19970674 Ver 1_Complete File_19970805

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A'kyw"?;WA?EHNR
August 20, 1997
Alleghany County
DWQ Project # 970674
TIP #B-2803
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the
purpose of replacing a bridge at SR 1128, as you described in, your application dated 31 July 1997. After
reviewin g your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification
Number 3107. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the
Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except
as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a
new application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive watersheds
(T15A:04B .0024). No weep holes or scuppers shall be installed in the replacement bridge.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a
written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorsey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
JPre ton o' Jr. P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorsey
Central Files
970674.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NO 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
. An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recydedrl0% post consumer paper
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
& ?,-ec-
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
FROM:
REF.. NO. OR BROOM, BLDG.
VICJ?/- N
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR BEQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FO OUR 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:
REGEtVED
JUL 1yI5
ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCES
F:Ra+.In?_ ..
AW
d,.* srnTF o?
m'? gp9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 29, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge
No. 52 on SR 1172 and Bridge No. 56 on SR 1128 over
Little River in Alleghany County, State Project
8.2700201, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1172(4), B-2803
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 July 26, 1995 at 9:30 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 Wayne Fedora, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
WF/plr
cfg-
Attachment C, L/0
t:-, -We
201010

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-2803 DIVISION: ELEVEN
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1172(4) COUNTY: ALLEGHANY
STATE PROJECT: 8.2700201 ROUTE: SR 1172
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace Obsolete Bridge
DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge No.52 on SR 1172 over Little
River in Alleghany County
PROJECT USGS QUAD SHEET: Glade Valley
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................. $ 300,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ............................. $ 54,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................. $
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 354,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ............... $ ,000
CURRENT ESTIMATED RIGHT OF WAY COST (T.I.P.)...... $ ,000
CURRENT TOTAL COST ESTIMATE ....................... $ ,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) ,(%)
TRAFFIC: CURRENT VPD; DESIGN YEAR VPD
TTST % DV %
PROPOSED TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION: . -METER (-FOOT) TRAVELWAY
PLUS METER ( . -FOOT) GRADED
SHOULDERS ( . -METER/ . -FOOT IF
GUARDRAIL IS USED)
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 27.7 Meters WIDTH 5.9 Meters
91 Feet 19.2 Feet
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: Steel Bridge: meters ( feet) long
meters ( feet) wide
COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Wayne Fedora, P.E. DATE 06/23/95
f<

tiatla'? 7 a?
arts ' x
it •^. r 5 GIaO<
„Valley
6 W?,tt?<a
5 CMrty

C
• 7.

.ZZ I ?• „o Y
-'2 }

tg_ n 2

--
ta0 7 4

-- BRIDGE \O. 52
? jz1
112-9
it21.
BRIDGE NO. 56
Studied Detour Route

F ?'o North Carolina Department Of
L= Transportation
tom, Planning 3 Environmental Branch
LLEGI-LkN°Y COUNTY
BRIDGE NO.52 kND BRIDGE NO. -56
ON SR 11'72 OVER LITTLE RIVER
T.I.P. NO. B-2803
0 kilometers 0.53 kilometers 1.1
Figure I
0 miles 0.33 miles 0.67
Wfr.' G.:KS VN ::< M/. b9? pC2 _ DI
7 bC?
\ ? •? ??`'G/lam, r?r =` 1?.??/ ? ????
Sparta.
q 'err ? ..- ?, -' ? \--?.,` \ 1 ?. '`? \-'-? _ ??',?JI -? \ ? j( ( \, ?~ • m°?
976,
• ?.-? -'??\\ i ?\ ?\ \??o? `D 2902 -? •?- `7
? -_ ???' ,' /! ? I .. 2891 J" o ? ? ? `"/ I ? ?
Toer
ll ?? ?' i ,? I ?- ?r , ?;. 1 ' • `? 2736-? `2667
.7 _\? '? 1969 ?/ /' l'.? / \. b. '\ \?,O v'?, \ ``• \ •B„v
/176/
i ?` `.? \` 'a-??o /• 1 911 \ r I ???? ' / ?? ,? `'? ?\?
-ROAD
Cem
(Zb
/ ' ? \ \ .i/•\ lam- ? \?. l ? ??% \ "_ ?? ,-^
may/ ` l \ '\. \ ._Eo?'?•
`??- (, ?`; .\ 1 ??\\\= •??7';; ewjSa'?m Ctil .?-?? ;t!` ?• i ' ??--`\ f ,\ i Ida e `??
F., <? \ Pine Cwa D Ch
_AJ
__ 1' I ` 1 ' ?' r % (; , •\ `.. ?? f ??
_i= .. . fii-? • F?' 3000
• ?-_~ - ' ? V ^?\ ? ? \ l ~ ? • ? ? • '??? j 1. ?\?? p i' l f \?I?JiS=" ? \ , ?\ \\ % h\? 1 \?, r-?'
.200
%
SIPt
Deep
r4
'r•y ?
@a 4 n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA F?,/RoN ??TS 1,FNC?S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JSC/
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 31, 1997
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section p?
Dear Sir:
Subject: Alleghany County, Replacement of Bridge No. 52 over Little River on
SR 1172 and Bridge No. 56 over Pine Swamp Creek on SR 1278, Federal
Project No. BRZ-1172(4), State Project No. 8.2700201, T.I.P. No. B-2803.
Please Find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 52 will be replaced at its existing location with a bridge 34 meters
(110 feet) long and 6.0 meters (20 feet) wide. During construction of Bridge No. 52
traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads. Bridge No. 56 will be replaced with
a triple barrel 3.0 meter x 2.4 meters (10 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert on new
alignment. During construction of the culvert, traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge. No jurisdictional wetlands and up to 0.01 hectares (0.03 acres) of jurisdictional
surface waters may be impacted by the proposed 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 Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification 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 Water Quality, for their review.
?1%
A
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) hereby requests NCWRC review. The NCDOT requests the NCWRC forward
their comments to the Corps of Engineers
It is anticipated that foundation investigations will be required that will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory
testing. We have determined that this activity may be authorized under Nationwide
Permit 6 (Survey Activities) in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A(B-6). This action
would not require notification if not for the fact that this project will take place in a
mountain trout county. With this information in mind, NCDOT is requesting that the
NCWRC provide comments to the Corps of Engineers, and that the Corps of Engineers
authorize the survey activity under Nationwide Permit 6.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
.
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. James A. Buck, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
f
If
Alleghany County
Bridge No. 52 Over Little River on SR 1172
and
Bridge No. 56 Over Pine Swamp Creek on SR 1278
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1172(4)
State Project No. 8.2700201
T.I.P. No. B-2803
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/o/1519(o
DATE' H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE tvision cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Administrator, FHWA
Y
?J
Alleghany County
Bridge No. 52 Over Little River on SR 1172
and
Bridge No. 56 Over Pine Swamp Creek on SR 1278
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1172(4)
State Project No. 8.2700201
T.I.P. No. B-2803
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
?• ??a??aumni
-c?C.a_.
Pamela R. Williams q
e 'i x ESSy
Project Engineer '
• SEAL.
- 7521 '

