19970642 Ver 1_Complete File_19970724

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC l ISSLE[
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 60X25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 25, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Dear Sir:
`h
-JI
WETUNDS GROUP
i FR_. UALQ eN.._ _-.-
Subject: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Cove Creek on
SR 1267; F raTAid Project-Ne B,RZ-1267(1), State Project
No. 8.28 0901; TIP No. B-2999; DOE Action ID 199707315;
DWQ # 9----
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) received
authorization from the Corps of Engineers (COE) under a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 6 (Survey Activities) to conduct foundation investigations for the proposed bridge
replacement (COE Action ID 199707315; DWQ # 970642). Along with the pre-
construction notification for this nationwide permit, the NCDOT sent a copy of the
project planning report, a Categorical Exclusion (CE).
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 317 over Cove Creek on SR 1267. The
bridge will be replaced on existing location with a triple barrel (10 ft. X 8 ft.) reinforced
box culvert. The invert of the box culvert will be placed one foot below the stream bed.
During project construction, traffic will be maintained using an on-site temporary detour
south of the existing bridge (see Figure 2 of the document). No jurisdictional wetlands
will be impacted by the subject project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the
NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to
not

proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with 33 CFR 330
Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the COE. The provisions of Section
330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
The NCDOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) for
an approved CE will be applicable to this project. A copy of the CE document was
provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, with the Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 application.
The NCDOT requests that the COE authorize the bridge replacement under a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Application is also made for the appropriate 401
General WQC for this project.
If you have any questions or need any additional infonnation, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], Extension 314.
Sincerely,

David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A N?W'A
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
July 7, 1998
McDowell County
DWQ Project 970642
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Robinson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the
purpose of performing a geotechnical study in McDowell County, as you described in your application dated
June 2, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number 3127. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 6 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 for a new certification. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. 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.
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 conforming 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 Domey at 919-733-1786.
S' rely
,-?
ston Howard, Jr. P.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
970642.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh. NC 27607 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
September 8, 1991
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199707193 and Nationwide Perm-it No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions); TIP No. B-2999.
Mr. Frank Vick
State of North Carolina sr/? ??v?G
Department of Transportation FNS/n IS
-- Planning & Environmental. Branch yk, I99,
Post Office Box 25201 oe?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 Qc?,
S
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your application of July 21, 1997, for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace Bridge #317, on SR 1267, over Cove Creek, near
Whitehouse, in McDowell County, North Carolina. The bridge will be replaced
on existing location with a triple barrel (10 ft. by 8 ft.) reinforced box
culvert. During project construction, traffic will be maintained using an on-
site detour south of the existing bridge using four 84-inch CMP's. As a
result of the project, there will be a minimal adverse effect on the waters of
Cove Creek and no wetlands will be impacted. Short term impacts will be
minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters. This project has been coordinated with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, the
"December 13, 1996 Federal Register, Final Notice of Issuance, Reissuance, and
Modification of Nationwide Permits (61 FR 65874)" listed nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR Part 1500 et seq.), that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers (ATTN: CECW-OR) has
been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). You should contact Mr. John Dorney,
telephone [phone], regarding water quality certification. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other
required State or local approval.
2
This verification will be valid for two (2) years from the date of this
letter unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued or revoked.
This verification will remain valid for the two (2) years if, during that
period, the nationwide permit is reissued without modification or the activity
complies with any subsequent modification. If during the two (2) years, the
nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, such that
the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced or are under contract to
commence, in reliance upon this nationwide permit, will remain authorized.
This is provided the activity is completed within twelve (12) months of the
date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation.
We have evaluated potential impacts of your activity, and we have
determined that your proposal will not affect any endangered species.
When you have completed your work and any required mitigation, please
sign and return the enclosed certification form.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Chapin of the
Asheville Regulatory Field Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert W. Johnso4 ,
Office Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished (without enclosures):
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
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
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
?EHNF?
August 1, 1997
McDowell County
WQC 401 Project #970642
TIP #B-2999
State Project No. 8.2870901
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in waters for the
purpose of replacing Bridge No. 317 on SR 1267, as you described in your application dated 21 July 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3127. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 6 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. Also 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. 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). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
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,
o4Howar , In P.E
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
970642.1tr
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% recycled/10% post consumer paper
i
5Uit, 'M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovF..RNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEI(i1 I. N.C. 27611-5201
July 21, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
??
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
970642
GARLAND B. GARRE-I-T JR
S LC RETARY

