technical Publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and Stephen P. Hall. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Vug. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM, 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the Yadkin River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources.
A-5
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. "1986 Wetland Plant Life for North Carolina". St. Petersburg,
Fla. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 198 1. "Effects of
Highways on Wildlife." Report #FHWA/RD-81/067.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States., U.S., Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. "List of Federally Protected and Candidate
Species." Asheville, N.C.
Weakley, Alan S. Flora of the Carolinas and Virg_a. 1993. Working draft. N.C.
Natural Heritage Program.
I
A-6
i
0 STAR„.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTMON
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 7, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
C? ?) q 60 9
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
s
SEP I I J995
WETUNDS GRl
WATER UALITY SE ' i
SUBJECT: Caldwell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 40 over Kings Creek on
SR 1552, TIP No. B-2525, State Project No. 8.2731901, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1,552(4).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Environmental Management, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated
trout county, a copy of this document is also being provided to the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission for their review.
is
41
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Gordon .
Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
r
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/gec
Attachments
cc: Mr. John Thomas, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC, Marion
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Edward B. McFalis, Project Planning Engineer
:.. i
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
5-31,`75"
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch
DATE icholas L. Graf, P. E.
ivision Administrator, FHWA
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
May, 1995
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
f e? a f)4
Edward B. McFalls
Project Planning Engineer
Wi son troud CARO
Pro' Planning Engineer, Unit Head QQOEES?zk ;L9 •;
• SEA '
L
• 6916 -
G
OoOu
???-- s 3i 9s ? P
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager '??V.???PRH?•,`•`
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
1. Summary of Environmental Commitments ...................... 1
II. Project Status ............................................ 1
III. Summary of Recommendations ................................ 1
IV. Existing Conditions ....................................... 2
A. Roadway .............................................. 2
B. Traffic Volumes ...................................... 2
C. Existing Structure ................................... 3
D. Accidents ............................................ 3
E. Utilities ............................................ 3
V. Alternatives Studied ...................................... 3
VI. Cost Estimates ............................................ 4
VII. Off-Site Traffic Detour ................................... 4
VIII. Recommended Improvements .................................. 5
IX. Environmental Impacts ..................................... 6
A. Prime and Important Farmland ......................... 6
B. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................... 6
1. Historic Architectural Resources ................ 6
2. Archaeological Resources ........................ 7
C. Natural Environment .................................. 7
1. Physiography and Soils .......................... 8
2. Water Resources ................................. 8
a. Waters Impacted ............................ 8
b. Stream Characteristics:...''.....,...,..... 9
C. Best Usage Classification .................. 9
d. Water Quality .............................. 9
e. Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources...... 9
3. Biotic Resources ................................ 10
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 10
b. Aquatic Communities... .......... ..... 11
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities.... 12
4. Jurisdictional Issues ........................... 13
a. Waters of the United States ................ 13
b. Rare or Protected Species .................. 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT.
PAGE
C. Federal Candidate and State
Protected Species .......................... 17
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise ........................ 18
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................. 19
F. Relocations.... .................................. 19
G. Hazardous Materials. ............................... 19
H. Section 4(f) Properties .............................. 19
X. Conclusion ................................................ 1Q
Tables
Table 1 Anticipated Impacts to the Biotic Community....... 12
Table 2 Federally Protected Species ....................... 15
Table 3 Federal Candidate Species ......................... 18
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 Existing Conditions
Figure 4 100-Year Floodplain
Appendix
Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation
Office ......... ....... ............................ A-1
Correspondence from the Wildlife Resources
Commission ........................................... A-4
Technical References for Natural Resources
Information .......................................... A-5
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552
Over Kings Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1552(4)
State Project 8.2731901
TIP Project B-2525
Bridge Number 40 has been included in the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location of Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 over
Kings Creek is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated as a part of this project, therefore, the proposed project
is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" as defined by the Federal
Highway Administration's environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.117).
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
In order to minimize impacts to water resources at the project site
and receiving waters downstream, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters and Sediment Control Guidelines will be
strictly enforced during the construction of the proposed project.
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers' General Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5
(a)(23). Since Kings Creek is designated as a trout stream, this project
must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Also, the
proposed project will require a Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) prior to
the approval of Section 404 authorization.
II. PROJECT STATUS
The proposed project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
1995-2001 TIP includes $ 20,000 for right of way acquisition in fiscal
year 1995 and $ 625,000 for construction in fiscal year 1996 for a total
funding of $ 645,000. The proposed project is funded with bridge
replacement funds for bridges that are not on the Federal Aid System.
Cost estimates for the proposed project were updated during the
planning process. Currently, the total cost of the project is anticipated
to be $810,000. This estimate includes $775,000 for construction and
$35,000 for right of way acquisition.
III. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 (Grandin Road) over Kings Creek in
Caldwell County will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge
55 m (180 feet) in length (see Alternative 1 in Figure 2). A temporary
detour bridge 23 m (75 feet) in length located 10 m (30 feet) north of the
existing bridge is also recommended. Both the permanent bridge and the
2
temporary detour structure will have clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26
feet) in order to provide for two 3.4 m (11-foot) lanes and 0.6 m (2-foot)
shoulders. Temporary construction easements will be needed on the north
side of the bridge to contain the proposed temporary on-site detour, which
will be approximately 137 m (450 feet) in length. Please note that the
bridge lengths specified in this report may be increased or decreased once
more detailed hydrologic analyses are done during final design.
Replacing Bridge Number 40 in its existing location will maintain the
0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552 in the vicinity of the
bridge, and the proposed temporary on-site detour will enable the bridge
to be replaced with little or no inconvenience to the motoring public. A
60 mph design speed will be used to design the bridge.
A cleanout of the bridge opening just upstream (south) of the
existing bridge is recommended to ensure optimum flow conveyance under the
proposed bridge. Placing riprap on the west channel bank south of the
bridge for a length of 50 m (160 feet) is also recommended to eliminate
further erosion of the bank and to protect the end bent of the bridge from
scour.
The roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved to tie the
existing roadway to the proposed bridge. The roadway will be improved for
a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. Roadway
SR 1552 in Caldwell County is classified as a rural local route in
the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not part of the
Federal Aid System.
Near Bridge Number 40 over Kings Creek, SR 1552 has a 4.9 m (16-foot)
wide travelway with 1.2 m (4-foot) grassed shoulders. In the vicinity of
the bridge, both the vertical and horizontal alignments of SR 1552 are
good. Bridge Number 40 lies on a 0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section of SR
1552. Photographs of the approaches to the existing bridge are shown in
Figure 3.
The statutory 55 mph speed limit is enforced along SR 1552.
B. Traffic Volumes
In the construction year 1996, the average daily traffic on SR 1552
is anticipated to be 400 vehicles per day. In 2016, the traffic volume on
SR 1552 is expected to increase to 700 vpd. The projected traffic volume
includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailers and 2% dual-tired vehicles.
Three school buses cross Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 twice daily.
C. Existino Structure
The existing bridge was constructed in 1966. The superstructure
consists of timber flooring on 1-beams and timber joists. The
substructure consists of concrete encased timber posts and piles. The
overall length of the existing bridge is 42.4 m (139 feet) and the clear
roadway width is 5.8 m (19 feet). The structure is situated 5.5 m (18
feet) over the bed of Kings Creek. Presently, the posted weight limit is
10 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for trucks with trailers. The
sufficiency rating for Bridge Number 40 is 16.0, compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. The estimated remaining life of Bridge Number 40
is two years. Figure 3 includes a photograph of the existing structure.
D. Accidents
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge Number 40 during
the time period from August 1, 1990 through July 31, 1993.
E. Utilities
The proposed project will have a low impact on utilities. An
underground telephone cable owned by Southern Bell lies along the north
side of SR 1552. This cable will require relocating.
V. ALTERNATIVES STUDIED
Three alternatives for replacing Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 were
studied. All of the design alternatives utilize a 60 mph design speed.
Each alternative is shown in Figure 2 and described below.
Alternative 1 (recommended) will replace the bridge at its existing
location with a bridge 55 m (180 feet) in length. A temporary detour
structure 23 m (75 feet) in length will be provided 10 m (30 feet) north
of the existing bridge. Both the permanent structure and the temporary
detour structure will have clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26 feet). A
temporary on-site detour approximately 137 m (450 feet) in length will be
constructed on the north side of SR 1552. This temporary detour will have
a 25 mph design speed. This alternative will retain the existing 0.4 km
(0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552 in the vicinity of the bridge. The
roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved as a part of this
alternative. The roadway will be improved for a distance of 46 m (150
feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge making the project length 146 m
(480 feet).
Alternative 2 would replace Bridge Number 40 on new location. A
bridge 55 m 180 feet) in length would be constructed approximately 10 m
(30 feet) north of the existing bridge. This structure would have a clear
roadway width of 7.9 m (26 feet). SR 1552 would be realigned on the north
side of the existing roadway from the existing curve east of the bridge to
approximately 305 m (1000 feet) west of the bridge, a length of 0.49 km
(0.30 mile). This alternative would introduce two additional curves into
the alignment of SR 1552 in the vicinity of the subject bridge. This
alternative would allow motorists to continue using the existing bridge
while the new bridge and roadway are constructed.
4
Alternative 3 would replace the bridge at its existing location with
a brim ge 55 m (180 feet) in length with a 7.9 m (26-foot) clear roadway
width. The road would be closed for approximately 9 months during
construction, and traffic would be detoured onto other (unpaved) secondary
roads in the area (see Figure 1). Detouring traffic off-site is discussed
further in Section VII. The roadway approaches to the bridge would also
be improved as part of this alternative. The roadway would be improved
for a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides of the proposed bridge,
making the total project length 146 m (480 feet).
Both rehabilitation of the existing bridge and the "do nothing"
alternative were considered early in the project study, but were
eliminated from consideration. Due to the existing bridge's poor
condition, rehabilitating the existing structure is not feasible. The "do
nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge
and would thereby eliminate the traffic service provided by SR 1552.
VI. COST ESTIMATES
Construction and right of way cost estimates for the studied
alternatives are presented below.
Contract Cost
Engineering and
Contingencies
Total Construction
Cost
Right of Way and
Utilities
Total Cost of
Alternative
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
$ 675,000 $ 660,000 $ 358,000
$ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 67,000
$ 775,000 $ 760,000 $ 425,000
$ 35,000 $ 50,000 $ 31,500
$ 810,000 $ 810,000 $ 456,500
* Note: The costs shown for Alternative 3 do not include the costs of
upgrading unpaved secondary roads in the project area. This
upgrading would be required in order to provide an adequate
off-site detour (see Section VII). In addition, these costs do
not include the additional road user costs that would result
from increased travel distances.
VII. OFF-SITE TRAFFIC DETOUR
Traffic will be maintained on-site during the replacement of Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552. SR 1552 serves as a connector between NC 18 and
NC 268 in northeastern Caldwell County (see Figure 1). No other paved
roads which connect NC 18 and NC 268 are located in the northeastern
1
5