A s
v9,yj•:?tiG1NEE``:? `j
P
`
James ang, Ph.D., P. E. S
i ?
wJ
?`
?a
iu
For Nor
th Carolina Department of Transportation
L. it Grimes, E., Unit Head
Cons It ant En eering Unit
Jim Buck, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
M
4
Alleghany County
Bridge No. 52 Over Little River on SR 1172
and
Bridge No. 56 Over Pine Swamp Creek on SR 1278
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1172(4)
State Project No. 8.2700201
T.I.P. No. B-2803
Bridges No. 52 and No. 56 are included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The locations are shown in Figure
1. No substantial impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior
to right-of-way acquisition.
3. Location and installation of any required weep holes will be determined during final design
phase.
11. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The existing alignment of SR 1128 at Bridge No. 56 does not meet current AASHTO design
standards for a rural local road; therefore, it is recommended that the bridge approaches be
realigned as illustrated by Alternate A in Figure 2.
Bridge No. 56 will be replaced with a triple barrel 3.Om x 2.4m (10 ft. x 8 ft) reinforced concrete
box culvert on new alignment and will provide for a 6.0 m (20 ft.) roadway with 1.2 m (4 ft.)
shoulders. After construction of the new roadway and culvert, existing SR 1128 will be removed
to pre-construction contour, Bridge No. 56 will be removed, and driveway access will be
provided to the adjacent properties.
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced at the existing bridge location. It will be replaced with a new
bridge having a clear roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 ft) and a length of 34 meters (110 ft).
This will provide a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders across the structure
The grade of the new structure of Bridge No. 52 will be approximately the same as the existing
bridge grade at this location. The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.0 meter (20 ft)
travelway with 1.2 meters (4 ft) grassed shoulders.
During construction of Bridge No. 52, traffic will be detoured off-site on existing roads as shown
in Figure 1. During construction of the culvert to replace Bridge No. 56, traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge.
r"
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $822,000 including $72,000 for right-of-way and
$750,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1997-
2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $575,000 including $75,000 for right-of-way and
$500,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1172 and SR 1128 are classed as rural local routes in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Land use is primarily forest land and residential in the immediate vicinity
of the bridges. Bridge No. 52 is located approximately 18 meters (60 ft) west from the confluence
of Pine Swamp Creek with Little River.
Bridge No. 52 is located 18 meters (60 ft.) north from the center line of the intersection of SR
1172 and SR 1128. Bridge No. 56 is located 51 meters (167 ft.) south from the same intersection.
Bridge No. 52 and Bridge No. 56 are approximately 69m (227 ft.) apart.
Bridge No. 52 north approach is located at the end of an approximate 240 meter radius ( 7
degree 15 minute) curve. The curve has a design speed of more than 60 kilometers per hour (40
miles per hour). A "Narrow Bridge" sign is posted on the north approach. The north and south
approaches are relatively flat.
The approaches of Bridge No. 52, on SR 1172 have a 4.9 meter (16 ft) pavement width with 1.0
meter (3 ft) shoulders. The roadway is approximately 4.9 meters (16 ft) above the creek.
The existing Bridge No. 52 was built in 1962 (Figure 3A). The superstructure consists of timber
deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps
and piles reinforced with steel I-beams on concrete footings with a timber bulkheads on the north
side and a concrete bulkhead on the south.
The overall length of the bridge is 45.9 meters (150.6 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.8 meters
(19.3 ft). The posted weight limit is 12.7 metric tons (14 tons) for single vehicles and 17.3 metric
tons (19 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 52 has a sufficiency rating of 41.7, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Bridge No. 56 south approach is located at the end of an 19 meter radius (90 degree) curve. The
curve has a design speed of less than 50 kmh (30 mph). "One Lane Bridge" signs are posted on
the both approaches. The vertical alignment of the south approach is approximately a 14%
grade.
The approaches of Bridge No.56, on SR 1128 have a 4.9 meter (16 ft) pavement width with 1.2
meter (4 ft) shoulders. The roadway is approximately 3 meters (10 ft) above the creek.
The existing Bridge No. 56 was built in 1959 (Figure 313). The superstructure consists of timber
deck on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps
and piles on concrete footings with timber bulkheads on concrete footings.
The overall length of the bridge is 8 meters (26 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19.2 ft).
The posted weight limit is 15.4 metric tons (17 tons) for single vehicles and 20.0 metric tons (22
tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
2