SUBJECT: McDowell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 317 over Cove Creek
on SR 1267; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1267(1), State Project
No. 8.2870901; TIP No. B-2999.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on October 10, 1996. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 317 over Cove Creek on SR 1267. The bridge will
be replaced on existing location with a triple barrel (10 ft. X 8 ft.) reinforced box culvert.
The invert of the box culvert will be placed one foot below the stream bed. During
project construction, traffic will be maintained using an on-site temporary detour south of
the existing bridge (see Figure 2 of the document). No jurisdictional wetlands will be
impacted by the subject project.
As noted in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) prepared for the subject project,
foundation investigations will be needed for this project. It is anticipated that this activity
may be authorized under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact that this project lies in a mountain
trout county.
The CE documents in the environmental commitments that an archeological
survey for the project will be completed prior to right-of-way acquisition. This survey
has been conducted and the report sent to the State Historic Properties Office (SHPO).
9

The survey found no involvement of significant archaeological resources, and the SHPO
concurrence letter is attached.
Enclosed is a project site map, as well as a completed preconstruction notification
form for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 and 401 Water Quality Certification. These
permits are necessary for survey work within Cove Creek. The DOT is also requesting
that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments to the Corps of Engineers
concerning this permit request. The DOT understands that written concurrence from the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for 401 Water Quality Certification (No. 3127) is not
required, although a copy is enclosed for their records. General conditions of this 401
Water Quality Certification will be followed.
As noted, copies of the CE will be distributed with this permit application. The
DOT plans to apply for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and appropriate 401 Water
Quality Certification at a date closer to bridge replacement.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, WRC, Marion
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Jim Buck, P.E., Planning & Environmental
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: T.I.P. No. B-2999
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) NWP 6
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: McDowell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Whitehouse
1
USGS Quadrangle Map - Sugar Hill
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Exit 81 off I-40, South on SR 1001 to SR 1267
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Cove Creek
RIVER BASIN: Broad
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER SUPPLY
(WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [x] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN: Has C Tr rating
by NCDWQ.
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES [ ] NO [x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST
OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS
PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES [x] NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 for Bridge Replacement.
2
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: N/A
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
0 acre
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 0 EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours):
FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: N/A PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS ONLY):
Geotechnical survey equipment for foundation investigations.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Foundation investigations for new bridge.
FT
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT
IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS):
N/A
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET)
REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING
ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: March 26, 1996
See Appendix of CE (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: Concurrence from in Appendix of CE
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [xl NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003,
TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29,
AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS SO FEET OR 1 INCH
EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
Agricultural uses and rural single family residences.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
? '1? - //L
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
1 9
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

TATEow
r t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secrets
May 6, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 317 over Cove Creek, McDowell County,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1267(1), State Project
8.2870901, TIP B-2999, ER 97-8967
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
kffrey J. Crow, Director
1 ? rr
' AlQ R
z °47
?? HIG
Thank you for your letter of April 10, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by John Mintz concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one site was located within the project area. Mr.
Mintz has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted
in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H F. Vick
J. Mintz
OD,
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
McDowell County
SR 1267
Bridge No. 317 Over Cove Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1267(1)
State Project No. 8.2870901
T.I.P. No. B-2999
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:

/o
DA E H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/6//, lq&
DATE
Nichol 6s L. Graf, P.E.
?? Division Administrator, FHWA
McDowell County
SR 1267
Bridge No. 317 Over Cove Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1267(1)
State Project No. 8.2870901
T.I.P. No. B-2999
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
n
i
k C
l
Pamela R. Williams ?'?? pFESS?py:y9
Project Engineer
SEA! .
' 7521
'
CZJames Wang, Ph.D., P.E. S. J.
?1
ON
President 1j1111""" 0
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail G imes, P. Unit Head
Consultant Enginee ing Unit
N-
m Buck, P.E.
roject Planning Engineer
SR 1267
Bridge No. 317 Over Cove Creek
McDowell County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1267(1)
State Project No. 8.2870901
T.I.P. No. B-2999
Bridge No. 317 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program. The location is 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 COUIPOITMENTS
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 archeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project
prior to right-of-way acquisition.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 317 will be replaced on existing alignment as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a triple barrel 3.0 m x 2.4 m (10 ft. x 8 ft.) reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert will
provide for a 6 meter (20 ft.) travelway with 0.6 meter (2 ft.) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade at the culvert will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at
this location. Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour during the construction
period.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $386,000 including $36,000 for right-of-way and
$350,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1997-2003
Transportation Improvement Program, is $220,000 including $20,000 for right-of-way and
$200,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1267 is functionally classified as a local route and land use is primarily agricultural in the
general vicinity of the bridge. Bridge No. 317 is located in southern McDowell County just north
of the Rutherford County Line. Located directly off of SR 1001, the existing bridge crosses
Cove Creek providing access to a small community center.
Near the bridge, SR 1267 has a 4 meter (13 ft) gravel travel width with no shoulders. The
horizontal alignment is tangent at the bridge on the north and south approaches. The vertical
alignment is relatively level. The roadway is approximately 2.2 meters (7.2 ft.) above the creek
bed.
The projected traffic volume is 74 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 104 vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at
the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1960 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber floor on
steel I-beams, supported by timber caps on timber piles partially encased in concrete.
The overall length of the bridge is 12.5 meters (41 ft). The clear roadway width is 5.2 meters
(17.1 ft). The posted weight limit is 9.08 metric tons (10 tons) for single vehicles and 11.80
metric tons (13 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 317 has a sufficiency rating of 46.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
This low rating warrants replacement of the bridge.
There are no public sewer or water lines in the project area. Overhead telephone lines cross
the bridge from the northeast to northwest corner. These lines are buried on each side
approaching the bridge.
No accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1992 to March 31,
1995.
No school buses cross Bridge No. 317.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives other than the existing location were considered for replacement of the bridge.
As shown by the plan review, the existing roadway provides the best alignment possible.
For reasons of economy, Bridge No. 317 will be replaced with a triple barrel 3.0 m x 2.4 m (10 ft.
x 8 ft.) culvert. The resulting roadway surface on the culvert will accommodate a 6.0 meter (20
ft) travelway with 0.6 meter (2 ft) shoulders on each side.
Traffic will be maintained by constructing a temporary on-site detour south of the existing bridge.
The detour will include four 1800 mm (84 in.) corrugated metal pipes to accommodate the creek
flow. An off-site detour was not considered because SR 1267 is a dead end road and no other
roads provide access to this area.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the property access provided by SR 1267.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
(Recommended)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 4,020
Structure (proposed) 60,000
Temp. Detour Structure and Approaches 116,700
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 67,260
Engineering and Contingencies 50,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 36,000
TOTAL $361,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 317 over Cove Creek will be replaced on existing location with a triple barrel 3.0 m
x 2.4 m (10 ft. x 8 ft.) reinforced concrete culvert. Traffic will be maintain by a temporary on-site
detour south of the existing bridge (Figure 2).
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the bridge be replaced at the
existing location with a temporary detour on the southern side.
The proposed roadway over the culvert will provide a 6.0 meter (20 ft) travel way with 0.6 meter
(2 ft) shoulders.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the reinforced
concrete culvert is recommended to have an approximate opening size of 24 square meters
(260 sq. ft.). The invert of the box culvert would be placed 0.3 m (1 ft.) below the stream bed. It
is anticipated that the elevation of the roadway will be approximately the same as the existing
bridge. The length and opening size may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydraulic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of McDowell County approximately 4
kilometers (2.5 miles) south of Sugar Hill, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project site lies within
the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Province. McDowell County's major economic resources
include agriculture and industry.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Sugar Hill, 1990); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area
(1:1200); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps of McDowell County
(1995); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map
(Sugar Hill, 1995); USFWS list of protected species and federal species of concern (1996); and
3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (1996). Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 27, 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 for the culvert 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 specific area being directly impacted by each
alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0 mi.) radius of the
project area.
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 335 meters (1100 ft.).
According to the General Soil Map of McDowell (NRCS, 1995), this portion of McDowell County
contains soils from the lotla-Braddock-Rosman-Potomac association which are characterized
as being nearly level to strongly sloping, somewhat poorly drained to somewhat excessively
drained soils with a loamy, clayey, or sandy subsoil. These soil types are typically found on
flood plains and stream terraces. The soil types were confirmed in the field.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Broad River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Cove Creek is a perennial tributary within the Broad River basin. The creek flows south through
the proposed project area with a width of 10.6 meters (35.0 ft.) at Bridge No. 317. The depth of
the river was approximately 0.4 meters (1.0 foot) on the day of the investigation. The creek has
a Class C-Tr 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 the suitability for natural trout populations and
propagation of stocked trout. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map for McDowell County (1988) indicates the project area lies in Zone A,
where no base flood elevations have been determined.
The NCDEM does not maintain a macroinvertebrate sampling station within the project area.
There is a sampling station on Cove Creek at SR 1381 in Rutherford County (approximately
4
14.4 km (9 mi.) downstream from project site). Benthic macroinve rte b rates, or benthos, are
organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers and streams. The use of benthos
w 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 for the Cove Creek taken in July 1995 at SR 1381 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of
37, 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 community. 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. Data for the creek taken in June 1995 at SR 1381
indicated an NCIBI score of 46, which has an integrity class of "Fair-Good".
No waters classified by the 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.
The McDowell County Watershed Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit the exposure
of watersheds in McDowell County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area adjacent to a water
supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining
portions of the watershed. The watershed map indicates that the project is not within a Critical
Area.
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 in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
5
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 fields in the northeast,
southeast and southwest quadrants, and the field and residential lawn in the northwest quadrant
(Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
The road shoulders and the fields are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.),
white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium cemuum),
and common plantain (Plantago rugelii).
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
both living and dead faunal components. Although only a Northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis) was observed during the site visit, raccoon (Procyon lotor),Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are also often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community occurs as a narrow strip along the stream banks adjacent to the man-
dominated communities. The dominant canopy trees include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black willow (Salix nigra), and river birch
(Betula nigra). The understory consists of dogwood (Comus florida) and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). The shrub layer includes blackberry (Rubus sp.) and privet (Ligustrum sinense).
The herbaceous layer includes broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
Although not observed during the
Community may also be found in
striatus), mourning dove (Zenaida
(Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic Communities
site visit, the animals listed under the Man-Dominated
this community along with the Eastern chipmunk (Tamias
macroura), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and blue jay
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Cove Creek. Within the project area the
creek is 10.7 meters (35.0 ft.) wide. On the day of the field investigation, the creek was 0.4
meters (1.0 ft.) deep. The water was clear and the stream bottom was visible. The bottom
consists of a fine micaceous silt with large gravel and cobbles. The cobbles are covered with
silt probably from upstream sediment and nutrient runoff.
The stream banks are variable in height from 0.9 to 1.5 meters (3.0 to 5.0 ft.) high. Vegetation
along the banks includes black willow, ironwood and blackberry. Animals such as the belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana
utricularia) may reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), creek chubs (Cyprinidae), and darters (Percidae) likely inhabit the river. The
macroinvertebrate community includes the stonefly (Plecoptera), caddisfly (Trichoptera), fishfly
6
(Megaloptera), and dragonfly (Odonata) larvae under stones in the riffle areas and within the
leaf debris as well as chironomid (midge) larvae and oligochaetes (segmented worms) within
the substrate.
Historically, Cove Creek contained the following species: thicklip chub (Cyprinella labrosa),
fieryblack shiner (Cyprinella pyrrhome/as), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus),
yellowfin shiner (Notropis lutipinnis), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), redhorse
(Moxostoma spp.), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). smalimouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), Piedmont darter (Percina crassa), and seagreen darter
(Etheostoma thalassinum). The species in bold print are considered to be intolerant to
stream degradation under the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the NCDEM to
assess the biological integrity of streams.
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. 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's Best Management for Protection of Surface Waters,
will be implemented, as applicable, to ensure sediment does not leave the construction site.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES(ACRES)
Bridge No. 317 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.43(l.07) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.06) 0.47(l.15)
Temporary 0.14 (0.34) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) 0.16 (0.39)