portion of the county. Road closure during replacement of the subject
bridge would greatly inconvenience school bus traffic, as well as local
farmers, who regularly cross Bridge Number 40.
If the road were closed during the replacement of Bridge Number 40,
approximately 1 mile of additional travel would be required for through
traffic. All traffic which currently crosses Bridge Number 40 would have
to travel on SR 1511 (Howell Farm Road) and SR 1551 if SR 1552 were closed
during bridge construction. SR 1511, is an unpaved, narrow roadway with
limited sight distance. The roadway has a high number of curves and has
several steep cut and fill slopes immediately adjacent to the roadway.
Traffic moving from SR 1510 (Tom Dula Road) to SR 1573 (Howell Farm Road)
would be required to travel an additional 13.8 km (8.6 miles) as a result
of road closure at the bridge.
Improvements to SR 1511 (realignment and paving) would be required
before that route could be used as a temporary detour. SR 1511 is not
anticipated to be paved before the bridge is replaced. Improvements to SR
1511 would be expensive and more damaging to the environment than the
temporary detour and structure proposed under Alternative 1, since SR 1511
parallels Little Kings Creek for most of its length.
In conclusion, SR 1511 is not suited to accommodate detour traffic
from SR 1552, and improvements to SR 1511 would be more environmentally
damaging and expensive than the recommended on-site detour. It is
anticipated that the cost of realigning and paving SR 1511 would exceed
the cost of constructing the recommended on-site temporary detour.
Therefore, the recommended on-site temporary detour is preferred to
detouring traffic off-site.
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 1 (see Figure 2) is recommended for replacing Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552 over Kings Creek. This alternative calls for
replacing the bridge at its existing location with a bridge 55 m (180
feet) in length. A temporary detour bridge 23 m (75 feet) in length
located 10 m (30 feet) north of the existing bridge is also recommended.
Both the permanent structure and the temporary detour structure will have
clear roadway widths of 7.9 m (26 feet). Temporary construction easements
will be needed on the north side of SR 1552 to contain the proposed
temporary on-site detour. A 60 mph design speed will be used to design
the permanent bridge and approaches. A 25 mph design speed will be used
for the temporary detour. Replacing Bridge Number 40 in its existing
location will maintain the 0.4 km (0.25 mile) tangent section on SR 1552
in the vicinity of the bridge.
The roadway approaches to the bridge will also be improved. The
roadway will be improved for a distance of 46 m (150 feet) on both sides
of the proposed bridge.
Also as a part of the proposed project, a cleanout of the bridge
opening just upstream (south) of the existing bridge is proposed to ensure
optimum flow conveyance. Debris under the existing bridge caused a
6
sediment buildup just upstream of the existing bridge and created a
meander in Kings Creek. The sediment buildup has limited the existing
bridge's flow conveyance. In order to eliminate further erosion, the west
stream bank on the south side of the proposed bridge will be riprapped for
a length of 50 m (160 feet).
An on-site temporary detour will be provided. This detour will
enable the existing bridge to be removed and replaced with little or no
inconvenience to the motoring public. As described in Section VII., if SR
1552 were closed during bridge construction, motorists would have to use
SR 1511, an unimproved road, to travel through the area. The cost of
improving SR 1511 in order to make it suitable for traffic from SR 1552
would be more expensive than the recommended temporary on-site detour.
Alternative 1 is considered to be the best alternative. Alternative 1
maintains the existing horizontal alignment and maintains traffic on-site.
Alternative 1 causes the least inconvenience to the motoring public and
has fewer environmental impacts than Alternative 2.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) requires all
federal agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. These soils
are designated by the United States Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In
compliance with the Act, the SCS was asked to review the proposed bridge
replacement project and determine whether any farmland soils will be
impacted. The SCS did not respond within the 45 day review period
established by FPPA regulations; therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy
Act of 1981 (FPPA) does not apply to this project.
B. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Historic Architectural Resources
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 general project area was reviewed in the field by North
Carolina Department of Transportation staff. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) met on November 16, 1993 to discuss the project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation provided project area
photographs and aerial photographs and reviewed them with SHPO.
Grandin Baptist Church is the only property over fifty years old
within the general project area. This property is located on SR 1573
(Howell Farm Road) south of SR 1552 (see Figure 2).
7
In a letter dated December 30, 1993, SHPO offered their
preliminary comments. In terms of historic architectural resources,
they were aware of the presence of Grandin Baptist Church in the
general project area. A copy of this SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix (see pages A-1 and A-2).
On March 1, 1994, North Carolina Department of Transportation
staff showed SHPO staff the tax parcel map for Grandin Baptist
Church. The church property is not contiguous with SR 1552 (Grandin
Road) or with Bridge Number 40 and therefore is not within the
project's area of potential effect.
North Carolina Department of Transportation and SHPO are in
agreement that there are no properties within the project's area of
potential effect that are either listed in or eligible for the
National Register; therefore, no further compliance with Section 106
is required.
2. Archaeological Resources
In their letter dated December 30, 1993 (see pages A-1 and A-2
of the Appendix), the State Historic Preservation Office recommended
that the North Carolina Department of Transportation conduct a
comprehensive archaeological survey of the project area. The project
area had never been systematically surveyed. Although there were no
recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries, the
State Historic Preservation Office indicated that the floodplain in
which Bridge Number 40 is located has a high potential for having
archaeological sites.
An archaeological survey of the proposed construction area for
the temporary detour north of the existing bridge was completed on
October 17, 1994 by Deborah Joy and Megan O'Connell, North Carolina
Department of Transportation archaeologists. During the intensive
survey of the study area, no significant archaeological sites were
found. No further archaeological work is recommended. The State
Historic Preservation Office concurred with this conclusion in their
January, 1995 letter, which is included in the Appendix (see page
A-3).
C. Natural Environment
The proposed project site lies approximately 22.4 km (14 mi)
northeast of Lenoir near the community of Grandin in Caldwell County.
Caldwell County is a mixture of remote wooded mountains, open piedmont
farmland, and urban-industrial areas. The area immediately surrounding
the project site is dominated by open piedmont farmland surrounded by low
forested hills.
Preliminary resource information was gathered and reviewed prior to a
visit to the project site. Information sources used include the
following: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle mapping (Grandin,
N.C.), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soils mapping of this section of
8
Caldwell County, an aerial photograph of project area (1:1200), North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water quality
classification for the Yadkin River Basin, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
list of protected species, and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NC-NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignment on
September 9, 1994. Plant communities were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques: active
searching, visual observation (binoculars), and recording the identifying
signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic communities were conducted examining the stream for visible signs
of stream life.
1. Physiography and Soils
Caldwell County is in the northwestern part of North Carolina
and lies within two physiographic regions. The northern part of the
county is in the Blue Ridge Mountain region of the Mountain
Physiographic Province. The Kings Creek project site is in this
section of the county. The southern part of the county is in the
Southern Piedmont Region of the Piedmont Physiographic Province.
Elevations in the county range from 1776 m (5920 ft) near Grandfather
Mountain in the northeastern part of the county to 828 m (920 ft) in
the southeast. Project area elevation ranges from 330 m (1100 ft) to
336 m (1120 ft). The topography at the project site is relatively
level consisting of slightly sloping floodplains.
The soils found at this project site are primarily Congaree fine
sandy loam, occasionally flooded. The Congaree series consists of
well-drained to moderately well drained soils that formed in recent
alluvium on flood plains. Small areas of Masada loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, and Pacolet fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes,
are found along the shoulders of the existing roadway as the
elevation rises toward the northeastern end of the project. While
neither of these soils is listed as prime farmland, the Congaree fine
sandy loam, occasionally flooded, and the Masada loam, 8 to 15
percent slopes, are both listed as state and locally important
farmlands.
2. Water Resources
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage
Standards, and water quality of the water resources to be impacted by
the proposed project. Probable impacts to these waters are also
discussed.
a. Waters Impacted
Kings Creek is a tributary to the Yadkin River at river mile 218
in the Yadkin River Basin. This stream flows southwest to northwest
at the project site and joins the Yadkin River approximately 1.6 km
(1 mi) downstream of the existing bridge.
9
b. Stream Characteristics
Kings Creek is approximately 5.7 m (19 ft) wide at the project
site and has depths which range from 0.3 m (1 ft) to 1.2 m (4 ft).
There are higher water levels at times as evidenced by scoured banks
and accumulated sand and debris on the upstream side of the bridge.
The substrate is composed of boulders, rubble, and sand, all heavily
silted. Turbidity is moderate to high due to run-off from
surrounding agricultural fields.
C. Best Usage Classification
Kings Creek, from its source to the Yadkin River, has been
assigned a best usage classification of Class C by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR),
1993. Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life,
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The stretch of the Yadkin River receiving waters
from Kings Creek is also classified Class C Tr. The supplemental
classification of Tr is intended to protect fresh waters for natural
trout propagation and the survival of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-II occur within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
the project area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any
kind will take place as a result of project construction.
d. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate
organisms. The species richness and overall biomass are reflections
of water quality. No sampling has been recorded for Kings Creek.
The closest sampling of the Yadkin River was done approximately 11.2
km (7 mi) upstream of the mouth of Kings Creek at Patterson on NC 268
in 1990. The bioclass at that site was Good.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists one permitted discharge into Kings Creek. Kings Creek School is
permitted to discharge treated wastewater into Kings Creek
approximately 6.6 km (4.1 mi) upstream of the project site.
e. Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential Impacts to water resources in the project area will
result from substrate disturbance, sedimentation, and increased
turbidity, as well as discharge of toxic substances from construction
machinery and road run-off. Wet concrete contacting the river water
can also cause degradation of water quality. These impacts may
result in a decrease of dissolved oxygen in the stream; an increase
of water temperature; a decline in organisms that serve as the basis
for aquatic food chains; and the smothering of eggs of spawning game
fish.
10
The silt load carried by this stream is already high, and any
additional siltation will further degrade Kings Creek. Just upstream
of the existing bridge, Kings Creek has a large meander. Debris
under the existing bridge probably caused sediment to build and
create this meander. A cleanout of the bridge opening just upstream
will be necessary to ensure optimum flow conveyance, but it will also
increase the risk of further siltation. Except for this cleanout, no
channel changes are proposed as a part of the project. It has been
recommended that the channel bank on the southwest side of Grandin
Road (SR 1552) be riprapped for a length of 50 m (160 ft) to
eliminate further erosion and protect the new bridge.
Strict application of sedimentation control policies and Best
Management Practices will be followed to avoid serious damage to the
aquatic environment both at the project site and receiving waters
downstream.
3. Biotic Resources
This section describes the communities of flora and fauna.
These descriptions include the dominant plants and animals in each
community and their relationships with each other. Scientific
nomenclature and common names, where applicable, are used for the
species described. Subsequent references to the same species only
use the common name.
No animal species were observed directly during the field
survey, but representative listings of animal species likely to occur
in the area are given. Complete listings of the flora and fauna
which may occur in the study area can be found in one or more of the
technical references listed on pages A-5 and A-6 of the Appendix.
a. Terrestrial Communities
The entire area surrounding this project site has been altered
by man's activities, which include road construction and agriculture.
Only a few plants remain that were part of the original Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest that occupied this floodplain before it was
cleared for farming.
Man Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community is dominated by cultivated corn
fields and maintained roadsides. Many of the plants found here in
addition to corn plants are weedy species adapted to disturbed,
maintained areas.
The frequently mowed roadside is dominated by fescue grass
(Festuca spp.). Other herbaceous species here include red clover
(Trriiolium pratense), elephants foot (Elephantopus tomentosus),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and dayflower (Commelina communis).
The less frequently maintained road right-of-way and the drainage
ditch between the roadside and the cornfield is dominated by tall
weedy herbs, vines, shrub, and tree sprouts. Herbaceous species
11

include Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), yarrow (Achillea
millefolium), jewel-weed (Impatiens cca ensis), wingstem (Verbesina
occi enta is), wild lettuce Lactuca f of ridana), pokeweed (Pacca
americana), knotweed (Pohl gon?um pennsylvanicum), ragweeds (Ambrosia
tri- fida; A. artemisiifo lia), golden rods (Solidago spp.), tearthumb
(Pol onum sa ittatum), purple-stem aster (Aster uniceus), ironweed
(Vernonia noveboracensis), and Joe-Pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum).
Vines present include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virgins bower (Clematis
virginiana), climbing buckwheat (Pol onum convolvulus), grape (Vitis
sp.), cane (Arundinaria gigantea)dock (Arctium minus),
greenbrier (Smilax spp.), bouncing Bet (Saponaria officinal), and
trumpet vine (Campsis radicans). Shrubs include blackberry (Rubus
sp.), privet (Ligustrum sinense), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina),
smooth sumac (Rhus lg abra), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Tree species occurring as sprouts in cut-over areas and a few mature
individuals along the edge of the creek include: box elder (Acer
negundo), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), poplar (fir odendron
to ipifera), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Resident animal species would be few in these disturbed areas.
However, many opportunistic species which may reside in nearby
communities would utilize these areas for feeding zones. Seeds,
berries, fruits, and insects, as well as living and dead animal
matter, attract a wide variety of foraging animals including: eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
wood chuck (Marmota monax), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leuc)pus) ,_ s-pic cotton
rat (Sigmodon hispidus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Birds likely
to visit the area are American crow (Corvus brachyrhychos), barn
swallows (Hirundo rustica), carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), carolina wre_n_TThryot orus
ludovicianus), common grackle (uiscalus quiscula), and cardinal
(Carding is cardinalis).
Roadkills may attract scavenging animals such as turkey vultures
(Catharter aura), common crows, and opossums. Reptiles and
ampans, including toads, box turtles, snakes, and lizards, may
sun themselves on the roadsides or crawl onto the warm road surface
at night. These may include American Toad (Bufo americanus), eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black racer snake (Coluber
constrictor), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), and
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus).
b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems
as primary and secondary consumers and as prey species for organisms
higher in the food chain. Aquatic invertebrates, including crayfish
Cambaridae sp.), and some insects are present in Kings Creek.
However, their numbers are limited by the heavy siltation that would
tend to clog gills and smother bottom-dwelling invertebrates in this
stream.
12
Amphibian and reptile species likely to occur in and around this
stream include snapping turtle (Chel drara ser entina), northern water
snake (Nerodia sipedon), and green frogs (Rana clamitans).
According to Joe Mickey, N.C. Fisheries Biologist, the most
likely fish species to occur in Kings Creek include: bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni).
Other fish that have been reported from this area of the Yadkin
River drainage include: highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), redlip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus), fiery black shiner (Notropis
rrhomelas), northern hog sucker (H entelium nigricans), striped
Jumprocc Moxostoma rupiscartes), an margined madtom (Noturus
insignis).
C. Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from the project construction
are being addressed separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic
impacts. However, it is important to remember that construction
impacts may not be restricted to the community in which the
construction activity occurs. All measures possible should be taken
to ensure no sediment leaves the construction site.
Terrestrial Impacts
Most of the project area has been highly disturbed by previous
roadway construction and agricultural fields. New fill would be
required for either Alternative 1 (temporary detour construction) or
Alternative 2 (permanent realignment of roadway), thereby increasing
the risk of soil erosion. Alternative 3 would replace the bridge in
its present location with road closure and would result in the least
new disturbance. The proposed right-of-way width of all alternates
would be 18.3 m (60 feet).
Construction will result in the loss and displacement of some
plant and animal life, regardless of the alternative chosen.
However, previous disturbance at this site has already limited plant
and animal species, so the impact will also be limited. The
anticipated area to be impacted within this community is presented
for each alternative in Table 1.

Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to the Biotic Community
(Man-Dominated Community)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
tare/acre
0.7/1.8
0.9/2.3
0.3/0.7
* Alternative 1 impacts include those of the proposed temporary detour.
13
Aquatic Community
Project construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment
loads in this already heavily silted creek. Construction-related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates
which are important to aquatic, and some terrestrial, food chains.
Less mobile species, such as filter feeders, may be covered and
smothered by substrate disturbance and sedimentation resulting from
construction related erosion. Increased sediment loads and suspended
particulates may smother fish eggs, reduce oxygen-carrying capacity,
and raise water temperatures.' Contact with wet cement will also
affect water quality and aquatic organisms. If spawning habits or
habitats are altered, it could affect game fish populations in the
Yadkin River. The close proximity of the Yadkin River, which is
located approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) downstream, increases the
possibility that erosion at this construction site could also
increase sediment loads in the river.
Bridge construction will be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not come in contact with creek water to reduce the possibility
of a fish kill. Other concerns at this site would be the possibility
of increased concentrations of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.)
reaching the stream from construction machinery or run-off from the
new bridge. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of
surface waters will be strictly followed to protect the biological
integrity and water quality at this site.
4. Jurisdictional Issues
a. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of
Waters of the United States as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(C.O.E.).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria
specified in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. For an area to be designated wetlands, the
following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric
soils, 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, or hydrological indicators, including: saturated soils,
stained oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on
trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
No wetland communities are located within the proposed right of
way limits of the studied alternatives. Construction of the proposed
project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetlands.
14
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). Caldwell County is one of
25 counties designated as having trout waters. Projects in these
counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to the issuance of the COE permit. Also,
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state
issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of
the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
In her November, 1993 letter, included in the Appendix (see page
A-4), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Mountain
Region Coordinator, Stephanie E. Goudreau, stated that trout do not
occur at this project site, and there are no other known special
concerns.
Mitigation
Since this project will likely
permit, mitigation for impacts to
required by the Corps of Engineers.
mitigation requirements, however, r
b. Rare or Protected Species
be authorized under a Nationwide
surface waters is generally not
A final determination regarding
ests with Corps of Engineers.
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to
have a detrimental impact to the survival and well-being of any
species classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
Endangered species receive additional protection under separate state
statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under
N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four (4) federally
protected species for Caldwell County as of April 6, 1995. These
species are listed in Table 2.
15
Table 2. Federally Protected Species - Caldwell County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
STATUS *
Mirohexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E
Geu- m rad atum Spreading avens E
L ai triis' heTT-eri Hel1ers blazing star T
Soago spit-it-iamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T
* E denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.)
T denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.)
Mirohexura montivaga
(Spruce-fir moss spider) E
Animal Family: Dipluridae
Federally Listed: March, 1994
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Caldwell, Swain
The spruce-fir moss spider is a very small spider. Adults
measure only 3.0 to 5.6 mm (1/4 - 7/16 in). Coloration ranges
from light brown to a darker reddish brown, and there are no
markings on the abdomen. The carapace is generally yellowish
brown. The most reliable field identification characteristics
for the spruce-fir moss spider are a pair of very long posterior
spinnerets and the presence of a second pair of book lungs,
which appear as light patches posterior to the genital furrow.
The typical habitat of this spider is found in well-drained moss
(and liverwort) mats growing on rocks or boulders in well-shaded
situations in mature, high-elevation Fraser fir and red spruce
forests. No critical habitat has been designated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for the
spruce-fir moss spider. No impact to this species will occur
from proposed construction.
Geum radiatum
(Spreading avens)
Plant Family: Rosacea
Date Listed: April 5,
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.:
Mitchell, Stokes,
E
0
1990
-early July
Ashe, Avery,
Transylvania,
Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell,
Watauga, Yancey.
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an
indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical flowers.
Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
16
Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately
compound; terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger
than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and
Tennessee sections of the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and
escarpments on mountains, hills, and ridges. Known populations
of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of
1535-1541 meters (5060-5080 feet), 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760
feet), and 1759 meters (5800 feet).
Other habitat requirements for this species include full
sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils contain a
composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and
humus. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the
spreading avens. It can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact this Endangered species.
Liatris helleri
(ReT ers blazing star) T
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: Late June - August
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell,
Watauga
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock
outcrops of the northern Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina.
Of nine historic populations, only seven remain in existence.
Hellers blazing star is a short, stocky plant that has one
or more erect stems that arise from a tuft of narrow, pale green
basal leaves. Leaves are acuminate and diminish in size and
breadth upward on the stem. Stems are 0.4 m (16 inches) tall and
are topped with a raceme of small 0.1-0.2 m (4-8 inches)
lavender flowers. Fruits are present from September to November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can
be found growing on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in
grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers
shallow acid soils associated with granite rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT

The study area does not support suitable habitat for
Hellers blazing star. No impacts to Hellers blazing star will
occur from proposed construction.
17
Solidago spithamaea
(Blue Ridge Goldenrod) T
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: April 29, 1985
Flowers Present: July to September
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell
Blue Ridge goldenrod is an erect perennial herb 1-4 dm
(4-16 inches) tall that arises from a short stout rhizome. The
yellow flowers are borne in heads arranged in a corymbiform
inflorescence. Calyx is represented by a pappus of numerous,
capillary, upwardly barbellate white bristles, 2.5-3.5 mm long.
Solidago spithamaea grows above 1400 m (4,600 ft) in dry rock
crevices of granite outcrops on the high peaks of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. No critical habitat has been designated for Blue
Ridge goldenrod.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for this
species. No impact to Blue Ridge goldenrod will occur from
proposed construction.
C. Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are eight (8) Federal Candidate 2 (C2) species listed
for Caldwell County. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for
which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed
Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for
informational purposes, should they become protected in the
future. Table 3 lists these federal candidate species.
The North Carolina status of these species is also listed
in Table 3. Plants or animals with state designations of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are
given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the
N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered
and enforced by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
18
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species (and their State
Status) listed for Caldwell County
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
(Scientific Name) Federal State
Eastern woodrat
(Neotoma floridana ma ister
- C2 SC No
Diana fritiT
lary butterfly
(Speyeria diana C2 SR No
A liverwort
(Bazzania nudicaulis) C2 C No
Mountain bittercress
(Cardamine clematitis) C2 C No
Bent avens
(Geum geniculatum) C2 T No
Sweet pinesap
(Monotropsis odorata) C2 C No
A liverwort
(Pla iochila sullivantii C2 C No
var. su livantii)
Riverbank vervain
(Verbena riparia) C2 C No
Explanation of State Status Categories:
T = Threatened. Threatened species are those likely to become an
endangered species in the state if not protected.
SC = Special Concern. A species of plant in North Carolina that
requires monitoring. These may be collected from the wild and
sold under specific regulations.
C = Candidate. Species which are rare in North Carolina for various
reasons and are likely to merit listing as Endangered or
Threatened if they continue to decline.
SR = Significantly Rare. Species very rare in N.C. whose numbers are
significantly reduced by habitat destruction, disease, or direct
exploitation. Usually more common somewhere else in their
range.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during
site visits, nor were any of these species observed.
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The bridge replacement project is located within the
jurisdiction for air quality of the Winston-Salem Regional Office of
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. The proposed project is located in Caldwell County, which
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the
19
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of
this attainment area.
The project involves the removal and replacement of Bridge
Number 40 on SR 1552 over Kings Creek. No additional through lanes
are planned, and the project will not substantially increase traffic
volumes. Due to the aforementioned factors and low anticipated
future traffic, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be
insignificant.
Noise levels could increase in the area during construction, but
this increase 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 for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772)
and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA), and no additional reports
are required.
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Caldwell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. Kings Creek is not included in a detailed flood
study. A copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map with the approximate
limits of the 100-year floodplain is included as Figure 4. The
floodplain in the vicinity of the project is rural and wooded with
mostly agricultural uses. There are no buildings in the project
vicinity with floor elevations below the 100-year floodplain. The
proposed bridge replacement will not adversely affect the floodplain.
F. Relocations
No businesses or residences will be relocated as part of the
proposed project.
G. Hazardous Materials
No hazardous waste sites were identified in the project
vicinity.
H. Section 4(f) Properties
The proposed project will not impact any properties eligible for
protection under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act
of 1966.
X. CONCLUSION
Bridge Number 40 on SR 1552 (Grandin Road) over Kings Creek in
Caldwell County will be replaced at its existing location with a 55 m
(180-foot) bridge. A temporary on-site detour including a 23 m
(75-foot) detour bridge located 10 m (30 feet) north of the existing
bridge is also recommended.
20
No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated as a part
of this project, therefore, the proposed project is considered to be
a "categorical exclusion" as defined by the Federal Highway
Administration's environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.117).
EBM/tp
r- - N
UPton 16 ?
$ ?v
Globe :i21 V.r` \
at erson Nmrrreea
/C A 1_ • D 1 /
Collett- .0le. Valmea
Lenoir Ifi 90
am
Gewel nit e /
1.do? • o e IR
L? HUdson 321
RBato Gram e
f` ! \ at
.F t. t1s lt3 /
/ QP
?u 1161
2.1 11131
r 1163 1162 1132 F±, cy
1506 R?pG? 1,3 Ferguson ?1!t
so7? ti 1 -- - ` Elkvill - 'p: I
,* 1_ O I / t 134 1224
N FA; ` 2.9 N ,
t t31
Laytown
4 150 p FP ',? 111130
,4 fAS L? Wi 1 kes Co.
Zee 2
5
34 O
C4 C, W 1552 ?,
9 i / \'j
,b 1507
C and .171 BaptiSt s
C1h arch c ` /? 0ot
.S ?tt, C?QQ A di
1552 n
N 1512 1573 / 1130
BRIDGE NUMBER 40 112
V 1129
CALDWELL COUNTY
C 1511 adkin Valley ; 1= BUTTE MTN. 1 59-L„ A N 1 J A
" 15,71 1554
569 FpS FMS r
t 55e '4 3 b 1596 5 I'
New Hope --
Ch. 1e ` 1700
' Caldwell Co. 1552
•'it? 1.3 . ti 6 '1., Hollow \
ee+ b r? Springs
1511 1551 1597 1701 Ch.
?r 1555 1.0
ti`s 1550 .5 b• NORTH CAROLINA DETARTMENT OP
TRANSPOR'T'ATION
DIVISION OI' HIGHWAYS
i'I,ANNING AMU ENVIRONMENTAL
Kings u I11{ANCH
Creek REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON GRANDIN ROAD (SR 1552)
OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2525
FIG. 1
N
z s? ?` w W
Z(N,'3Z,
W ZON
;r r,, ` ?? pQ?Q ?_ V m
r r Gr. ? J
s.. I ` .4• a F O ?' o
x
aaozd Q Ln a
Ca..,aa J Ln Q
z. E- A cw 0 d..- V H
s . tbrr' • ?? ?' Z a`?
' mow, ? ' '? O E
cr?
+ m O
PQ u
.
'" v4w?
f
.41
s.
{
r
all
,¢'.y,t/y „+ . •i -? Vii: +? ?_.?.
`JYi?t y 6w. .? R
"TIT
?e qty • $ I.. I ,..r.
r•
.
,d t •Y ?4
xis ? ?' " p ro I> I rt o
-4 04 4J -1
4J > -P
44 a) (d 4) 1. ... - - '•: \ a'z.' r 9 CtO 'y L_. roV (Q Y N
34 ril N 14 ro 1.1
A a A 7. I ?4 3?a Gil H N 4J?
>-r +l .u ul +J rl Gl
to 04 CP O
4J
u i
44 o -- o a'd ° ' ?.
¦ cV I r I b r 1 ?. 'J+ -H b
\ 1,; m r -P 3 Old
It f-) w 4 • " •I O b A O
CT O N O 4O0 (d a)
r ¦ R 1 r•I 44 44 ri N 14 11 4J
t„ 11 Q 4J I O I ?+ Ln O
r-I 00 00
:j E Ul o-
+ a o 4 H ro
f \ • i Ste!' 4 rli 'A E f-l O •r•I N -I 0-1
j\ ' 4 r 41 rn N rn N rd 4.) QI Cl, N
rr, > un > ro ro ?+ a>
44 •r•I •ri 'J1 V4 N ro •r-I
¦ \ ' O b 4-) b .N 14 P to 14 b 4j
O rd N ro ro w N:j a) .'ter rd i
?4 4J ? 4J En (a r.
En 14
04 0
¦ E o o++ E U ?r o (d+1
' ri > I r-I N r-I 0) 44 C.' It 14 O r-I
' a P4 KC P44 E-r o•1 ul a P4 etc
p
r. ? ?_. d+ _1 e rE