Bridge No. 56 has a sufficiency rating of 49.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
The projected traffic volumes are 270 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 500 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT) . The speed limit is posted 50 kmh (35 mph) north of the project site.
One accident was reported in the project area between April 1, 1992 and March 31, 1995. The
two vehicles involved were traveling approximately 40 kmh (30 mph) under wet conditions,
resulting in an angular collision at the intersection.
Overhead powerlines are on the west side of SR 1172. Overhead telephone lines cross SR 1172
from the southwest corner to the northeast comer of Bridge No. 56. Overhead telephone lines
are located on the west side of Bridge No.52. A telephone pedestal is located at the southeast
comer of Bridge No. 52. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Alleghany County School buses cross each bridge four times daily. Off site detour routes should
not pose any major problems.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 56 and Bridge No. 52. Each aftemate
consists of replacing Bridge No. 52 with a new structure and Bridge No. 56 with a culvert.
The alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate A: Replace existing Bridge No. 56, with a culvert on new alignment with in the same
corridor approximately 36m (120 ft.) northeast of the existing location. The new alignment of SR
1128 will eliminate the 19 m. radius (90 degree) curve at the south approach of Bridge No. 56
(See Figure 2). This would reconfigure the SR 1172 / SR 1128 intersection to make SR 1128 the
through movement, with SR 1172 ending in a T-intersection at SR 1128. Bridge No. 52 would be
replaced with a new bridge at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge. A vertical
design exception may be required during the final design phase, due to the existing vertical slope
and maintaining the same elevation at the existing intersection. Traffic will be maintained by an off
site detour on existing secondary roads during the construction. After the final construction of the
new alignment, existing SR 1128 and Bridge No. 56 will be removed, the ground stabilized and
driveway access will be provided to the adjacent properties.
Alternate B: Replace existing Bridge No. 56 with a culvert and Bridge No. 52 with a new structure
on existing location. A horizontal and vertical design exception would be required on the south
approach to Bridge No. 56 because of the existing approximate 19 m. radius (90 degree) curve
and 14% vertical slope of SR 1128. Each bridge would have to be built one at a time so traffic
could be maintained by an off site detour on the existing secondary roads during the construction.
3

V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
$ 14,820 $ 15,950
285,360 225,280
197,830 88,790
154,990 104,980
97,000 65,000
72,000 85,000
$ 822,000 $ 585,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The Division Engineer concurs that traffic can be detoured on existing roads during the
construction period. An eight month road closure period is anticipated for the replacement of
Bridge No. 52. Traffic would be detoured on SR 1172 north to Sparta then US 21 south to SR
1121 west, an approximate distance of 4.8 kilometers (3.0 miles). The detour roadway and
bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour is not economically justifiable due to the low traffic volumes, a short
detour route and the additional environmental impacts.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate A is the recommended improvement. Bridge No. 56 will be replaced with a three barrel
3.0m x 2.4m (10 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) on a new alignment
approximately 36m (120 ft.) northeast of the existing location, with an improvement in the
horizontal alignment of SR 1128. Bridge No. 52 will be replaced with a new structure
approximately 34m (110 ft) in length at the same location and approximately the same elevation
as the existing bridge. This will reconfigure the SR 1172/ SR 1128 intersection resulting in SR
1128 becoming the through movement, with SR 1172 ending in a T-intersection at SR 1128. A
vertical design exception may be required.
An 7.2 meter (24 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway
with 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders across the structure. A 6.0 meter (20 ft) travelway with 1.2
meters (4 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the proposed roadway and bridge
approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that Bridge No. 56 be replaced on new
alignment northeast of the existing bridge.
After the construction of the new alignment, existing SR 1128 and Bridge No. 56 will be removed,
the ground stabilized and driveway access will be provided to the adjacent properties
4

Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, it is recommended that Bridge No. 52 be replaced with
a bridge approximately 34m (110 ft) in length. The elevation of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will maintain a
minimum 0.3 percent grade to facilitate deck drainage. It is recommended that Bridge No. 56 be
replaced with a three barrel 3.Om x 2.4m (10 ft x 8 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC).
The length and height of the structure and the size of the culvert may be increased or decreased
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed analysis during
the final design phase of the project..
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A vertical design exception for the design speed may be required for the sag curve due to the
proposed vertical alignment of SR 1128 and to maintain the existing elevation at the intersection
with SR 1172. The speed limit is posted 50 kmh (35 mph) north of the project site.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies in Alleghany County (Figure 1) in a rural area south of Sparta, North
Carolina. The project site lies within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. Alleghany County is
primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming an industrial and urban county.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Glade Valley, 1968); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200); Soils Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps (1971); Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Glade Valley, 1994); FWS list of protected species and federal
species of concern (1996); and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
uncommon species and unique habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior
to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 21, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 24.4 meter
(80.0 ft.) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the
project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific
replacement structure design information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was
assumed for the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area," "project
area," and "project corridor" denote the speck area being directly impacted by each altemative.
"Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mi.) radius of the project area.
5

Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 853.4 meters (2800.0 ft.).
This portion of Alleghany County contains soils from both the Watauga-Chandler-Fannin
association and the Chester-Ashe association. Soils in the Watauga-Chandler-Fannin
association are characterized as well-drained to somewhat excessively drained, rolling to very
steep, micaceous soils on narrow ridge tops and side slopes of the uplands. Soils in the Chester-
Ashe association are characterized as well-drained to somewhat excessively drained, gently
sloping to very steep soils on fairly broad ridge tops and side slopes of the uplands. The field
investigation confirms the soils as they are mapped.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the New River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Pine Swamp Creek and Little River are perennial tributaries within the New River basin. The
stream banks are well defined, approximately 3.0 meters (10.0 ft.) high, and vegetated with
mountain laurel. Pine Swamp Creek flows southwest to northeast through the proposed project
area with a width at Bridge No. 56 of 5.8 meters (19.0 ft.). Little River flows northwest to
northeast through the proposed project area with a width at Bridge No. 52 of 10.4 meters (34.0
ft.). Both streams were approximately 0.6 to 0.9 meters (2.0 to 3.0 ft.) deep on the day of the
investigation. Pine Swamp Creek (index no. 10-9-5) and Little River (10-9-(1)) have a Class C-
trout rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating
the creek's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture, as well as its suitability for natural trout propagation and maintenance
of stocked trout. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Hazard Boundary
Map for Alleghany County (1977) indicates the project area lies in Zone A which is designated as
a special flood hazard area.
The NCDEM maintains a macroinvertebrate sampling station on Little River within the project
area. Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom
substrates of rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as
some benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have
been developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic
sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera
and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions
(mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data from Little River taken at SR 1128 in
July 1993 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 45 which has a bioclassification of "Excellent".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's biological
integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish communities. The scores derived from
the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody and may not necessarily
directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable to high elevation trout streams,
lakes or estuaries. There is no NCIBI data available for Little River or Pine Swamp Creek.