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Of the two community types 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 Cove Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in disturbances not confined to 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) impact zone.
The new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment
loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in an April 10, 1996 (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.
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
McDowell 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 one
federally protected species for McDowell County as of August 23, 1996 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR MCDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T
NOTE. "T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Mountain golden heather is a low shrub with yellow flowers and long stalked fruit capsules. It
usually grows in clumps of 10.2 to 20.3 centimeters (4.0 to 8.0 inches) across and about 15.0
centimeters (6.0 inches) high. The plants have a general aspect of a large moss or a low
juniper, but branching is more open and the plant is often yellow-green in color, especially in the
shade. The plant flowers from June to July.
Mountain golden heather is found at elevations of 853 to 1219 meters (2800 to 4000 ft.) on
exposed quartzite ledges. It typically inhabits an ecotone between bare rock and sand myrtle
(Leiophyllum buxifolium) dominated heath balds which merge into pine/oak forests.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Mountain Golden Heather and NCNHP
records indicate that this species has not been documented in the project vicinity. Since
the project area elevation is approximately 335 meters (1100 ft.) and does not contain
exposed quartzite ledges, it can be concluded that the subject project will not impact
this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
9
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential
adverse effects will be minimized through implementation of the NCDOT's 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.
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 United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Cove Creek has 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
0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 317.
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".
8
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. Table 3 includes FSC species listed for McDowell County and their state classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dendroica cerulea SR No
(Cerulean warbler)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia SC Yes
(Southern Appalachian woodrat)
Contopus borealis Sc No
(olive-sided flycatcher)
Clemmys muhlenbergii T No
(bog turtle)
Caecidotea carolinensis SR No
(Bennett's Mill cave water slater)
Speyeria diana SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Carex roanensis C No
(Roan sedge)
Delphinium exaltatum** E No
(tall larkspur)
Hymenocallis coronaria NL No
(rocky shoal spider lily)
Juglans cinerea NL No
(butternut)
Lilium grayi T No
(Gray's lily)
10
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MCDOWELL COUNTY
(con't)
Monotropsis odorata NL No
(Sweet oinesao)
Shortia galacifolia var brevistyla I NL I No
(Northern Oconee-bells) 11
NOTES:
Denotes Obscure record (the date and/or location of the species
observation is uncertain).
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).
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).
NL Denotes species for which the state status is unlisted at this time.
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed by the NCNHP as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) are afforded limited state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
NCNHP records indicate one state-listed Special Concern species, black vulture (Coragyps
atratus), that was not designated as a "Federal species of concern" (FSC). Habitat is present
in the project area, but no individuals were observed during the investigation and a search of
the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of any state protected species within
the project vicinity.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that 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.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated April 4, 1996, requested "that a comprehensive survey be
conducted by an experienced archaeologist" prior to construction due to the new alignment of
the on-site detour. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix. An
archeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to right of way. A report of
11
survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to the SHPO for review. Further consultation will
be conducted if necessary.
In a concurrence form dated April 11, 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 form is included in the Appendix.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge 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 relocations 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.
Since the bridge will be replaced at its existing location the Farmland Protection Policy Act does
not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in McDowell 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 project's 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 for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
12
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.
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.
McDowell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site on
Cove Creek is not included in a detailed F.E.M.A. study. Attached is a copy of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map, Figure 4, on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-year flood
plain in the vicinity of the project.
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.
13
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 United States
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. United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. United States 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.
McDowell County. December, 1993. Watershed Ordinance for McDowell County.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. February. 1996. List of Rare Species of
North Carolina. 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.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995.
14
General Soil Map McDowell County, North Carolina.
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 Endangered and
Threatened Species of North Carolina. United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Sugar
Hill quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1990. Topographic map - Sugar Hill quadrangle.
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.
15