I?.._ a rxr°
.

EAST OF BRIDGE
LOOKING WEST
WEST OF BRIDGE
LOOKING EAST

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON SR 1552 OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDW ELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2525
FIG. 3
1100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN: KINGS CREEK
ipyloy ; x m
D
a
? rx 3.r? Y?•d ? 1Y ??. s'! r I,y1 ?.i p}I+'?' bF? Ij4
„Lu1?a ? r?_ui y?1.. Yt {{ `2' {1"`rriv r '?YS
? ? 1 3"?1G•.r'?iitr i ? 1? ?fv?'?.
wl;
??•`°Y}ataxr..
r /al? >ycr,..r? ?'Lp4i s7. b r r a d vi GRA011
/ I 11........t'°AY._4;C f?" - ?' "i'• 'ntr f l ?{' ? 'f V .. I N _.I y??
1tJ sty 4 x ?,4yu?,? i .??d e rari}??N t? j A 1 u Z N.
z At
?ySi?aty .1?t•r ,' rl D..m
Jar. p? 9.t
LEGEND
L? N
The 100-Year Floodplain LJ z
xz
m

N
O
NOR1.1 CAROLINA DEPAR'I'viENT OF
t TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION 01; HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEV 1•AL
•?CK BRANCH
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON SR 1552 OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. B - 2525
0
feet 2000 FIG. 4
L
47(,
JAN 0 4 tg0
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor DWI 'bn Af Arcfifves>and r
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Wi S. Pria, ireci
December 30, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 40 on SR 1552 over Kings
Creek, Caldwell County, B-2525, ER 94-7687
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 16, 1993, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds
concerning the above project. We reported our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial
photographs at the meeting and for our use afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of the following historic
structures in the general project area:
Grandin Baptist Church. On SR 1573 just west of the junction with SR
1562.
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. The floodplain in which
Bridge 40 is located is considered to be of high probability for the location of
archaeological sites.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by a NCDOT
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed bridge. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
A-1
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
December 30, 1993, Page 2
K
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.
Si77".
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