r
- According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), both Pine Swamp
Creek and Little River are designated Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters
(PMTW) in the project area.
No waters classified by NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project
study area.
Alleghany County does not have a watershed protection ordinance or zoning ordinance that
restrict development or identify any critical areas to be protected.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated and
mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas are
discussed under the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of
habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each
community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the residential lawn on the corner of
SR 1172 and SR 1128, and the grass field northeast of Bridge No. 52 (Figure 2). Many plant
species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The roadsides, lawn,
and fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), wild onion (Allium
canadense), violet (Viola sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). A fraser fir (Abies frasen)
Christmas tree farm is located northwest of Bridge No. 52.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of surviving
on a variety of resources, including vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) and living and
dead faunal components. Although not observed during the site visit, the Gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the
American robin (Turdus migratodus) are often attracted to these roadside and disturbed habitats.
7
Vol
Chestnut Oak Forest
This forested community occurs along Pine Swamp Creek and Little River. The dominant canopy
trees include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Quercus alba), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and red oak (Quercus rubra). An understory of red maple is also found in this community. The
shrub layer contains mountain laurel (Kalmia latifo/ia), and the herbaceous layer consists of
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Although not observed during the site visit, the animals previously listed may also be found in this
community along with the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Pine Swamp Creek and Little River.
Within the project area Pine Swamp Creek is approximately 5.8 meters (19.0 ft.) wide and Little
River is approximately 10.4 meters (34.0 ft.) wide. On the day of investigation both of the
streams were clear and the bottoms were visible. Both of the streams have rock outcrops and
the stream bottoms consist of boulders and gravel covered with silt.
Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) may
reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), creek chubs
(Semotilus atromaculatus), small mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and darters (Etheostoma
sp.) likely inhabit the streams. The macroinvertebrate community of these streams may include
mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), caddisfly (Trichoptera) and dragonfly (Odonata)
larvae under stones and within the leaf debris as well as chironomid larvae (midges) and
oligochaetes (segmented worms) within the substrate. No macroinvertebrates were observed in
either of the creeks within the project area.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic communities by habitat type. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in
locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to ensure no sediment leaves the
construction site.
8

TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge No. 52 Man- Chestnut Aquatic Combined Total
and No. 56 Dominated Oak Community
Replacement Community Community
Impacts
Alternative A 0.25 (0.61) 0.09 (0.22) 0.01 (0.03) 0.35 (0.86)
Recommended
Alternative B 0.34 (0.85) 0.08 (0.21) 0.04 (0.09) 0.46(l.15)
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities in the project area, the man-dominated community will receive
the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement
and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Pine Swamp Creek and Little River. The
proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of
stream bottom. The new bridge construction and approach work will likely increase sediment
loads in the stream in the short term. Impacts to the stream community will not be confined to the
0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) impact zone. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential
adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of the NCDOT Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion and sediment
control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
9

SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Issues
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 (USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Pine Swamp Creek and Little River have
well defined banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence
in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface
waters. Up to 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 52 and No. 56.
Permits
Nationwide Permit No. 23 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters of
the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency
or department where:
1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the national Environmental
Policy Act;
2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice to the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing.
This may require test borings in streams. The NCDOT will apply for Nationwide Permit No. 6
authorization for this activity. Nationwide Permit No. 6 authorizes "survey activities including core
sampling, seismic shot holes and other exploratory-type bore holes".
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in an April 10, 1996 and a July 12, 1995 memorandum (see Appendix). Since the
proposed project is located in a designated "Trout' county, the authorization of a nationwide
permit by the COE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required.
10

Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline either due to natural forces
or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Alleghany
County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction,
are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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 USFWS lists no
federally protected species for Alleghany County as of August 23, 1996.
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species, or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
NCNHP database showed no recorded occurances of any FSC within the project vicinity. Table
2 includes FSC species listed for Alleghany County and their state classifications.
TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) status Present
Myotis subulatus leibii SC No
(Eastern small-footed bat)
Clemmys muhlenbergii T No
(Bog turtle)
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC Yes
(Hellbender)
Phenacobius teretulus SC Yes
(Kanawha minnow)
Ascetocythere cosmeta N/L No
(Grayson crayfish ostracod)
Ophiogomphus howei N/L No
(Pygmy snaketail)
11

TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
(continued)
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) status Present
Speyena idalia SR No
(Regal fritillary butterfly)
Lilium grayi T No
(Gray's lily)
Saxifraga caroliniana C Yes
(Carolina saxifrage)
Monotropsis odorata C Yes
(Sweet pinesap)
Delphinium exaltatum E No
(Tall larkspur)
NOTES. C Denotes Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and needing
population monitoring.)
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended.)
N/L Denotes species whose status is unlisted at this time.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded limited state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. The NCNHP records indicate nine state-listed protected species for
Alleghany County (see Table 3), that were not designated as a "Federal species of concern"
(FSC).
TABLE 3
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ALLEGHANY COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Present
Ambystoma talpoideum SC No
(Mole salamander)
Eurycea longicauda longicauda Sc Yes
(Longtail salamander)
12
TABLE 3
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ALLEGHANY COUNTY
(continued)
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Present
Percina caprodes T Yes
(Logperch)
Percina oxyrhynchus Sc No
(Sharpnose darter)
Plethodon wehrlei T Yes
(Wehde's salamander)
Leptoxis dilatata T No
(Seep mudalia)
Arethusa bulbosa E No
(Bog rose)
Dalibarda repens E No
(Robin runaway)
Thelypteris simulata T No
(Bog fem)
Habitat is present in the project area for three state protected species. No individuals were
observed at the time of the site visit. NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any
state protected species within the project vicinity.
X. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, coded at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form dated April 4, 1996, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of
the Concurrence Form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO also requested "that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist". A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix. An
archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition.
A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to the SHPO for review and comment.
13
XI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges
will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.27 hectare (0.66 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 11,918
hectares (29,434 acres) of prime or important soils found in Alleghany County. The impact rating
determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, indicates
that the site's assessment and relative value score is 74 out of a possible 260. A score higher
than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and the project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Alleghany 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
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 traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality will not be
significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP 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.
14

An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Alleghany County is not a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. These
stream crossings are not in a designated flood hazard zone. The approximate limits of the 100
year floodplain in the project area are shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
15

REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, United
States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Species of North Carolina. February 1996. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993. Classifications
and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the New River Basin. Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preston, R.J. and V.G. Wright. Identification of Southeastern Trees in Winter. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. 1971. General Soil Map
Alleghany County, North Carolina.
16

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). United States Fish and Wildlife
Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. August 23, 1996. List of Threatened and Endangered
Species.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map of Glade Valley, 1994.
United States Geological Survey Topographic map of Glade Valley quadrangle, 1968.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Alfred
Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
17

f
> z is : : eiic; .
f
^w
9
ff 3 :: ..
3 '? N S tw
S
J j
Nr' rand iew £ ?_.°???=???`
W 40Y
-::
w
i"kz
S L
a
Sfj
?2 22 ?j4.
0 ,h
{ 4 ii. )) >
ytf f ? ,mac
O

o

cn M
m
-v

°n
IM M 0d . 8 "

y

me"
0 -0 0z
-+
m • o
?
0
Z -n (A
_. =r
p? 0

_
a)o
a
h
cn ?mmrn
'o G7 z a=te'

t°
m
N °zzw ?•? 0
NnNo ?No
00 O :E m
0
C 3 a.
(D
IV ww 3

T`- 0 -4
m m o
0
3 m;u
s ia
n
? om
z ; N
CO) (D co
X Z
a.

-n
N co
i0 A?

O

? y
N
0
0
0
0
C
v
m
0
X
0
C
m
r
z
O
z

?Z
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 52
B-2803
LOOKING NORTH
LOOKING SOUTH
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3A
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 56
B-2803
LOOKING NORTHEAST
LOOKING SOUTHEAST
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 313

z i
ALLEGHANY
COUNTY
B-2803
IN,
100 y LOW ZONE'
\ River.
?o! /-ZONE A
°es RpOd
''ii. o •: iii'
BRIDGE # 52' R ?If2g• f?
of
sec BRIDGE # 56 \
SCALE 1;24000
0 1000 2000
meters
FIGURE 4
rf
.w SfATp
sYtt? qy?M ?nP9'? _
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ist rlc reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridges 52 and 56 on SR 1 172 over Little River, B-
2803, Alleghany County, ER 96-8513
& FV?11fK?
Thank you for your letter of March 1 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
We are aware of no structures of historic or architectural importance within the
general area of the project.
We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify and evaluate
any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should
be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:siw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

.A
pQF F
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
IF `# El-2$a? Federal Aid # ? 1112 (4? County ALuC&1AANy
CONCURRENCE FORIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
UrLAl.:,-, PV+ac-F Wv_ tit c&a S41- V72 OV79- LITTLE Piyr. Z *I?Jv 13-M, D(-a ATc - cilr 01 .4 `xr- IIZrV
ouzr? Q1nla- S44AWte c4Leeg- f 6iz4oc-f age*tp ix)
On l-Irk" representatives of the _
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other -
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identif ed as Parr-*2 are
considered not eligible or the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:

Represen tiv CDOT Date
FHw , or the Divisi6h Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

State Historic Preservation
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
::,4..:.toas ama> av ragsre?m.sue<
3 ?.... lse sticor.rarttaic: uestatewide•?EOrai' esd't::><> .>;:::::' ORO

.'i?"?'.tiifQl?j:'. - --:
me.
?av:•?.ass.??ws. _.RC-rrw ?irC[C2rIC?E3ir@!GSlRIR?t YYR,•-: '
{r
Aerse: :?.:jL!",?i.,,.... a :?' ,?•`•` .: -:'Aeiesi?:;:~'L?"?
G
&? Nsnra<fa>sd:Evaxiacoes saaftdaad>:»:»:>«=>::';:>:::>:-.>:::>:<: >;' -:wan+aar `oot5asas=asamseu.
t0"our
t.7t>aEtiatiae? R t+a
SY SCS :.
PART III (To be completed by Fsdera( Agency) Alternative Corridor Far Segment
Corndor A 1 Cwndar 8 Carder C + Con1dar 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted DirecJy I 0166 I 0
3. Total Acres To Be Convertea lndireczy, Or To Became Sereces I o , 0 I !
C. Total Acres in Corridor I I I
.PARp fr ?. a:becomAleted`bY5='rand:Eirotuatlon<Awforrtraacrr:::;:>„
>

::... .
a'_:''Fatah'?Qeses-•?rrns?ae?lfiicua.Fam,land:::<N:::::.:?:..:..... ....:.: ::..:.. :: .b'.:•' : ?-;:«?? ..:....:- .:: -..:.: f -:: I
B- tal>:;4'eyes:S?ateweaeRnd:Cacal?tmoortartit?Faizrrtana::;:;. _. ,.: ;; .. .?.. ? '??*.+? . ......: . :::....... ;.;-.
::--.
I ..:.. ,; ..:-- L,.::.?

