20040383 Ver 1_Complete File_20040305

TO: John T. Thomas, Jr., NCDOT Coordinator
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, USACE
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: May 12, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of the Categorical Exclusion document and information related to a
Section 404 Permit application by NCDOT to replace Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422
(Fox Ridge Road) over Brush Creek, Alleghany County, North Carolina. TIP No.
B-3403.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted a Section 404
permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Staff biologists with the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the Categorical
Exclusion and information provided. These comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422 over Brush Creek with a
new bridge on existing location with traffic detoured off-site. The use of a temporary rock
causeway is expected to result in 35 feet of temporary channel impacts or 0.061 acres of
temporary fill. Bridge bents will be placed outside the bankfull width.
Brush Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and
classified as C Trout. Approximately two miles downstream it joins the Little River, which is
classified as HQW. The Kanawha darter (Etheostoma kanawhae), state Significantly Rare (SR),
and the tonguetied minnow (Exoglossum laurae), state SR, have been recorded in Brush Creek
and Little River. The Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus), Federal Species of Concern
(FSC) and state Special Concern (SC); the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), FSC and
state SC; and some rare insect species have also been found in Little River. NCDOT indicates
High Quality Waters Standards will be enforced throughout project construction and they will
adhere to a November 15 to April 15 in-stream work moratorium. Our current standard trout
B-3403, SR 1422, Fox Ridge Rd. 2 May 12, 2004
Brush Creek, Alleghany County
moratorium is October 15 to April 15, which should be followed unless NCDOT can show where
NCWRC has previously recommended otherwise for this project.
NCWRC can concur with the issuance of a Section 404 permit provided that the
following conditions are implemented:
In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the trout spawning seasons of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and
fry stages of trout, unless NCDOT can show that NCRWC has previously recommended
otherwise for this project.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124 (a)-(d)) and be strictly maintained until project
completion to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent
herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil as soon as possible and within 10
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control. Tall fescue
should not be used in riparian areas. We encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite vegetation
and materials for stream bank stabilization when practicable. Erosion control matting
should be used in riparian areas, instead of straw mulch and well anchored with 12"
staples or 12" wooden survey stakes.
Discharge of materials into the water from demolition of the old bridge should be avoided
as much as practicable. Any materials that inadvertently reach the stream should be
removed.
4. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the stream
channel, except in the immediate vicinity of bridge supports, if applicable.
5. The natural dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below the crossing
should not be modified by widening the channel or changing the depth of the stream.
6. Removal of vegetation in riparian areas should be minimized. Native trees and shrubs
should be planted along the stream banks to reestablish the riparian zone and to provide
long-term erosion control.
7. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for fish and
wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites.
Riprap placed for bank stabilization should be limited to the bank below the high water
mark, and vegetation should be used for stabilization above the high water elevation.
9. Stormwater, including deck drainage, should be directed to buffer areas or retention
basins and should not be routed directly into the stream.
B-3403, SR 1422, Fox Ridge Rd. 3 May 12, 2004
Brush Creek, Alleghany County
10. If concrete will be used during construction, work must be accomplished so that wet
(uncured) concrete does not contact surface waters. This will lessen the chance of
altering the water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
11. Discharging hydroseeding mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment
in or adjacent to surface waters is strictly prohibited.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel
whenever possible in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream. All mechanized equipment operated near
surface waters should be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of
surface waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Sarah McRae, NCNHP

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
o4 f)383
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
MAR 5 2004
WATER QUALITY SSECTICN
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge
No. 53 over Brush Creek on SR 1422, Alleghany County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1422(3), State Project No. 8.2700501, TIP Project No. B-3403.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. The document states that Bridge No. 53 will be replaced with a new 130-foot
long bridge with lane widths of 11 feet, on the existing location of the existing structure.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
There are no wetland impacts associated with this project. The only surface water
impacted by this project is Brush Creek. Anticipated impacts to Brush Creek are
temporary and consist of 35 feet of channel impacts or 0.061 ac of fill. Brush Creek is
located in the New River Basin and is classified by the Division of Water Quality as
Class C Tr. NCDOT's High Quality Waters Standards will be enforced throughout
project construction.
Demolition: Bridge No. 53 is composed of steel and timbers. Therefore, the bridge will
be removed without dropping any of the components into the water during construction.
This project is classified as Case 2, which requires no in stream work and land
disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone between November 15 through April 15.
Temporary Causeways
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
March 10, 2004
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WLMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
temporary rock causeway will be required to remove bent 2 and for bridge demolition.
The causeways will consist of plain Class II rip rap.
Restoration Plan: No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The materials
used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeways will be removed. The
temporary fill areas will be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and contours
in the vicinity of the proposed causeways are available from the field survey notes. No
planting will be conducted in the area of the causeway because the area will be covered
be the new bridge.
Schedule for Restoration of Temporary Fill Areas: It is assumed that the Contractor will
begin construction of the proposed causeway shortly after the date of availability for the
project. The Let date is September 21, 2004 with a date of availability of November 2,
2004.
Removal and Disposal: The causeways will be removed within 90 days after it is no
longer needed. The temporary rock causeways will be removed by the Contractor using
excavating equipment. All materials placed in the stream by the Contractor will be
removed. The Class II riprap that is removed will be used as permanent rip rap around
end bent 1. All other materials removed by the Contractor will be disposed of at an off
site upland location.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 5, 2003
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists one federally protected species for Alleghany
County, the bog turtle. No biological conclusion was rendered for the bog turtle because
it is threatened due to similarity of appearance and not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the causeways will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33
authorizing construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3403 and 3366
will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500(a) and 15A NCAC
2B .0200 we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
records.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.orWplanninWpe/naturalunit/pennit.htm].
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Th rpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/ attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NC DWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Carl McCann, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Heath Slaughter, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Ms. Missy Dickens, Planning Engineer
Mr. Keith Phillips, Roadside Environmental
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27966-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: horpeAdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8
1
E-mail Address:_
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: B-3403: Replacement of Bridge 53 on SR 1422 over the Brush Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3403
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Alleghany Nearest Town: Sparta
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): UTM 17 498917E 4041185N
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
5. Property size (acres):
6. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Brush Creek
7. River Basin: New River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
8. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Forestland, farmland and pasture.
Page 2 of 8
11
9. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Plans for
replacing the bridge include replacing t io current bridge on existing location. Equipment
used will include regular equipment utilized on bridge replacement projects.
10. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to replace the old bridge that is
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The proposed project will temporary
place 0.061 acres of fill in Brush Creek. The fill will be necessary to construct the new
bridge and will act as a work bridge.
Page 3 of 8
2. Individually list wetland impacts below: 0.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mec hanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at httn://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
lease specify)
1 Temporary Fill 35 Brush Creek 30 ft Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mgpgucst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 35
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Page 4 of 8
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name Wat)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The temporary rock causeway will be required to remove bent 2 and for bridge demotition.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
Page 5 of 8
4'
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in. North Carolina, available at
htlp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Page 6 of 8

Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
IF Gone I extends out 3U teet perpendicular trom near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 7 of 8
4'
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes E] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature t?
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applica sided.)
Page 8 of 8
VICINITY MAP
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2700501 (B-3403)
BRIDGE NO. 53
OVER BRUSH CREEK
ON SR 1422
SHEET ; OF ?- 4/22/03
1
Q z
o 0
H IN
?
`
° a? F M
w
a
CL z U O .-1
0 LL-

J

W O
fs.
o0

w
J
a co O
EH
V
O
a , w A

-

?Q >
1.4

U A

a

o
P?

H
\
o N a w

0 z
0
OO p
00 a
S
- 640
0
0
a oo°o .

0 00 W
J
M 000
CD
00 Q
L)
N

u0
0 O

O
06 c
p0
0 Z
p
t
00??
O
0
0
?o ;
000
W
Lr) 0 00?

0 0
0
?
O C
?

00
O r
?

?J
?O
O O0
0

?y
o
p
0

Y F-

? <
Q..