Preservation Officer
A-2

?STAIZ
n y
K
North Carolina Department of Cdltural
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge 40 on Grandin Road (SR
1552) over Kings Creek, Caldwell County, Federal
Aid BRZ-1552(4), State Project 8.2731901, TIP 8-
2525, ER 95-8077
Dear Mr. Graf:
j?FQ
F;JAN /
995
iFory ??/J/ hv, Min IM ?LWAKY?&, Thank yo u for your letter of December 19, 1994, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Ms.
Joy has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
Sin ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
A-3
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807
Q3P
9.
_ A

ti
® Nort
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 1 1993
SUBJECT: NCDOT Scoping Meeting for Bridge #40 on SR 1552 over
Kings Creek, Caldwell County, TIP #B-2525.
Due to temporary staffing shortages, the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be unable to send a
representative to the scoping meeting for this project. Kings
Creek is somewhat degraded and does not support trout in the
project area; therefore, trout are not an issue to the NCWRC.
However, we anticipate commenting on this project through the 404
permit process because Caldwell County is considered a trout
county by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our comments will
reflect that this stream does not support trout.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide
planning stages for this project. If we can
office, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
input to the early
further assist your
A-4
TECHNICAL REFERENCES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES INPUT
Borror, D.J., N.F. Johnson, C.A. Triplehorn. 1989. An Introduction to the study of
Insects. New York, Saunders College.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daniels, R.B., H.J., Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems
in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vickburg, Miss.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. "Federal Manual for
Delineating and Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands." U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative
Technical Publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and Stephen P. Hall. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virg' iia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM, 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
Waters of the Yadkin River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources.
A-5
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
4
and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. "1986 Wetland Plant Life for North Carolina". St. Petersburg,
Fla. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 198 1. "Effects of
Highways on Wildlife." Report #FHWA/RD-81/067.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States., U.S., Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. "List of Federally Protected and Candidate
Species." Asheville, N.C.
Weakley, Alan S. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. 1993. Working draft. N.C.
Natural Heritage Program.

A-6
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
lU-/Z-43
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
MR. EQK. GAL VAS DEM-DE'IJAIP. lDTNFk
FROM: REP. NO. OR ROOM BLDG

.
X-15
I rati.4 I" VI c.IC. eAN Itzo -WEV"L
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ® FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

M STATF o? D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVIANOR P.C. WX 25201, RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201
i 1 41993
a
R. SAMUEI, HUNT I I I
SWRF 1ARY
October 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: ? H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 40
on Grandin Road (SR 1552) over Kings Creek, Caldwell
County, T.I.P. Project B-2525, State Project
No. 8.2731901, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1552(4)
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 16, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Eddie McFalls, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
EM/pl r? S C,K . Z ?3 ??Z- - /-
Attachment
156 ?G71
C
C
.? l ??^'1
w cc
„ M,) -i-n ", 7L7 fi"J f.&^' 6)&f N <?r. r,4,4,
?nl t 1 i ?n Cn O ?-?
V, I
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 10-12-93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING X
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2525
STATE PROJECT 8.2731901
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1552(4)
DIVISION 11
COUNTY CALDWELL
ROUTE GRANDIN ROAD (SR 1552)
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Bridge Number 40 on Grandin Road
(SR 1552) over Kings Creek in Caldwell County will be replaced
with a new structure.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE X or
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR X
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , (%)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEETgq 4400
TRAFFIC: CURRENT (1993) 300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR1614 7CO VPD o
TTST % DT % le v,ST Z/
(p ? 1
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: Two lanes; 4.9 m (16') of pavement with
(EXISTING) ?b 1.2 m (4') grassed shoulders
_I ?
EXISTING STRU TUBE: LENGTH 42.1 METERS; WIDTH 5.8 METERS 16
( 139 FEET) ( 19.0 FEET)
r
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
* BRIDGE - LENGTH 42.7 METERS; WIDTH 7.9 METERS
( 140 FEET) ( 26 FEET)
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH METERS
( FEET) ( FEET)
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
* BRIDGE - LENGTH 36.6 METERS; WIDTH 7.9 METERS
( 120 FEET) ( 26 FEET)
OR
PIPE - SIZE mm ( INCHES)
* Dimensions are from a Preliminary TIP Estimate
prepared by Design Services in 1989.
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 625,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 18,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 643,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 625,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 18,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 643,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $ 90,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 733,000
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. Presently, 3 school buses cross Bridge No. 40 twice each day.
2. Project B-2525 is a metric project.
3. Project B-2525 is on the Grandin, NC USGS Quadrangle.
4. Caldwell County is a "Trout" County. Kings Creek is shown as
a trout stream on CGIA Environmental Sensitivity Mapping.
PREPARED BY: Eddie McFalls, Project Planning Engineer
DATE: 10-12-93 C-AK
\) Upton .6 ??lAIV 16 \
V `
/ Globe 321 \
6e
90 erson Kmas Creek ,.
a?
ftft. jC A' D 1 E I
ft-ft Collett It Valmea 2
ft-ft +Lenoit *t sa
?
1 16
e: ell White IB II
118 Hudson
ftft. 321
`
-4 ftftft ?BatO ram
Ganlall O is
/ od
1. ' 1135
h
1 1161
2.1 1131
111132 E?±. n,
1163 1162
t 508 R,?p(',E 1.3 Ferguson i¢a
Elkville 1507 / 1 134 1224
2.9 N
pP? ? F
Laytown . 1131
Q 130 p FP 1130
.4 FAS Wi 1 kes Co.
w 12.0 \1134 v'
1552 /
W
1507 Y 15
5 's / r
FPS / ? ,?1 d
,r d
randin
t C 9
1512 1552 1130
ry 1573
9 ?b \ 1130 ?A
? . 11
s 1559 1129
l
_ Q ` `P b
r, 1511
1
adkin Valley 1- BUTTE MTN. 1391 4. 17 '--,,.A
1554
1369 1571 A FPS FPS r
`
New Hope 1558 '4 b 1598 5
Caldwell Co. Chl.3 ti 1552 Hollow
\
b Springs \
1351 1597 1701 Ch. `
1311
s 1555 1.0
1550 5 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OP I
V TRANSPORTATION 1
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Kings BRANCH
Creek REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 40
ON GRANDIN ROAD (SR 1552)
JQ, OVER KINGS CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2525
FIG. 1
A
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
_ 11 ZZ'93
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ERIC. C"1AfrAMi3 DCM -DCNn1p.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?oNN?Np .?
Eeeie INI?FR?-?5 TA(
cNVIRwMEjTAL
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

n,.a SfAiF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORT,
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GoveRNOR VC. 130X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 22, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Eddie McFalls Et?Nk
Project Planning Engineer
NOV 2 4 08
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECREEARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for replacing Bridge Number 40 on Grandin
Road (SR 1552) over Kings Creek, Caldwell County, State
Project No. 8.2731901, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1552(4), T.I.P. Project B-2525
On November 16, 1993 at 10:00 A.M., a Scoping meeting for T.I.P.
Project B-2525 was held in Room 558-A of the Highway Building. At the
meeting, alternatives for replacing Bridge Number 40 in Caldwell County were
discussed. The following people were in attendance:
Eric Galamb
Melba McGee
Robin Stancil
Sid Autry, P.E.
Brian Williford
Darin Wilder
Roy Girolami
Leroy Smith, P.E.
Cynthia Joyner
Teresa Hart
Eddie McFalls
NCDEHNR-DEM
NCDEHNR-Policy Development
NCDCR-SHPO
Location and Surveys
Hydraulics
Program Development
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The meeting was opened with a description of the schedule for T.I.P.
Project B-2525. The project is scheduled for right of way in March of 1995
and is scheduled for construction in March of 1996. The T.I.P. funds $18,000
for right of way and $625,000 for construction. A Categorical Exclusion will
be completed for the project in July of 1994.
Next, the existing conditions of Kings Creek, Bridge Number 40, and the
approaches on Grandin Road (SR 1552) were described. Traffic and accident
data were also discussed. Information presented on each of these subjects is
listed below:

November 22, 1993
Page 2
Bridge Information
Length: 42.1 m (140 feet)
Width: 5.8 m (26 feet)
Height Crown to Bed: 5.5 m (18 feet)
Structure: Timber floor on I-beams and timber joists; Bents are timber
caps on timber posts and piles. The bents are concrete
encased.
Year Constructed: 1966
Present Posting: SV-10 tons / TTST-18 tons
Present Condition: Poor
Sufficiency Rating: 16.0
Estimated Remaining Life: 1 year
The existing bridge has had scour problems.
Approach Information
Bridge Number 40 lies on a tangent section of Grandin Road (SR 1552).
Grandin Road (SR 1552) has a statutory speed limit of 55 mph. In the
vicinity of the bridge, Grandin Road (SR 1552) has 4.9 m (16 feet) of
pavement with grassed shoulders which vary from 1.2 m (4 feet) to 2.4 m
(8 feet) in width. Along the east side of Grandin Road, Southern Bell has an
underground telephone line which will require relocating.
Kin s Creek
Just west of Grandin Road (SR 1552), Kings Creek runs parallel to the
roadway for approximately 25 m (82 feet). The approach fill is protected from
this meander with riprap.
In the past, Bridge Number 40 has had scour problems.
Caldwell County is a trout county. Prior to the scoping meeting,
however, Stephanie Goudreau of the Habitat Conservation Program of the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission wrote:
"Kings Creek is somewhat
project area; therefore, trou
anticipate commenting on this
Caldwell County is considered
Engineers. Our comments will
trout."
degraded and does
t are not an issue
project through t
a trout county by
reflect that this
not support trout in the
to the NCWRC. However, we
ie 404 permit process because
the U.S. Army Corps of
stream does not support
Traffic and Accident Data
Year ADT TTST DUAL DHV PHF DIR
1994 400 vpd T-6.-- T-.- 10% 0.9 60%
2014 700 vps 1% 2% 10% 0.9 60%
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge Number 40 from August
1990 through July 1993.
Three school buses presently use Grandin Road twice daily.
November 22, 1993
Page 3
After the existing conditions were presented, Brian Williford opened the
discussion of alternatives for replacing the bridge with the Hydraulic Unit's
recommendations. The Hydraulics Unit recommended Bridge Number 40 be
replaced in its existing location and a 23 m (75-foot) temporary detour
structure be constructed approximately 10 m (33 feet) downstream of the
existing bridge. Kings Creek is narrow at this location and could be bridged
at an elevation as much as 1.2 m (4 feet) lower than the existing bridge.
The Hydraulics Unit proposed Bridge Number 40 be replaced with a 55 m
(180-foot) structure. This longer structure could be used to help
accommodate the existing meander in Kings Creek. Based on the traffic on the
bridge and the statutory 55 mph speed limit (60 mph design speed), the width
of Bridge Number 40 was proposed as 7.9 m (26 feet). The Hydraulics Unit
also recommended a cleanout of Kings Creek in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed bridge.
Leroy Smith of Roadway Design, citing Stephanie Goudreau's written
statement regarding trout waters which was presented at the meeting's
opening, suggested a channel change to remove the meander. This channel
change would facilitate a shorter structure length and thus save money. Eric
Galamb then stated that the Division of Environmental Management would not
support the channel change. He stated that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation must protect future uses of the stream. He also stated that
although trout may not be present in this area of Kings Creek at this time,
impacts to the stream must be kept to a minimum so it may be inhabitable by
trout in the future.
After this discussion, Division's recommendations were presented.
Before the meeting, Wally Bowman, Division Construction Engineer, stated that
the Division does not support road closure as an alternative. The Division
recommends the use of a temporary detour structure and the replacement of
Bridge Number 40 at its existing location. The replacement of Bridge
Number 40 at its existing location would maintain the existing tangent
section of SR 1552. No suitable routes are available for detouring traffic.
An off-site detour would involve more than 5.6 km (3.5 miles) of unpaved
roads. The only improved route is more than 22 km (13 miles) long. Road
closure would greatly inconvenience school bus traffic as well as local
farmers who own land on both sides of Kings Creek and regularly cross Bridge
Number 40.
Next, the vegetation along the banks of Kings Creek was discussed.
Photographs of the vegetation which included shrubs, brush, and trees were
circulated in the meeting. Eric Galamb mentioned that the presence of
vegetation influences the water temperature of the stream and should be
replaced once the bridge project is complete. Water temperatures affect the
types of fish and other aquatic organisms which use the stream. Moreover,
Eric Galamb stated that the timing of construction should be coordinated with
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission to minimize stream impacts.
After the discussion of the vegetation, Brian Williford stated that
Bridge Number 40 is not in a Federal Regulatory Floodway. The area, however,
is affected by backwater from the Yadkin River. Brian Williford's final
comments were that no wetlands are in the project vicinity and erosion
control measures should be coordinated with environmental agencies.
November 22, 1993
Page 4
Robin Stancil then described the architectural and archaeological
resources in the area. Grandin Baptist Church is not on the National
Register of Historic Places but is considered historic and is eligible for
the Register. Robin, however, stated that as long as the church lands do not
extend any further than its driveway or Howell Farm Road (SR 1513), Grandin
Baptist Church will not be within the Area of Potential Effect for this
project. Since the bridge is within the floodplain of the Yadkin River,
Robin Stancil stated that there is a high probability for archaeological
sites. An archaeological survey of the project area will be required.
Leroy Smith then asked Roy Girolami from Structure Design how long it
would take to construct the new bridge. Roy Girolami said one construction
season would probably suffice. Construction of the new bridge would take
approximately 6 months. Thus, the temporary detour would remain in place
approximately 9 months (additional time to allow for approach work).
Other alternatives for replacing Bridge Number 40 were also discussed
including a relocation alternative which would involve constructing the
proposed bridge east of the existing bridge. The horizontal curve on the
southern approach could be used to shift the alignment. On the northern
approach, however, two new curves would have to be introduced into the
alignment of Grandin Road (SR 1552). Roadway Design will provide cost
estimates for this alternative as well as the temporary detour alternative.
EBM/plr
cc: Lubin Prevatt, P.E.
Wilson Stroud