Ca:P:crsnraa?•CfFartntand':EnGounty.CrtaeaE?t2avt::UilitTcs.$e:C'ortverte?>.... .::.
' :.. , '
:..•' .?4?r?i .....<
?:. ::....:.:
L....::
{I :f? Certface:Cf.Fstmf2ntrrist,OVt`:.'Urisdie?'ais Wtth'SBtn .OrHichesqef84Ye.V set - ;`r;" :: c::» ..::. .:' :. '.
Y
oi d Q!C
.P-.°Af?3f`.. .bs:cont red' .;3C3 asa Eirafwtfoet?Qftert AMstftneflaftts?:;.>..<:;:::
of Farmlend- to, air
Servfead arCbnverte /Ses/a of ff ?'iOtT Pofrttsf. '; ;; F

;:

;::":: `' ? :-';ad '>

<>>:>`.<:;.;::-;:.;

.. ':

"

.
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Ag Qcy) Corridor
-sesement Criteria (These crifaris are explained In 7 CFR 658.9c)) I Mas mum I
Points I
1. Area in Nanurean Use I 15 1 15
I
I
2. P--nmeter In Nonuroart se - _ 10 1 Q I !
3. Percent Of Comeor deinc Farmed I 20 1 Q 1
4. Protecson Provided 8v State And Local Government . 1 20 1 'O I I
5. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Comoared To Average - I 10 ( S 1 I I
3. Creation Of Nonfat mable Farmland 25 I I i
7. Avatiacti8v Of Farm Su0oort Services 5 I I I
S. Cn-i%rm Investments 20 ! p I I 1
9. Sffecrs Of Conversion On Farm Sucoort Serweas I 25 ! I I 1
10. Comeatibiiity With cxisttrta Aoncultural Use I 10 1 1
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I 30
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Pats V) too
Total Comaor Assessment (From Part VI acove or a local site
assessment) 160 I 2 JQ I f
TOTAL POINTS (Total of aeove 2lines) I 280 1 7 3,
1. Cam=r Selected: Z. Total Acres at Farmianas to ce
Converted yy PmM= 3. Oats Ct Sejec=n: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment uses?

Yo ? No ?
S. reason For Seiecnon:
Signature of Person Completing This Parr a
NOTE: Cornciete a form for eicli 5e^mPrn with more thin one Alternmive ComCOr
r
4
k
APp 1996:
z ;
?, orv1S?G!v ??
?H/GHOF
P North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
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: April 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Comments on Group IX Bridge Replacements, Alleghany, Cleveland, McDowell,
Buncombe, and Catawba Counties.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding eleven
proposed bridge replacements in western North Carolina. Biological field staff of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have reviewed the information in your letter dated 11 March 1996
and have examined our records fish sampling data.
Our comments on these projects are listed below. All species and common names follow
"Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada" by Robins et al. 1991
(American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20). Species listed in bold print are considered to be
intolerant to stream degradation under the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management to assess the biological integrity of streams.
B-2803.- Alleghany County, Bridge No. 52 over Little River, Bridge No. 56 over Pine Swamp Creek
Both the Little River and Pine Swamp Creek are designated Hatchery Supported Public Mountain
Trout Waters (PMTW) in the project area. We recently provided you with a memorandum dated
12 July 1995 with our scoping comments on this project (see attached).
B-2815 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
No fish data are available for Persimmon Creek, nor have we identified any special concerns
associated with this project.
B-2816 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. According to WRC
district files, the following fish species were collected in Buffalo Creek in 1980:
t
Group DC
Common Name
rosyside dace
bluehead chub
greenfin shiner
spottail shiner
yellowfin shiner
swallowtail shiner
sandbar shiner
creek chub
striped jumprock
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
April 10, 1996
Page 2
Scientific Name
Canostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Cyprinella chloristius
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutipinnis
Notropis procne
Notropis scepticus
Semotilus atromaculaws
Moxostoma rupiscartes
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Other species collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprindla pyrrhomelas
highback chub Notropis hypsinotus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
redhorse Moxostoma sp.
bullhead Ameiurus sp.
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
warmouth Lepomis gulosus
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
B-2847 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. No fish sampling
data is available for Muddy Creek, but we would expect the species assemblage to be
similar to that of South Muddy Creek (see B-3002 below).
B-2931- Buncombe County, Bridge No. 512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River
The Swannanoa River is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW at the project site. The
river also supports some wild trout. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced
with another spanning structure.
B-2940 - Catawba County, Bridge No. 82 on SR 1165 over Clark Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) collected the following
fish species in Clark Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
fiat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus
Group 1X Page 3 April 10, 1996
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
B-2941- Catawba County, Bridge No. 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Menhinick of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte collected the following species in 1991:
Common Name Scientific Name
common carp Cyprinus carpio
rosyside dace Canostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
creek chub Semodlus atromaculatus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
silver (v-lip) redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lgpomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
B-2998 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 41 on SR 1147 over Second Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in the Second Broad River in 1988:
Common Name Scientific Name
fieryblack shiner Cyprindla pyrrhomelas
Santee chub
bluehead chub
highback chub
greenfin shiner
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
white sucker
striped jumprock
silver (v-lip) redho
flat bullhead
margined madtom
rock bass
redbreast sunfish
fantail darter
Cyprinella zamema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinotus
Cyprinella chloristius
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscartes
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Etheostoma flabelkve
I- Group IX Page 4 April 10, 1996
B-2999 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. The following
fish data were collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
Common Name
thicklip chub
fieryblack shiner
bluehead chub
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
redhorse
margined madtom
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
smallmouth bass
largemouth bass
Piedmont darter
seagreen darter
Scientific Name
Cyprinella labrosa
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus salmoides
Percina crassa
Etheostoma thalassinum
B-3002 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in South Muddy Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
rosyside dace Chnostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
margined madtom Noturus insignis
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lgpomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedt
Piedmont darter Percina crassa
Other species collected by Louder (1963) include:
central stoneroller Compostoma anomalum
creek chub Semodlus atromaculatus
yellow perch Perca flavescens
B-3140 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Fish sampling
data for Buffalo Creek are fisted above under B-2816.
I e
47 Group IX Page 5 April 10, 1996
Although we do not have any special concerns regarding several of these bridge
replacements, we recommend that the NCDOT incorporate the following measures into all bridge
replacement projects to minimize impacts to aquatic organisms:
1) Erosion controls should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
3) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
4) Multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts should be designed so that all water flows
through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
5) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Katie Cirilis, Resource Southeast