C)
w
N 3::
w ?
W l
D W
C)
p
, Q
U
rt
Co Lr) Y=
u
J

p
W p
J
U O
?U

0
C N
-
n
O >
W
a J
W
V;

z
? E
7 y N ? a
Z cn
C U
III L d O
U E
Q

Q avh m
E o
o
i
H ° o
cn
'a
c m
o

LL
U
c co
m Cl
2

d v
9 -=
c 78
c
g M. t o

F-
V c N
°

a C
_
m
to
m
o

W
IL =_ o
m m
? o
? H
c
W
3 N

d °
U.
3
it

pa
T d
N
N
F- U

E
a?
f-
s v
C O

O + Lo
cn v J J

N
O N
J
fn_ Z 0
F-

tv- +IYCe

ARMONS
•.cws u?
7L2 F? *TLC*
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

W -N
L
?
W ?
? U1 Ln
,.D O N
O L n m -4 L
D O
O N Ul m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O
+
O i
ii i is fiii ii ill: .I. O P"
lowly !Ili 10111 &1 igm ,I II I ii
' ?ILI' il
i'
I i f ? ?
I f t •.?J 1 ?'.. ,
i i
i . \

i t
I i i t i
' ' t*l l I
II '
:
I r,l f
' I i j III ?
f

A hi ll,
1
? +.@5
in
.
O I i 1 7
111
141
Ii
j i I '
? I
I I ' i
! i
i l i I '
' '
li
O iiii 1-
t \
IT
M IT I
T All 1.1 1: !i ;1i1 ;; 'Il' is : i ili , 1
, UH TT W ! i i A TT Y
7')
m q
+
O

7

1077

7

N N
Ul

N
Ut

N
Ul

N
Ul

N
Ln

N
U1

i.
i
t11
1 i' O
O O N
O W
O
O Ul
O Ql
O
I.. i ' I 1 ?II

iii
1?1
!'
,
I
i•
II
ill
'! I
O
O
II1I 1
j

''6" I! 1
in!
'I I
li,
!Ill
l11
11 R'' i?
01

t'!s

!?: i

I II I,i I !(

I ''

1I

i

t

::..
...
?. ?.
!I ..
:... min mm 1 (- i i
Il

O '
i I ii
i :
i, ii n1 l
:Ii }i ?!M CS
cS
f
Ii
+
° iI` i t
o 1

All if

CD

. :
.
FO
j
f
7
CD

0
Eli
+
L.o
t t
W li
O 2 A
O -? •tn

+

C J
2 Q ill :. .

f
T K7 A in r r p i
:
.
:
:

N i?
j
i
r
t
i
t
t

1 ` /
M
O + + r

m
to!
JA
to!
lit
1 T
;
49; m
W IS 7-
...
N "

N

M
it, it!
No! I
TT 10. S M! lo t ij
+
r }
? a `
1
..
_

A
W i

O
? his lit N 0
:-
O !

: .... . ._., OF
b
2
IS is:
r?j

I i
t? lot lot .
TO ..., •.....«.....
C) ?
LO
0
T UP

n:
ii
.i
'
I
l III .I.
I .
I II I ,; ',
:

.

iEl Of to! fps TO A E

•. 9 11 Q
ST
ill
Fill . I I Or 4.

« i -7

IT W IT W a ill r!] v
m
2
1

l
?7 7
.
l
•-,
s
it TO jh?. 41 p
i .,: I ' .:.

91 off W HKI t.. I

r + 101 'II ' I I

'
i I ill i,l I '

.
i ,.

:
,3yaa
Y
.:
`
I + i,
+ ?,
I!I
II I I .:
i I
.I I I I I I
. i
I L,. , et
$ e
?

,,::. 1
:' tY
t: 11 I
I?11 Ir?-I l r l ? T
lip f[li

it tit tit
,
FRI. SIT
nQQ77
1 1? 11 A RM 1111 1 61 top if; 14. 10) U

lit M in; rm
z
?z ??
I I PN?

PROfECTo* 8.270050I

O U
O U
O
U O K"3
N
vn

O Z

O
22
N
? N

-o
O

O

y

y
N
O C
g g
?y ? b

Q 2
'
C) + II II II II II II
,

p _
A p O co
tth
m Z yF
w 3? th O a
ae =
`'o
deb
b
?+ w
II it II
m m
c ca
m
N b A zt
N '`! N
»
N rA
=? a s
m

n?

c?
x
ti
?b
y

y

zx
r
I
0
r

1
`
y

Z rr
:
s

z
B-3403
O
--d di ?i
;a m
O g? r... g
I?.mz.
{- ? ? ? 14 I e
I? - 13
Ise ?
4
O
O
?o
O ? w
b ?O
y
n ?
I?
m a.
2S y
g
H

tz? >
00

N
qV
U
o i
t
? W
L?O
N w '
1?
?Sa
O
Z
MU
m

? W? 'O T
a Q N N N p T N

•

O
v 0 M.
? 3 0
D
?
o
'O W 3
a Q 3 '°
Q. U3 W
C
C ` Iv Q S N. O
`C
O
-
:
W
=x
C =
o I Q
3
?
:?
° CL
W
.
o
o v
0

a a a a. o a
Lo to 3
U2 Q to U3
7 W
°
3 •33 to W rt rt S R• S S A
rt c-3 o o ° 'o+ .. °. S? 0
a a te"'"' ::E
p• G' a 7 D n 7 `C 7 0
a ?a ?°
W a V 7 7 3 7 S -«
W W W
a N c R? a
ED O
W m q q n `;
3 3 N ? 7' 0 7' Q ?
o W
.?
C C ° W ? v? W
7 0 3 0 O
W W r 0 W 1.`
7 a o_
W
3
3
r -1
1 )! I I I I In 1 I
l 1
n j?j ? ? \ y I j I
LJ I I I I 1
v!C -+m -I -1NN-Oa-I -00 -00 C pO-I '
-oN z f1 ?-a? 9??25.tS.
0• a p ° 0] lD O O. O N (?l ° H•
7 ' rt 1 co rn N W •n S •+ W frt9_ -, Q' O p;« 0 ;. D ;1
ul Q ?• •+ • --1 L, L,
Q R• O •
Q' O m Oa 3 •t O' f1 : W rt'a ° O no S 0 0• f?7 T O O
f7D 7• i0 j N a o S 7 ° Q -•1 Q O W p i n D W 3. Cj fD W
n' 7
N N Q° '?, i Q -1 0? T° S 7 '+ Q -o S a C C 7'
13 L- l7 + 0 0 s O O o < S n g o p0 °o o -a o-a
?? W Q n ° cov O= T O ??a -a W
p
0 -0
:3 a S o z 7 Q• Q Q W O O
p O 0 O O Ap r?p Q OS
. 7 x 7 N = O O q Q. (D XD
W W O CL O_ Z
-0 x
0
o a o.
-?
?a
rt
N
1.
7 7 O C• S ?' W W W W _ (D O C 7 W
fQ to A 3 p co c Z a ° p ?' C
CL Q. 0
7
7 ` 7 G fD N ' W
U3 A
W W 7 -W. ` O_ .? W
3 2 CL Q o c-
c 7 0 W c
-7. 3• c c °- 0 °.
°c 0 u o o a
7 c Q
c :3 (A n.
M. ' b
N ' Q
H O
ii II I I
+ I
II?IIII? ,I??I
t5N ? .Ni.
n N 7
S O
7 a.
3 c
W C
'U U3
W
a