iJ
i
.
I
LL ,
",1 {t
Cl)
o
L1.1 W
co
b O W
A. m cc
v I
I
55??
ti^ I
{ J I A
i ll
?t , h

F
? t
8_j

6 F
\c e ae
s

0 RV
,71 xAp.,
C
_O
v
L O
a
F-
3
t
04- v
C 02
i-
O 4-
UEO
„F C
L L O
ia?
O m-
z C) C)

I`-
M
ww
w
co cocc
=U
zw?
m
w,oz)cn
°
Co
0 L) i
COW_
0032
r''OCL
z
:21?
UN
az
Co
U.!
Ciff
L
N
O
IT
O?
N
O
sT 2
yy??V y 0. ?xS ? t ?*a $
? ?? \?a??,?g ?F???•??'?a??r?y ????? ?v r°K' `Ft '255AA ? v£ I N ? ? x' ?? `i $
....`'\.3 'i 'U. i;44 All
? to++ a?+. ,??tf e' ? e ? ? e a
" ? sat a?
C7 uJ
?a'ra'd1?a ab nrixa?°'.?U1.eh+waa ?'x8s xwFw, ..w?
?r ?•+a...?r'ga Y a+<. i ?w.? b •s,.? - ? S ? ? . Z Q - '_ ? ..? '., ?# ? $3
V
?a p 8, ? c W Q t}' • 3: .try ?? ?,4 a
C 0.2. aa`?F? a\ ?; .a .. .. a i 3a f,? BF 8 0i Q8f ial 11. 1,?, V??O\?•

? ?,,"jL`?,x? y f?yir c? r c? ?,;
v ?
*+ .?sAi Ya, 'r l X?a e e i? s f i
MR p,
?' ??
V "V
U'l
4? go ?cv? ? ?: e f .i i Fed a
li j c1 h
v <y? y3b y v. ?, ?va ??e ?eve?r. t ra vw 2 c ` t R^ _ i -, `R. ,R g7s ; 1f?y
2Z?`L\????"" ? '?? ??C?? ???'•'N'??i^i? t ?- }8 k ? a pi G?B t ii?F\ dal ? t ?t i?ia '.'1 ?f?p?i+{?.
rFa t Q .??rF ,:.,F ti f 'IF ?? rl qr
14
r 1°+ ra ?P Px" h
v: rl • a r ai i?''Y 7 7 ? ,. of ? 9 ? •.. ?I } n a ,? ;?
a r P i ,ry a y ,,y tt '^?i?e 1 A:?r ? 'ba
c P ??e,. hi -t' sr at ti 1' <_r a
i? oP ?a?, rf d, t as X111 ?t t?,4
s a ? 4gg "Wp c t r £( ? tt t (??
Y\ u
- ° P: 4 c° t ¢ i W i F 3 R S s «# R tal 3 lt4 _•. a@? ?i1
Y L. FT, R' ,7t x
? Z v ?? ? Lr ° o a ? ?¦' ? +? c? i 9 F` t tin a s
f P f ?. A ??f
?? ?? £g? '9r c a i i by P l' f>A?; rv
?..
R? .l ??? x ?.,• •a 3, " W ; r>el R ?. sa.? i?• i?..g ?Ap?a.i 'Y tax„`'?R I,t i?
,x 8R e oa=ty A a .a .5. ,a a .. S w•, -. ?. a4t. ''
.? as '` `*x . .? z 3i ?^ °? f ' ? r. r .`y? t r _8?'• ?" ?.r . r•>? j, Ri?1.
•':?? ?,??"` •.hh.?V _?` r ei ar f+Pa rtur '.? `'g t; rk e 'a,.a..: 't ,, e-? +` {•i-aa a':{...
.\\?.? 1a.RC S:. 1 r x ?, r1 4.'. ?.,aQ A €1 '?. ,6 yy t,.„
i t _o ace aa•ae?.+i a?` ''.,? x , tia 2 ..F ?a: c$ F R p 'i i gae.. ,? ..t 4, 1 0 ?•' ?., ".a? ,•'p'. E k,.:
?l?Y ?}r x$.o 3 ?s:. ,$?yk,;"
Rir wa?t'?a a?".Mn ???'??-'? nip. Pk e ?17 '''4y?iytl kyM...,??'?.5-::f ff, °F•
'? s ? ? t '6 ? ?Ce t 1i
O
Ott ?/
X
ce ?. ! ?r £s ii r .?\ s¢ 3 i6f F. ?? { ?? ?j; a. a $l ?:,gl1+3a ,t`'
>?• c" t .'1 f, ks.S A 'ice ?$
al?
\k
?? .?\• \a}@ P a P °ai. a xY di l4?'''? S ,? r ;q # # i
..'"Mrc+," ?? .•? 9?^>?+,?, s, ? t\? i ge ????` •? ? ??i ? s t i a k ?' a ? el. ,? t `?` a?ti 1 fly
?: N #. 1 4?, Ri; t o x >< d ??".
"t, 3 k ?? f!'1 i .3 P F c n t t, i \ 1 '3
?di?;? , c ?L\ ta,. ° c i ?& , a j a 3? t 4• d x a ?t r te6,
,yam a `,6 P f .? a , ? ? y^? t k r d y 4 i. , , t
?i 4 C \i k .° a? d S\., k\?a A ' r Y 1'i "!t( Ya+