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
. Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: K Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: July 12, 1995

SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge #52 on SR 1172 and Bridge
#56 on SR 1128 over Little River, Alleghany County, TIP #B-2803.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
proposes to replace two bridges over the Little River. The scoping sheets indicate that the new
structures will also be bridges.
The Little River is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the project area. If a 404
permit is required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for this project, our recommendations on
the permit applications will likely be as follows:
1) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact river water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
2) If possible, heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the river
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into the river.
3) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
i
r`

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?E'V O
1Q96 T
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Alleghany, Buncombe,
Catawba, Cleveland, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of March 11, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office (we
received it on March 18, 1996). Our office handles project reviews and
requests of this nature for the western part of the state, including the
above-mentioned counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided in your letter, the following
bridges will be replaced: Bridge Numbers 52 and 56 on SR 1172 over the
Little River (Alleghany County); Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
Swannanoa River (Buncombe County): Bridge Number 82 on SR 1165 over Clark
Creek (Catawba County); Bridge Number 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
(Catawba County); Bridge Number 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
(Cleveland County); Bridge Number 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
(Cleveland County): Bridge Number 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
(Cleveland County); Bridge Number 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
(McDowell County); Bridge Number 41 on SR 1147 over the Second Broad
River (McDowell County); Bridge Number 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek;
and Bridge Number 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek.
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts
the proposed bridge replacement projects could have on federally listed
species and on Federal species of concern and (2) the potential impacts
to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project areas.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should
evaluate possible impacts to the following federally listed species
and/or Federal species of concern (these include aquatic animal species

2
known from a particular stream system for one of the proposed bridge
projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
Alleghany County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
This species generally is found beneath large flat stones or logs in
shallow clear-running streams and rivers. It is presently known
from at least one location in the Little River, 7 miles east of
Sparta.
Kanawha minnow (Phenocobius teretulus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to large clear streams within the New River
drainage of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is
presently known from at least one location in the Little River,
•0.5 mile downstream of the NC 18 bridge.
Buncombe County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
There is a record of this species in the Swannanoa River near Black
Mountain.
Spotfin chub (Hvboosis monacha) - Federally threatened. A species
endemic to the Tennessee River drainage. The Little Tennessee River
presently supports the only extant population in North Carolina:
however, there is a historical record from the Swannanoa River in
Asheville.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
This species is endemic to the upper Tennessee River. It generally
occurs in the riffle areas of large rivers that have cobble and
gravel substrates. There are only a few extant populations left in
the Little Tennessee River. Toe River, Cane River, and Nolichucky
River systems. There is a historical record from the Swannanoa
River.
French Broad crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to North Carolina and is known from the
headwater portions of the French Broad River and one stream in the
Savannah River drainage. It was once found in the Swannanoa River
near Black Mountain.
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) - Federal species of
concern. This species is generally found in association with other
acidophiles, such as ericaceacous shrubs, hemlock, rhododendron, and
mountain Laurel.

3
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) - Federally threatened. This
species occurs within the scour zone on the banks of high-gradient
streams or on braided features such as point bars, natural levees,
or meander scrolls of the lower reaches.of streams. It may occur
within the floodplain, but it is most often found at the water's
edge. There is a historical record of this species along Hominy
Creek near Asheville.
Catawba County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several creeks in.the county,
including Brushy Creek, Sandy Run, and Poundingmill Creek.
Cleveland County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several tributaries to the Henry
Fork River.
McDowell County
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis) - Federal
species of concern. This species is presently known from one
locality in North Carolina at a cave located on the banks of Muddy
Creek east of Marion.
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
There is one known population located along the banks of South Muddy
Creek in the headwaters area.
Northern oconee-bells (Shortia calacifolia var. brevistyla) - Federal
species of concern. This species grows in various habitats, from
rocks near water falls, in sand at the edge of running water, in
shady deep moist loam soils, and on dry hillsides. It favors cool,
damp, shady stream banks with fertile, moderately acid, soils.