1 Y if

05 ©00 8
0 m0®0 0®:0'eOm(9t4 O®©?-} ¢ + o•.-•
?0 li
1 11
Q S N N
7 n p 4. ?• ?•
S O ?O
O N W 0 Q
a. a. S -?
a 2
Q'
O
VJ
H
ti
A
m S+ p ga v C v; p? p a N p p A N p
C3 0 CD
o co 'a a °
EL a 7 qa' Q. 7? a N o cpZ o co Q c2a.
n W T W f?D f9 _ s 9 a- O p N G 7 Q
C EL -1 , o -a g-
C O 7 W O 7 7 .? N C 7
no in C A W W W N 7 W
o n n °o- T m n a p N W W
O' cr Q 7 ° Q• N C W, T to
m 4 p W o W C m o m
0 y C a
a- m -= H
m c
s in
V
I I I I I I ? I I I I ? I
T 3 8 7 ??? 1 ? ?' ? T
l i I I?? I ? I I i t !
C ? T f7 T T w "p0 O v 0 0 2 O
•S+ a C Q x <p < Q C 7 Q O
C O ) < c o U3 CA
W "a
W C C
o ? 0
n
S -? N p W
C 0-
7 cr
7 N
O C
W
I E3) I I
I I p
b( 00 0
I : 1 1 1 1 ?.
t7 1 1 1 1
ED,
I I Q I' ? ? t{
7
(O
O
O
O
1
-0 m "a g n -a v •a •a v n m
3 o v &'P v v v v } W
ca ?°
c n
C C
Q f1
S
O N
O N
O i o
13
3
cr
a a °

- °- ' N crt °
o - ?Q

N pr

Q
rt
vJ

° Q
T
W
7

T
?_ (
il
n
d D t7n? n
W Gr
O W
O
o- o
° o
O
Q
v
.
St
N (A p n -0
D ? ? 3 3 ?•
W
I I I i
I I I I
1 ? I? I I
I I I I
T -° _
c3 a
v
• o Q a z

v

7'
f°Q

©
O
M.

w
°

C CL

I?

a
Q 0

n S x• O c

U* n
n
C (A W o a LL
o ? c O ?.
' N
O
W H

I
o i
` I

5
n
0
z
z
O
m
r

C
YJ
O 1 I O
, •O i i
I
1 4E0 00
t t
i I
` J
IIII? ??
Lj LI
N
m
II
N
C
N
C
Eon
n
m
m
0
m
m
;v
t
0 1.4
X
C) 0
i?
)I
JI

REVISIONS
uitAwS uY
Dat*WKV2003 TW- bn* AY
c
p
c -I '+ N N W N n g
C
0 0 :N ;
0 0 :
0 0 S
0 3
0

H
y

g H
?
?8 H
8
n8 H H

88 "?
8
? H

8

g g?

H
G1 ? v p H y H

x b
o

a
0
tia

y

a

a
c?

D
O
m

0
(n V) r
D D (n
U1 N r
z
+ +
00 N m
cn cn -?
00

z0 n
D
DN

?J D
N
M
m cn n

0 o° O
-I I Z
Dr
N_" N

M
p
m
02
in
o aw
I ?
r0
C-)
0 m
Ax,
O N
ZZ:
O O
ti
cr)
y

OD
O
1Ln
IOD o
t°N o
n
7 7
D
D
om -
N 'p O
O
z
?O
C-)?
O
?? Oy
I X_ ^
C: Ln
oz
0
N
I ?
N frn
N
0 0
m
_
m
c)
c
D
D
r
m
0
C
m
0
c?

D
0
m
--I
O
--I

C N
(n
m r
z m
c-)
--1
z
DDC -I
o
+
Z
rl) -4
LA Ln O
n
ooz D in
OOz (-

0 0 =
L (/)
(n cn
rri
nno -? I
rl)
N 0 O ?
Ul I
N
LA
(
n
m
14o
#
W O D
F
r1 r O
I Z
N O
r= D
m
? m
m
N ?
O
D

z
N
r
_
Z
m
Om
xx
0(-A

Z
Z
O
0
m x
k--) (n
Z Z
O 0
/(?"o

A 0

j
t
\ co o
''U r
10 D O
N ?
m
N N
1 ?
r N)
N
< N
D D
-
to m CD m
N m =
-o N o
0
Z
f O P o')
Co 0 o
ZE
2
m
m
C)
C
D
0
D
r

E$
° ?

810
8? ??

T1- b53.0 AM
G') m
,
x x,
ON ;
Z
0 Z
G7
O
D
0
m
-i
O
--I
N
r_
(n Z
m
n -{

O
N n
N D

O V)
m -
D

co
p O
Z o
() t
00
#
I
? W
07
Z '
;u
c?
y

?v O
IO FO
O
ox co
O ZD
N ?O O
m
O N
00 O
n
G) VI-1
;Il x
0 in
C
zz
oC)
I
I
? C -? ? N RI N v w ? n
g C g C C '
zz
H
fa
a
o
ty CA
?.
d

REVISIONS
W
Z
0
(D
-F
n
N
O
7
n
W
O
a
O
-h
(D
a
n
7
r0
m
x_
N
Z
0
fl
N
C
m
00
EDGE OF TRAVEL
-«
11 LANE
-A 0 (n I fl
o -n m 1- =
m I
V?
c? -v
CDC-.S CO (n <
O .X

?(n N
D
-n N Cm
--I ;v
r
X O m
r
moo
mD O
Z ? ..?. O
x Z O
r N N
D
'
S
I
-
Cp
0z 0 C .
\
Q
(D
•
c? m
x x
O cn
C
Z Z
O G7
$ e

al??

'4 ?

REVISIONS
C{Y
v --j I -DC O rn pX 0 O M (A C O C7 ?" C Q r' C
? 03 0
m
m
CA >
O Z
-? Z O
m rn0 Z
o
Z
z c
.9 G1
I n m
.' rn O
N
Z rZ„
r' C
r z
m
-o 0
C H
v [D T
m m
0 Z v
a m
-4
v
m
n O
O O ?
?Z 0

N I I

v to m m

n
=
i

O
N I
N -.
O

O O m -
O C r
O
+ + -? C v -?

tt1 "I
?

? C
.r
O ?
N
?
r
f1 ? ? N v ? O
C)
?
O co O Z

O
?
?
O
A
+
O
Z

CA
0

N

co

N G

O
r M

C p

p N
W

.O
w

Q
?

O
A
O
A
0
0
A
A pp
O _
N
N
O
O y C
z
or
z
C
z

0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O °
m
n
s

V
O V
0
0 V 10 10 N

O. A - W

A W

o W
-?
A A A A O
O W W +
Z,R
W
?
O m
p W
co V
0?
O
O N
0% N
0' Ln
W
14 -+
O
Ul A
N N
N N
N O
W O O O a co w O
p 0 0 0 p p p p O o O O
n
n

Q

?a
c?
H
?-1
00
F-I
s?.
a

REVISIONS
ANCAMS DUI
DO.WATE* TI- "I"
M f+=
?o
p s
UOV04.12aniq R
9?
NP"
z
UI
a
1
O
M
W
'C??J- **
I
Ix
m
Q
IL rL 9. aR?
t
otn
03,
o ?a Q
~ ?oil
1
T ?? ??m1 \ ? T 1
W CL
t Y \ +
V N N \` C?
H
1 Y
O y
? T ? r9ip
8 a
33mr
4 ?
W ?
O
y ? ? y
(A r ° 44
3r?
o g ° ?r=
O RsA
it 1 o
C. a
? Y Y
w
M w
? 1 r
? t €?m
T + ° aka
?;
0 ? ?2Sm
00 1
N 1 ?
3 1$
y
1 r °
nq, o°
g a
G l°' Y
O R 'n
H Y M
i * .3 Q??ynOC
vl r r r r'
c? f1-INV1a2 r " ??qn
A a? VIL
1 zb
d-C p 00?
n ?cco QQ
V1PN?1?ti?Op
-? ?-?iyi° rrrrr
CA ,app r rN N?
fnm ++ $( ?
•? G?
U 00
Q 00
r-:
SM
U
N
ro
1
Q ?
n