?X 4
x4 ?a WP ? ? xay?m ? ? Ft.
a p y ,
x aQ4??a,9. Y? ?e??a,v11 ? a5,
? $ ?i ?' a ?R ? 11 jq!• d
? o v
y ?-? Y e 1 °? iua ?.
LAS ??
t?
a t rw a -ti,
Y? L 1?? i Y? r'
dt 4 ,S t'` a ^'
A ; r to {gg?E ?a
i
i i
r
L i h ?
Y t I A i :&1
g> t ?` fr 1 ti 3 ?? Y
e
,,,

f.,
+a %
t
9

3
MCDOWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 317
B-2999
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST

Ac,
vi
, It,
LOOKING SOUTH
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3

II
r?
.y?
}

Y
II C
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 Transportation /
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State I?istonc Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?\VE
G
Cc \otgb
C5, ??/ p\ \G?31,-
??G & EiJV?RO
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek, B-2999,
McDowell County, ER 96-8521
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 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. Survey is necessary
only if new alignment is selected.
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:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??3
Federal Aid # ? izy7 `I / TIP # 2°fa-I County
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description F-efL- Da-40Ge? nlo- *7 "'t `''e t241 ofte- nowt, Cf-?'L-
(Pluod-e- 64."p VA)
On APRIIL It 111t, , 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

All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
,/ there arc no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rep
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Ott q?
Date
4 Z4 ctCp
Date
Rcjprpentative, SHPO pate
S / t
State Historic Preservation Officer Date

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of Uiis Corm and the attached list will be included.

APR 1 5 1996
VH/GD?DIV/s,cpV opHt V4
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:
Group IX Page 2 April 10, 1996
Common Name
rosyside dace
bluehead chub
greenfin shiner
spottail shiner
yellowfin shiner
swallowtail shiner
Scientific Name
Canostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Cyprinella chlorisdus
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutipinnis
Notropis procne
sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Other species collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella 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
flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus
Group IX
redbreast sunfish
pumpkinseed
bluegill
largemouth bass
B-2941- Catawba Cou
Page 3 April 10, 1996
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
nty, 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:
mmon Name Scientific Name
common carp Cyprinus cwpio
rosyside dace Canostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
silver (v-lip) redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma f labellare
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
fieryblack shiner
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
Scientific Name
Cyprindia pyrrhomelas
Cyprinella zwnema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinotus
Cyprinella chlorisdus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semodlus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscartes
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Etheostoma f labellare
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
CyprineAa pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Mozostoma 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
margined madtom
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
fantail darter
tessellated darter
Piedmont darter
Mozostoma rupiscartes
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Etheostoma f labellare
Etheostoma olmstedi
Percina crassa
Other species collected by Louder (1963) include:
central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum
creek chub Semotilus 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 listed above under B-2816.
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.
'T'hank 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
State of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / F7MA •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID C
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary C
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric Galamb,,,-G
Subject: Water Quality C// hecklist 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

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 117
?o
c 1096
?ti' -iIGHWt'',Y-
? ?v?1RONt??`h
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 (Hvbopsis 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 (Hexastylis 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 galacifolia 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,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
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
CE%
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
MAY 17 1996
rGHwAYS .. ?b
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 we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
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
-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
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. Count 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.
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 Floodways". 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. Larry 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.
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)j 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
Categorical 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.
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
w??G?NGY MA^'c?z
a ?
c
R-4
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
Atlanta, GA 30309
LM
FOR "NO-RISE" CERTIFICAT
Section 60.3 (d) (3)\ of 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 11 o-
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 FEMA.
I
-3-
V 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

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)
SEAL:
. (Signature)
(Title)
(Address)
FEMA, NTHD
8/91