4
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project
impact areas should be addressed in any environmental document prepared
for these projects. Please note that the legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard
to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of
the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also,
please note that Federal species of concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or.listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification and to request.your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the
proposed projects should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation
of the various bridge replacement alternatives and structures (e.g.,
replacement at the existing location versus upstream or downstream of the
existing structure), (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be
implemented to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g.,
protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In
any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-96-057.
Sin e ely,
4?
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
t State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Aj"7*10A
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr.,.,Governor
H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric Galamb4
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 14, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways MAY 17 1995
Post Office Box 25201 Z
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 L G ICN, r
WAYS ??.
Dear Mr. Vick: IVAdEI?P
50°
This is in response to your letter of March 11, 1996 subject: "Request for
Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If vie can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
P.E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
t
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence): continued
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
Mr. Larry Workman (CEORH-PD-S)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington
502 Eighth Street
Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070
s
May 13, 1996
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for Alleghany and Buncombe Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District. With the exception of Alleghany and Cleveland Counties, these bridges are
located within counties which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Alleghany County has flood hazard areas identified on Flood Hazard Boundary
Maps, but has not had detailed mapping done and does not participate in the program.
Cleveland County has mapping done on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
anticipation of future participation in the NFIP, but does not currently participate in the
program. From the various FIRMs, it appears that both approximate study and detail
study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood
elevations determined-and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information
pertaining to these bridges is contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the
county flood insurance study unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No No County Stream Type Firm
. .
52/56 SR 1172 Alleghany Little River Approx 7/77
35 SR 1001 Cleveland Persimmon Ck.** Detail 7/91
230 SR 1908 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Approx 7/91 "**
65 SR 1760 McDowell N. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
512 SR 2435 Buncombe Swannanoa R. Detail 8/80
82 SR 1165 Catawba Clarks Ck. Detail 8/94
94 SR 1722 Catawba McLin Ck. Detail 9/80
41 SR 1147 McDowell Second Broad R. Approx 7/88
317 SR 1267 McDowell Cove Ck. Approx 7/88
60 SR 1764 McDowell S. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
13 NC 198 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Detail 7/91
County is not a participant in NFIP. Map is a Flood Hazard Boundary Map.
Stream is shown as Muddy Fork on the FIRM.
"" County is not a participant in NFIP.
r
May 13, 1996
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory FloodwaysA. In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
Buncombe County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE, Nashville
District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or
development involving the flood plains. The Nashville District does not currently have
projects that would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may be
contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the Nashville.
District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a
permitting process. -A 26a permit is required for all..constrUCtion or development
involving streams or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger
Milstead at [phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a
permitting process. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and be in compliance with all local ordinances. The
engineering point of contact for the NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who
may be reached at [phone]. Specific questions pertaining to community flood
plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
Alleghany County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE,
Huntington District. The Huntington District does not currently have projects that would
be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Lary Workman may be contacted at
[phone] for further information and comments from the Huntington District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh and Asheville Field Offices
Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
r
May 13, 1996
Page 3 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categcrical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
f
May 13, 1996
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Alleghany County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Buncombe County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Cleveland, McDowell, and Catawba
Counties

r
R-4
FOR
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
]./92
FOR "NO-RISE"
Section 60.3 (d)• (3of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
regulations states that a community-shall "prohibit encroachments,
including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it
has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the
proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood
levels within the community during the occurrence of the base (100-
year) flood discharge."
Prior to issuing any building grading or, development permits
involving activities in a regulatory.floodway, the community must
obtain a certification stating the proposed development will not
impact the pre-project base flood elevations, floodway elevations,
or floodway data widths. The certification should be obtained from
the permittee and be signed and sealed by a professional engineer.
The engineering or "no-rise" certification must be supported by
technical data. The supporting technical data should be based upon
the standard step-backwater computer model utilized to develop the
100-year floodway shown on. the community's effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) and
the results tabulated in the community's Flood Insurance Study
(FIS).
Although communities are required to review and approve the "rio-
rise submittals, they may request technical assistance and review
from the FEMA regional office. However, if this alternative is
chosen, the community must review the technical submittal package
and verify that all supporting data, listed in the following
paragraphs, are included in the package before forwarding to FENA.

r
a

-3-
Proposed Conditions Model
4. Modify the revised existing conditions model
to reflect the proposed development at the new
cross-sections, while retaining the currently
adopted floodway widths. The overbank
roughness coefficients should remain the same
unless a reasonable explanation of how the
proposed development will impact Manning's "n"
values should be included with the supporting
data. The results. of this floodway run will
indicate the 100-year floodway elevations for
proposed conditions at the project site.
These results must indicate NO impact on the
100-year flood elevations, floodway
elevations, or floodway widths shown in the
Duplicate`Effective Model or in the Existing
Conditions Model.
The original FIS model, the duplicate effective FIS model, the
revised existing conditions model, and the proposed conditions
model should all produce the same exact results.
The "no-rise" -supporting data and 'a copy of the engineering
certification must be submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate
community official prior to issuing a permit.
The "no-rise" supporting data should include, but may not be
limited to:
a. Duplicate of the original FIS step-backwater model
printout or floppy disk.
b. 'Revised existing conditions step-backwater model.
c. Proposed conditions step-backwater model.
d-. FIRM and topographic map, showing floodplain and
floodway, the 'additional cross-sections, - the
site location with the proposed- topographic
modification superimposed onto the maps, and a
photocopy of the effective FIRM or FBFM showing the
current regulatory floodway.
e. Documentation clearly stating analysis procedures.
All modifications made to the original FIS model to
represent revised existing conditions, as well as
l
ENGINEERING "NO-RISE" CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that I am duly qualified engineer licensed to
practice in the State of
It is to further certify that the attached technical data supports
the fact that proposed
will not impact
(Name of Development)
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations and
floodway widths on (Name of Stream)
at published sections in the Flood insurance study for
dated
(Name of Community)
and-/will not impact
the 100-year flood elevations, floodway elevations, and
floodway widths at unpublished cross-sections in the vicinity of
the proposed development.
(Date)
(Signature)
(Title)
SEAL:
-------------
(Address)
FEMA, NTHD
8/91
f
I A
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners
County Commissioners 136 South Main Street
Robert E. Edwards Post Office Box 366
J. Walter Jones Sparta, North Carolina 28675
Wiley E. McNeil, Jr. [phone]
Ken Richardson Fax [phone]
Leo J. Tompkins
March 27, 1996
N.C. Department of Transportation
Attn: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
County Manager
Daniel F. McMillan
County Attorney
Richard Doughton
Re: Replace Bridge Nos. 52 and 56 on SR 1172 (Grandview Road) over
the Little River, T.I.P. No. B-2803, Alleghany County
Dear Mr. Vick:
Your letter of March 11, 1996 was presented to the County
Commissioners at their regular meeting on March 18, 1996 for their
consideration.
The Commissioners and myself agree that the bridge replace-
ments being considered are necessary improvements to better serve
Alleghany County and our citizens.
Bridge No. 52 was recommended for replacement in the Alleghany
County 1995 Transportation Improvement Program.
We look forward to seeing these improvements made and to
future improvements.
Re ctfully,
Daniel F. McMillan
County Manager