H J{
• x

E

a?2
l
"gi
l

r -0
a ?
?-- -, ? ?-- !, P949
Q ?? x?
n Q ? O
Q o x r
o I
O x
O Q?
Q n
0
R
C--

0 1 :s
E E
0 +
O I '
O
o
0 y
I
I r3 I T? BAR
1? 1 t I" ? 1 ?N?
NR5
n w =IPa
=I iN
a I
x
XI t?
T
' 1 1 jTf?i +1
x I Iro? O
ItT
HIM
I
t
N
N
L

m
m

Z
? T
n
?n O
p
H
n 1
V A
i N N
m t?,1
u d
Q
A
m
(A
prima
m
r0
N
15+00
EAgTH 6 t
" ?'2j A r
?tR-i ? to E?
-? r
¦
/ `
? rev
/
1 I
Zp+00? o
0
(?b
1
w

L
U
?? f r fi3 rn
F
p , 110
N
? $

--nlyti>•
I
?n
A
T
. - H. 0
SR 1422 (Fox Ridge Road)
Bridge No. 53 Over Brush Creek
Alleghany County
State Project 8.2700501
Federal Project BRZ-1422(3)
TIP Project B-3403
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
il1/0 Z 0 K-a? ,,,
D e Willis . Gilmore, P.E., Manager
'(?'roject Development and Environments lysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
3 / oa.
bate Nich as L. Graf, P.E., ivision rator
Federal Highway Administrate n
SR 1422 (Fox Ridge Road)
Bridge No. 53 Over Brush Creek
Alleghany County
State Project 8.2700501
Federal Project BRZ-1422(3)
TIP Project B-3403
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 2002
Documentation Prepared By
ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller of North Carolina, Inc.:
S -hue'
K . tina S. Miller, P.E., Project Manager
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation:

c
U0414 ' A ga --00- A
Mary Al ickens, P. E., Project Development Engineer
Project velopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
. 1" rz
Tho Kendig, Consultant Engine n Unit Head
Project Development and Environmen alysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
?•?00k CA/?04
- ? 2E
+ -,his, ••.?'N ? Nlp .
%T?NA S.
SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1422 (Fox Ridge Road)
Bridge No. 53 Over Brush Creek
Alleghany County
State Project 8.2700501
Federal Project BRZ-1422(3)
TIP Project B-3403
Division 11:
A. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will observe a moratorium on in-
stream construction from November 1 to April 15, required by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, for designated trout waters.
B. The existing bridge will be removed without dropping any components into the stream. The
existing bridge has one pier in Brush Creek. The proposed project will remove the timber pile by
cutting it off level with the surface of the streambed. The concrete sill will be removed in its
entirety. In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering methods of
removal, alternative methods that may include the use of explosives will be discussed with and
approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having
jurisdiction over the resource. Bridge demolition activities associated with this project will
strictly follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMPs-BDR). The proposed project falls under Case 2 of the BMPs-BDR.
Hydraulics/Roadside Environmental:
C. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be strictly followed throughout design and
construction of the project due to anticipated impacts to waters classified as Class C trout waters.
Structures/ Hydraulics:
D. Bridge bents will be placed outside the bankfull width.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project ................................................................................. 1
A. General Description .................................................................................................................. 1
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 1
C. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 1
D. Traffic Volumes, Speed Limit, School Bus Usage, and Emergency Services ....................... 2
E. Accident History ...................................................................................................................... 3
F. Relation to the Thoroughfare Plan ........................................................................................... 3
II. Description of the Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 4
A. Proposed Improvements ........................................................................................................... 4
B. Estimated Construction, Right-of-Way, and Road User Costs ....................... ................ 4
C. Anticipated Design Exceptions ................................................................................................ 5
D. Utility Involvement ................................................................................................................... 6
III. Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ 7
IV. Alternatives Considered ..................................................................................................................... 8
A. "Do Nothing„ Alternative ........................................................................................................ 8
B. Postponement Alternative ........................................................................................................ 8
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................................. 8
.................
D. Build Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 8
V. Effects to the Man-Made and Natural Environment ......................................................................... 9
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment ................................................................................... 9
1. Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 9
a. Local Planning Activities ...................................................................................... 9
b. Existing Land Use ................................................................................................. 9
C. Future Land Use .................................................................................................... 9
d. Prime and Important Farmland ............................................................................. 9
e. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials ........................................ 9
2. Community Impact Assessment and Socioeconomic Impacts ...................................... 10
a. Neighborhood Characteristics ............................................................................... 10
b. Social and Economic Impacts ............................................................................... 10
C. Religious Centers, Schools, and Other Public Facilities ...................................... 10
d. Relocations ............................................................................................................ 11
e. Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 11
3. Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 11
a. Archaeological Resources ..................................................................................... 11
b. Historic Architectural Resources .......................................................................... 12
4. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources ......................................................................... 12
a. Section 4(f) Properties ........................................................................................... 12
b. Section 6(f) Properties ........................................................................................... 12
B. Effects to the Natural Environment ......................................................................................... 12
1. Physical Resources .......................................................................................................... 12
a. Soils ....................................................................................................................... 12
b. Water Resources .................................................................................................... 13
i. Water Characteristics in the Project Area ................................................... 13
ii. Water Classifications ................................................................................... 13
iii. Water Quality ............................................................................................... 14
C. Physical Resource Impacts .................................................................................... 14
2. Biotic Resources ............................................................................................................. 15
a. Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................... 15
b. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife .............................................................................. 17
C. Biotic Resource Impacts ........................................................................................ 18
i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ............................................................ 18
ii. Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife ................................................... 18
3. Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................................................ 19
a. "Waters of the United States" ............................................................................... 19
i. Surface Waters ............................................................................................. 19
ii. Jurisdictional Wetlands ............................................................................... 19
iii. Impacts to "Waters of the United States" ................................................... 20
iv. Permit Requirements .................................................................................... 20
V. Wetland and Stream Mitigation .................................................................. 20
(a) Avoidance ............................................................................................. 21
(b) Minimization ........................................................................................ 21
(c) Compensatory Mitigation .................................................................... 21
b. Protected Species ................................................................................................... 22
i. Federally-Protected Species ........................................................................ 22
C. Impacts to the Floodplain ...................................................................................... 25
4. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................................................................................... 26
VI. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 26
Tables
1 Estimated Construction and Right-of-Way Costs
2 Estimated Area of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
3 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species - Alleghany County
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2a Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 2b Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 3a Proposed Functional Design - Plan
Figure 3b Proposed Functional Design - Profile
Figure 4 Existing and Proposed Typical Sections
Figure 5 Proposed Off-Site Detour Route
Figure 6 100-Year Floodplain
Appendices
Appendix A: Agency Coordination response letters
Federal
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, A-1 through A-4
January 27, 2000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Atlanta Regional Office, A-5
February 10, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, June 29, 2000 A-6 through A-7
State
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, A-8 through A-9
Division of Water Quality, January 19, 2000
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), March 3, 2000 A-10
SHPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), North Carolina A-11
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Concurrence Form for
Properties Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
February 3, 2000
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), January 4, 2001 A-12
Local
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners, January 19, 2000 A-13
Appendix B: USDA-NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating
USDA-NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Sheet B-1 through B-2
iv
I. Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project
I.A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422
Fox Ridge Road) over the Brush Creek in Alleghany County. Figure 1 illustrates the project area. The
proposed action is included in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project with $155,000 allocated for right-of-way acquisition and $420,000 for construction.
The TIP indicates that the proposed project is programmed for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 2002
and for construction during fiscal year 2003. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion." The
proposed project is not anticipated to have substantial, detrimental environmental impacts.
I.B. Purpose Of the Proposed Project
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 53 is structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The September 2000 Bridge Inspection Report states that Bridge No. 53 has a
sufficiency raring of 27.7 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. Replacement of the inadequate structure
will result in safer traffic operations.
I.C. Existing Conditions
The proposed bridge replacement is located along SR 1422, approximately 0.4 mile (0.6 kilometer)
southwest of SR 1485 and six miles (9.7 kilometers) east of Sparta in northeastern Alleghany County.
SR 1422 is not currently part of a state designated bicycle route, nor is it listed in the TIP as needing
incidental bicycle accommodations. No geodetic survey markers are located within the project area.
SR 1422, also known as Fox Ridge Road, is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is not a National Highway System route.
The terrain of the study area is mountainous. Nearby land use is primarily rural residential. Two homes are
located near the beginning of the proposed project, approximately 500 feet (152 meters) south of the
existing bridge. A sawmill is located on the west side of the roadway, near one of the homes. Associated
with the sawmill is an old millrace that runs between the bends of the creek, on both sides of SR 1422. A
cattle farm and trout pond are located north of the bridge, on the west side of SR 1422. Photographs of
existing conditions in the project area are shown in Figures 2a and 2b.
Bridge No. 53, constructed in 1959, carries SR 1422 over Brush Creek. The bridge consists of a two-span,
timber deck on steel I-beams, with an asphalt wearing surface. The interior and end bents consist of timber
caps and posts with concrete sills. The existing bridge has an overall length of 81 feet (24.7 meters) and a
deck width of approximately 19.8 feet (6 meters) wide, measured from the face of the guardrail. The clear
roadway width across the bridge (curb to curb) is 19.2 feet (5.9 meters) and carries two lanes of two-way
traffic. Approaching Bridge No. 53, SR 1422 is a 17-foot (5.2-meter) paved, two-lane travelway with five-
foot (1.5-meter) grass shoulders. Both of the roadway approach sections are located in horizontal tangent
sections and appear to have adequate sight distance. The existing right-of-way along SR 1422 is
approximately 30 feet (9 meters).
The current weight limit posting for Bridge No. 53 is 14 tons (12,700 kilograms) for single vehicles and
17 tons (15,422 kilograms) for trucks, tractors, and semi-trailers. Within the study area, SR 1422 is
aligned in a southwest to northeast direction in a tangent section. SR 1422 crosses Brush Creek at an
angle of approximately 100 degrees. As shown in Figure 3a, the stream flows from southeast to
northwest at the bridge site. The bridge is located at a straight section of the creek, approximately 200
feet (61 meters) upstream of a 90 degree bend and 200 feet (61 meters) downstream of a 90 degree bend.
As shown in Figure 3b, the existing profile along SR 1422 contains a vertical sag with grades of
approximately 3 and 15 percent. The low point within the study area is just beyond the southwestern end of
the Bridge No. 53. The roadway approach sections include ditches that end at the bridge embankment and
grass shoulders that drain to the fill embankment. The deck drains over its edge into the creek.
During site visits in the Spring of 2000, hydraulic engineers determined that the embankments and grass
ditches were in stable condition, having no drainage problems. Flood debris was observed amidst the bridge
I-beams immediately below deck, causing the hydraulic engineers to believe that the bridge had recently
overtopped. One resident of the study area noted two occasions in the past 40 years when Bridge No. 53
was overtopped by approximately three feet (0.9 meter). The same resident reported flows near, or in
contact with, the low chord almost every year. The resident also noted that the home located approximately
500 feet (152 meters) from the bridge had trouble with flooding in its basement.
I.D. Traffic Volumes, Speed Limit, School Bus Usage, and Emergency Services
The estimated 2003 (project letting year) average daily traffic (ADT) volume for SR 1422 is 650 vehicles
per day (vpd). Traffic volumes are predicted to increase to 875 vpd by the design year 2023. Truck
percentages are expected to remain at three percent for dual-tired vehicles and one percent for truck-tractors
and semi-trailers. The speed limit is not posted within the study area.
To date, no written comments have been received from the Alleghany County School System. Verbal
comments were collected during a January 18, 2002 telephone interview with Mr. Claude Nunley, a
representative from the Alleghany County School System. During the interview, Mr. Nunley stated that
approximately two Alleghany County school buses, one for Glade Creek Elementary School and one for
Sparta High School, cross Bridge No. 53 twice per day during the 2002 school year. A proposed off-site
detour route, to maintain traffic during construction, would add approximately 6.4 miles (10.3 kilometers) to
these trips.
Verbal comments were collected during a March 15, 2001 telephone interview with Ms. Linda Edwards, the
Alleghany County Administration Supervisor for Emergency Medical Services (EMS), who directed
comments on the proposed off-site detour route to Mr. Stanley Crouse, Shift Supervisor. Mr. Crouse stated
that he did not expect a proposed off-site detour would create a problem for the EMS. He explained that
emergency vehicles coming from Sparta normally use NC 18 North or US 21 South. He said that alternate
routes EMS would use if SR 1422 (Fox Ridge Road) were closed during construction include SR 1433
(Ridgeglen Road), SR 1444 (Glade Valley Road), SR 1457 (Big Oak Road), and SR 1422 (Barrett Road); or
NC 18 North to SR 1453 (Little Pine Road). Mr. Crouse recommended obtaining comments on a proposed
off-site detour route from the Glade Creek Fire Department. During a telephone conversation on March 15,
2001, Tim Dunkin, of the Glade Creek Fire Department, explained that the fire department is located on
Glade Valley Road and that they do not normally use SR 1422 (Fox Ridge Road). Mr. Dunkin said that he
did not foresee a problem for the fire department if the proposed project were to use an off-site detour route
during construction.
Further investigation of potential off-site detour routes took place on December 17, 2001 with an on-site
meeting by the Division 11 Construction Engineer, Mr. Trent Beaver; staff engineer, Mr. Patrick Norman;
the Alleghany County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Coordinator, Mr. Gerald Leftwich; and
ARCADIS Roadway Design Engineer, Mr. Don Hurlbut. As a result of the meeting, consensus was
achieved on the route determined to be the preferred off-site detour choice, which includes SR 1433
(Ridgeglen Road), SR 1444 (Glade Valley Road), SR 1457 (Glade Creek School Road), and SR 1422
(Barrett Road). According to Mr. Leftwich, EMS and police services are dispatched from Sparta while the
fire department serving this area is located near the intersection of SR 1457 (Glade Creek School Road) and
SR 1444 (Glade Valley Road). Because of the extensive network of local roads, Mr. Leftwich believes that
the EMS, police, and fire responders would not have difficulty getting to calls in the vicinity of the proposed
project if the dispatchers and agencies are made aware of the road closure.
I.E. Accident History
During telephone interviews conducted in February 2000, none of the study area property owners recalled
any recent accidents in the project area. Records from the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch indicate that
one accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 53 between November 1, 1996 and October 31,
1999. It involved a passenger car striking an animal approximately 0.2 mile (0.3 kilometer) from the bridge.
I.F. Relation to the Thoroughfare Plan
Alleghany County is included in the Region D Thoroughfare Plan, which received local approval in
November 1993 and was adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation on May 6, 1994. The
proposed project is consistent with the Region D Thoroughfare Plan.
3
II. Description of the Proposed Action
H.A. Proposed Improvements
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422
over Brush Creek in Alleghany County. The proposed functional plans and typical sections are shown in
Figures 3a, 3b, and 4. The proposed roadway typical section contains two 11-foot (3.4-meter) travel lanes
and 5-foot (1.5-meter) grass shoulders. The proposed construction limits are estimated to be approximately
1,090 feet (330 meters) long, requiring a proposed right-of-way width that is estimated to vary between 30
and 130 feet (9 and 40 meters). The proposed vertical curve is longer than that which.currently exists,
improving the design speed through the study area from 20 mph (32 km/hr) to 40 mph (65 km/hr).
A new bridge, approximately 130 feet (40 meters) long, will be constructed along the existing SR 1422
horizontal alignment with modifications to the vertical alignment. The new bridge will be constructed
approximately 10 feet (3 meters) higher than the existing bridge to lessen the chance of the bridge being
flooded. According to the March 2000 Preliminary Hydraulic Investigation Report, the center span of the
proposed bridge is recommended to be about 55 feet (16.8 meters) long to clear the bankfull channel width
and minimize impact to the stream morphology. The proposed bridge will have a clear roadway width of 28
feet (8.4 meters) between rails, including two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 3-foot (0.9-meter) offsets.
While the stream channel is not expected to require realignment, the bridge abutment slopes are proposed to
be armored with riprap to avoid surface erosion.
The proposed detour route, illustrated in Figure 5, includes SR 1433 (Ridgeglen Road), SR 1444 (Glade
Valley Road), SR 1457 (Glade Creek School Road), and SR 1422 (Barrett Road). The Division 11 Office
has concurred with the use of this route to maintain traffic off-site during construction. The proposed detour
is approximately 6.4 miles (10.3 kilometers) long. While the proposed route includes a 35 mph (55 km/hr)
curve advisory speed on SR 1433 and a 35 mph (55 km/hr) approaching intersection speed limit at SR 1444
and SR 1457, it has fewer sharp curves and generally a better overall alignment than other existing
roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project.
H.B. Estimated Construction, Right-of-Way, and Road User Costs
Alternative A, which permanently realigns SR 1422 upstream, has an estimated project cost of $1,082,000.
This includes $82,000 for right-of-way, $125,000 for engineering and contingencies, and $875,000 for
construction, as detailed in Table 1. Alternative B, which replaces Bridge No. 53 along the existing
horizontal alignment using an on-site detour route during construction, has an estimated project cost of
$1,582,000. This includes $82,000 for right-of-way, $200,000 for engineering and contingencies, and
$1,300,000 for construction. Alternative C, the recommended alternative, which replaces Bridge No. 53
along the existing horizontal alignment using an off-site detour during construction, has an estimated project
cost of $886,000. This includes $86,000 for right-of-way, $110,000 for engineering and contingencies, and
$690,000 for construction.
The 2002-2008 TIP lists the estimated cost of the project at $575,000, including $155,000 for right-of-way
in fiscal year 2002 and $420,000 for construction in fiscal year 2003. The total project costs for
Alternatives A, B, and C are greater than the cost estimated in the TIP. Alternative C is expected to cost
roughly 18 percent less than Alternative A and 44 percent less than Alternative B.
4
Table 1: Estimated Construction and Right-of-Way Costs
(Based on Current Year 2002 Prices)

Component
Alternative A
(Realignment of SR 1422)
Alternative B
(Maintain the Existing
Horizontal Alignment
using an On-Site Detour Recommended
Alternative C
(Maintain the Existing
Horizontal Alignment
using an Off-Site Detour
Existing Structure Removal $13,120 $13,120 $13,120
Proposed Structure $273,000 $273,000 $277,500
Roadway Improvements $306,050 $315,230 $212,000
Temporary On-Site Detour: Roadway,
Structure, Traffic Control and Signing, &
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $0 $406,689 $0
Traffic Control and Signing $14,000 $14,000 $7,500
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $268,830 $277,961 $179,880
Total Construction Cost $875,000 $1,300,000 $690,000
Engineering and Contingencies $125,000 $200,000 $110,000
Total Right-of-way Cost $82,000 $82,000 $86,000

Total Project Cost $1,082,000 $1,582,000 $886,000
An additional cost variable, the road user cost (RUC), was evaluated for the off-site detour used in
Alternative C. The RUC is the total estimated operating cost incurred by motorists to travel along an off-
site detour route during construction activities. It is calculated using the following formula:
RUC = (l) (T) (D) ($)
The W' is the expected number of days the road will be closed for construction. The "T" is the average
daily traffic volume expected on the road at the time of construction. The "D" is the distance in miles (or
kilometers) that the average road user would have to travel out of his or her way during the time of
construction. The "$" is the estimated cost of operating a vehicle expressed in dollars per mile (or in dollars
per kilometer). Therefore, the RDU for Alternative A is estimated at $493,480, as calculated below:
RUC = (365 days) (650 vpd) (6.4 miles) ($0.325/mile) = $493,480
U.C. Anticipated Design Exceptions
A design exception is required in order to minimize property acquisition impacts and tie the proposed
improvements into the existing vertical alignment. The existing grade along SR 1422 north of the bridge is
approximately 15 percent. Since the purpose of the proposed project is to replace a structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete structure, the proposed roadway approach ties directly into the existing alignment
and does not include additional modifications outside the proposed study area. A vertical design exception
is required for use of a grade of nearly 15 percent, which has a 40 mph (65 km/hr) design speed. Even with
this design exception, the proposed vertical design speed is an improvement over existing conditions
because the proposed vertical curve is longer than that which currently exists. As such, the vertical design
speed is expected to improve from 20 mph (32 km/hr) to 40 mph (65 km/hr).
H.D. Utility Involvement
No utilities are attached to the bridge structure. Overhead power lines cross the stream about 40 feet (12.2
meters) from the upstream side of Bridge No. 53 and cross the road about 300 feet (91 meters) southwest of
the bridge. During construction, the existing utilities may need to be relocated. Relocation of public
utilities will be completed without long-term interruptions in service.
6
III. Public Involvement
In February 2000, property owners in the study area were contacted by telephone and were sent letters
summarizing both the conversations and current project information. Six property owners were contacted
pertaining to the four properties located nearest to Bridge No. 53. The purpose of the phone calls and letters
was to inform them of the proposed project, give them the opportunity to ask questions, and document any
comments that they wished to make about the project.
One study area homeowner requested that the new bridge should be built at a higher elevation because the
creek occasionally rises above the existing bridge rails. Another homeowner requested that NCDOT lessen
the grade north of the bridge, and improve the vertical curvature on SR 1422. The new bridge will be
constructed approximately 10 feet (3 meters) higher than the existing bridge in order to lessen the chance of
the bridge being flooded. While the proposed project must tie into the existing grades, it still provides an
improved vertical design. The proposed vertical curve is longer than that which currently exists, improving
the design speed through the study area from 20 mph (32 km/hr) to 40 mph (65 km/hr).
A property owner asked if NCDOT would consider building the new or detour bridge on the downstream
(west) side of SR 1422. Constructing a temporary detour or realigning the roadway on the downstream
(west) side of the road would result in impacts to a stocked trout pond located on the west side of the road,
north of the creek. A downstream option would increase impacts to surface water and forested land and is
not recommended.
In order to minimize costs, one property owner asked if NCDOT could replace the Bridge No. 53 in its
existing location and route traffic along other roads during construction. At the time of this initial
coordination with public, only Alternatives A and B were under evaluation. Alternative C was added later,
as discussed below. The property owner was concerned for the safety of the slower moving farm vehicles
that use SR 1422. He worried that the proposed improvements would allow vehicles to travel faster along
SR 1422. In order to meet current design standards, the bridge and roadway approaches will be wider than
the existing bridge and approaches. These improvements are necessary to enhance overall safety for
motorists.
This same property owner contacted NCDOT by phone and urged NCDOT to revisit the possibility of an
off-site detour to reduce impacts to his property. In response to his request, the option of using an off-site
detour was re-examined and a suitable off-site detour was identified. The use of an off-site detour would
riLinim. impacts to personal property, natural habitat, and the stream channel while also reducing the cost
of the project. As such, NCDOT decided that the inconveniences of closing the road were outweighed by
the reduction in costs and impacts. Project update letters dated April 10, 2001 were sent to the six property
study area property owners to describe the recommended Alternative C, discuss the proposed off=site detour,
and solicit comments on the project. No written comments have been received from property owners in
response to this letter.
IV. Alternatives Considered
IV.A. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "Do-Nothing" Alternative is not practical as it would require the closing of the road as the existing
bridge continues to deteriorate. Closing the existing bridge is not desirable due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1422. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is neither practical nor economical.
W.B. Postponement Alternative
The Postponement Alternative would delay the necessary replacement of the bridge. Postponement of the
proposed improvements would allow the deterioration of the existing bridge to continue. This alternative is
not practical or recommended.
IV.C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration
Replacing Bridge No. 53 by building a new bridge on the downstream (west) side of SR 1422 was
considered. Constructing a temporary detour or realigning the roadway on the downstream (west) side of
the road would result in impacts to a stocked trout pond located on the west side of the road, north of the
creek. A downstream option would increase impacts to surface water and forested land and is therefore not
recommended.
IV.D. Build Alternatives
Three build alternatives were evaluated for replacing the existing structure with a new 130-foot (40-meter)
long bridge over Brush Creek. Alternatives A and B maintain traffic during construction on-site while
Alternative C uses an off-site detour.
Alternative A realigns SR 1422, just upstream (east) of the existing bridge while maintaining traffic on the
existing SR 1422 alignment during construction. Alternative B improves SR 1422 along its existing
horizontal alignment while using a temporary on-site detour during construction. The on-site detour in
Alternative B follows the same horizontal alignment as Alternative A, but includes construction of an 80-
foot (24.4-meter) temporary bridge. As such, the construction limits required for Alternative B are similar
to those for Alternative A at roughly 1,450 feet (442 meters) long.
Alternative C is the recommended build alternative because it satisfies the purpose of and need for the
proposed action and creates less impacts to personal property, natural habitats, and the stream channel as
compared to Alternatives A and B. The estimated construction and right-of-way costs for Alternative C are
also expected to be approximately 18 percent less than Alternative A and 44 percent less than Alternative B.
V. Effects To The Man-Made and Natural Environment
V.A. Effects To The Man-Made Environment
V.A.1. Land Use
V.A.La. Local Planning Activities
While the project is located in Alleghany County, it is not located within the municipal limits of any town or
city. Currently, there is no zoning by the County in the project vicinity, nor is there a land use plan for the area.
V.A.Lb. Existing Land Use
Land use in the project area is primarily rural residential. One business, a beef cattle farm, is located north of
the bridge on the west side of SR 1422. Two homes are located within the project limits, south of the bridge,
one on each side of the road. A sawmill is located on the west side of the roadway, near one of the homes.
Associated with the sawmill is an old millrace that runs between the bends of the creek, on both sides of
SR 1422. A beef cattle farm and trout pond are both located on the west side of SR 1422, north of Bridge
No. 53.
V.A.I.c. Future Land Use
No land use changes are planned for the proposed study area.
V.A.Ld. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider
the impact on prime and important farmland of all construction and land acquisition projects. To comply,
National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), formerly the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, was asked to
determine the location of all important soils which may be impacted by the proposed project. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture determines which soil types meet the criteria for important farmland soils, based on
a variety of factors that contribute to a sustained high yield of crops.
Of the 147,200 acres (59,570 hectares) of land in Alleghany County, an estimated 4,809 acres (1,946 hectares)
are identified as prime and unique farmland soils. As shown in Appendix B, the NRCS indicated on the
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 that the project area does not contain prime, unique, or
statewide or local important farmland.
V.A.l.e. Underground Storage Tanks and Hazardous Materials
The NCDOT Geotechnical Unit/GeoEnvironmental Section performed a field reconnaissance of the study area
and a public record review to identify UST facilities, hazardous waste sites (dump sites), regulated landfills,
and Superfund sites. Based on the field reconnaissance and records search, there should be no environmental
liability concerns for the project. However, unregulated USTs and unregulated landfills may be encountered
during the initial right-of-way process. If a site with an unregulated UST or a landfill is identified during the
right-of-way process, a Preliminary Site Assessment will be performed prior to right-of-way acquisition to
determine the extent of any contamination.
V.A.2. Community Impact Assessment and Socioeconomic Impacts
No adverse effect on families or communities is expected to result from the proposed project. Residential and
commercial relocations are not anticipated. The area of proposed right-of-way acquisition is estimated at
approximately 2.33 acres (0.93 hectare) for both Alternatives A and B, and is estimated at roughly 1.46 acres
(0.59 hectare) for Alternative C. Alternatives A and B maintain traffic during construction on-site while
Alternative C uses an off-site detour. The proposed off-site detour route in Alternative C is approximately 6.4
miles (10.3 kilometers) long, as shown in Figure 5.
V.A.2.a. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in Alleghany County, outside nearby municipal boundaries. Alleghany County
is located in the northwestern portion of North Carolina, bordered by Virginia to the north and surrounded by
Ashe, Wilkes, and Surry Counties in North Carolina. In 2000, Alleghany County had a total population of
10,677 with 49 percent males and 51 percent females. From 1990 to 2000, the population of Alleghany County
increased by roughly 11 percent. During the same 10-year period, the U.S. Census shows a growth rate of 21
percent for the State of North Carolina, with a 2000 population of 8,049,313.
The racial composition of the county in 2000 consisted of approximately 95.7 percent Caucasians; 1.2 percent
African Americans; 0.3 percent American Indian and Alaska Native, and 0.2 percent Asian, and 2.6 percent
"other races" or "two or more races" (2000 U.S. Census). The racial composition of the State in 1990 consisted
of 75.5 percent Caucasians; 22.0 percent African Americans; 1.2 percent American Indians, Eskimos, or
Aleuts; 0.8 percent Asians or Pacific Islanders; and 0.5 percent classified as "other races" (1990 U.S. Census).
V.A.2.b. Social and Economic Impacts
While motorists traveling through the proposed study area may experience temporary inconveniences during
project construction, they are not expected to sustain any long-term adverse impacts. The local area and
surrounding communities are expected to have a beneficial impact due to the replacement of the insufficient
bridge. The labor force data from the 2000 Census are still being processed and not available at this time. As
such, the 1990 data is summarized below.
According to the U.S. Census, Alleghany County had a civilian labor force of 4,662 people in 1990. Of the
total civilian labor force, 4,510 people were employed and 152 people were unemployed, indicating an
unemployment rate of almost 3.3 percent. Alleghany County's unemployment rate compared favorably to the
State's rate of almost 4.8 percent during the same time period. Approximately 20 percent of Alleghany
County's population was living below the poverty level in 1989 as compared to almost 13 percent of the State's
population (1990 U.S. Census).
V.A.2.c. Religious Centers, Schools, and Other Public Facilities
No religious centers, schools, or other public facilities are located along the proposed project, or within the
general study area. Therefore, this project is not expected to adversely affect any public facilities.
10
V.A.2.d. Relocations
No relocations are expected to result from the proposed project.
V.A.2.e. Environmental Justice
This Categorical Exclusion has proceeded in accordance with the Executive Order 12898 requirement that each
federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and
activities that affect human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and
adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations. The proposed project will not segment existing
minority communities or separate residential areas from nearby services, such as schools, businesses, or parks.
The proposed improvements are expected to have an overall positive impact on the surrounding community.
Replacing the inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations for the public.
V.A.3. Historic and Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, 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.
V.A.3.a. Archaeological Resources
According to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), there are no recorded archaeological sites within
the project boundaries. The area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or
significance of archaeological resources. The SHPO recommended in a letter dated March 3, 2000 that an
archaeological survey be conducted only if construction is planned on a new alignment (see Appendix A, page
A-9). Since Alternative A consists of construction on new alignment, an archaeological survey of the study
corridor was conducted on August 2, 2000, as documented in the January 2001 Archaeological Survey and
Evaluation, Bridge 53 Over Brush Creek, Alleghany County, North Carolina, by the Louis Berger Group, Inc.
The Archaeological Survey identified one historic archaeological site, referenced as Site 31AL93**, as
described below.
Site 31AL93 ** consists of a historic artifact scatter, a millrace, an old road, and the
remains of two stone dams on the south side of Brush Creek. Based on information
derived from historical maps, it appears that the millrace is associated with the
Richardson Mill.... Portions of the millrace at Site 31AL93 ** are located within the
limits of the proposed right-of-way f for Alternatives A and B], but all other cultural
features are outside the limits of the proposed right-of-way.... While Site 31AL93 * *
meets the age criterion for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the site is
unlikely to yield important information for the study of the history of the Piedmont
region owing to the low artifact density, low artifact quantity, and low artifact type
variability evidenced in the shovel tests.... The site is therefore not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register as: (1) it is not associated with the broad patterns of local,
state, or national history (Criterion A); (2) it is not associated with individuals of local,
state, or national significance (Criterion B); (3) Criterion C is not applicable; and (4)
11
the archaeological information at the site will not contribute important information
about history or prehistory (Criterion D) (January 2001, Louis Berger Group, Inc.).
In a January 4, 2001 letter, the SHPO concurs with the January 2001 Archaeological Survey recommendation
that "no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project... since this project
will not involve significant archaeological resources" (see Appendix A, page A-12). Compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete for historic archaeological resources.
V.A.3.b. Historic Architectural Resources
No properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are located inside the area of
potential effect for the proposed project. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with this
determination (see Appendix A, page A-10). Since there are no historic properties affected by the proposed
action, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete for historic
architectural resources.
V.A.4. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources
V.A.4.a. Section 4(f) Properties
The study area does not contain public parks, recreation areas, historic sites, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges
of national, state, or local significance. No properties subject to protection under Section 4(f) of the USDOT
Act of 1966 will be used or directly impacted by the proposed project.
V.A.4.b. Section 6(f) Properties
No section 6(f) properties are located within the project's study area. Therefore, no right-of-way for the
proposed bridge replacement will be required from properties that have been acquired or developed with
assistance of Section 6(f) funds.
V.B. Effects To The Natural Environment
V.B.1. Physical Resources
Alleghany County is situated in the northeastern portion of the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. The
geography of the county consists predominantly of gently sloping to very steep uplands. Narrow, nearly level
floodplains exist along most of the streams. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 2,500 feet
(762 meters) above mean sea level (msl) at Brush Creek to approximately 2,600 feet (793 meters) at both the
western and eastern perimeters of the project area as depicted on the Sparta East, North Carolina-Virginia,
USGS topographic quadrangle map.
V.B.l.a. Soils
The mountain region of North Carolina is composed of rocks dating back 500 million to one billion years.
These rocks are associated with the Blue Ridge Belt. This complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic rock has been squeezed, fractured, faulted, and twisted into folds. The Blue Ridge Belt is well
known for its deposits of feldspar, mica, and quartz-basic materials used in the ceramic, paint, and electronic
12
industries. The project study area is situated within the Ashe Metamorphic Suite and Tallulah Falls Formation,
which includes gneiss, schist, metagraywacke, amphibolite, and calc-silicate granafels (NCGS, 1991).
The Watagua-Chandler-Fannin Soil Association is present in the project area. Soil as! Cations are defined as
landscapes that exhibit distinctive proportional patterns of soils consisting of one or mo; c major soils and at
least one minor soil. The soils within an association generally vary in slope, depth, stoniness, drainage, and
other characteristics (NRCS, 2000).
During field visits on March 3, 2000, biologists met with the NRCS. According to the NRCS, the published
soil survey for Alleghany County is out of date and not available; however, information was ascertained
throughout the project study area. According to the MRCS, the Watagua-Chandler-Fannin Association is
comprised of well drained to somewhat excessively drained, micaceous soils occurring on narrow ridges and
steep side slopes. The association occupies approximately 39 percent of the county. Watagua soils are the
major soils of the association followed by lesser percentages of Chandler and Fannin soils. Comus fine sandy
loam and Fannin silt loam are the dominant mapping units in the project study area. Comus fine sandy loam is
a well drained, nearly level soil found primarily along floodplains. Fannin silt loam is a well drained,
micaceous soil situated in bands between the middle ridges and steeper side slopes breaking to the
drainageways. Other series at the site include Suncook loamy sand and Chester loam.
Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation (Cowardin et
al., 1979). According to the NRCS, there are no mapped hydric soils in the project study area.
V.B.Lb. Water Resources
V.B.Lb.i. Water Characteristics in the Project Area
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project region are part of the New River Basin, the fourth smallest
river basin in the State. The basin originates at the confluence of the North Fork and the South Fork New
Rivers in northeastern Ashe County. It flows northward from North Carolina into Virginia, then northwestward
into West Virginia where it converges with the Kanawha River. Waters associated with this basin eventually
empty into the Gulf of Mexico, via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers. The New River system is part of the
oldest river system in North America, flowing through a terrain containing metamorphic rocks that date up to
1.1 billion years old (NCDEM, 1995).
Brush Creek and a small unnamed tributary account for the majority of surface waters in the project area. The
tributary empties into Brush Creek approximately 100 feet (32 meters) upstream of the existing bridge. The
project study area is situated approximately two miles (3.2 kilometers) upstream of the confluence of Brush
Creek and the Little River.
V.B.1.b.ii. Water Classifications
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies surface waters of the state based on their
intended best uses. Brush Creek and its tributaries are classified as "C Tr" waters. Class C denotes waters
suitable for all general uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture, while "Tr" denotes trout waters, which are suitable for natural trout propagation and
the maintenance of stocked trout.
13
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur within the project vicinity. However, the Little River, approximately two miles (3.2 kilometers)
downstream of the project area, is classified as HQW. High Quality Waters are waters that are rated as
excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special
studies, native and special trout waters, primary nursery areas, critical habitat areas, water supply watersheds
classified as WS-1 or WS-U, and all Class SA waters.
V.11.1.b.iii. Water Quality
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water-quality monitoring
stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water-quality data. The type of water-
quality data or parameters collected is determined by the waterbody's classification and corresponding water-
quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of waterbodies, meaning how well a
waterbody supports its designated uses. The waters in the project area are currently rated as "supporting. "
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling areas on Brush Creek were taken within the project study area in 1993.
The water-quality bioclassification was rated as " good." Sampling was also taken at the NC 18 crossing of the
Little River, approximately three miles (4.8 kilometers) downstream of the project area and along Laurel
Branch, a tributary that empties into Brush Creek approximately three miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream of the
project area. The water-quality bioclassification at the Little River was rated as "excellent" in 1986, 1988,
1989, 1990, and 1993. Three locations along Laurel Branch were sampled in 1988, 1989, and 1992. Laurel
Branch was rated both "poor" and "fair" during those times.
Point source dischargers throughout North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Dischargers are required by law to register for a permit. According to
NCDWQ (2000), there are four permitted NPDES dischargers in the subbasin, all of which are minor
dischargers that typically release less than one million gallons per day (MGD) (3,785 cubic meters per day).
Three of the dischargers, the O.B.G.P. Company, Parkway Heritage Inn, and High Meadow Inn, are upstream
of the project area. They are located along Laurel Branch and one of its unnamed tributaries. The dischargers
are located in the vicinity of Roaring Gap, approximately eight miles (13 kilometers) upstream of the project
study area. The fourth discharger is associated with the Town of Sparta's wastewater treatment plant,
approximately 10 miles (16 kilometers) downstream, along the Little River.
V.B.I.c. Physical Resource Impacts
The proposed project would have minimal impacts to both soils and topography for all three of the build
alternatives. Both Alternative A and Alternative B have the same quantity of impacts since both the proposed
new bridge and the proposed temporary bridge utilize the same design and location. Since Alternative C
utilizes an off-site detour, it is expected to have less impacts than either A or B.
The primary sources of water quality degradation in rural areas are agricultural operations and construction.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the project area. Construction related
impacts to water resources include: loss of aesthetic values, substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased
turbidity, altered flow rates, and possible temperature fluctuations within the stream channel caused by removal
of stream-side vegetation. Short-term impacts to water quality from construction activities are related to
increased sedimentation and turbidity. Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to discharges and inputs resulting
from construction. Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. Measures to
minimize these potential impacts include the formulation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
14
provisions for waste materials and storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project. In
addition, impacts to waters classified as Class C TR are anticipated. NCDWQ requests, in a letter dated
January 19, 2000, that NCDOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulation entitled, "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. These
measures will be used during construction.
V.B.2. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife that occur within the project area, as well as the potential impacts of the proposed project on
the biotic communities. The project area is composed of different vegetative communities based on
topography, soils, hydrology, and disturbance. These systems are interrelated and in many aspects
interdependent. The following natural community profiles conform to descriptions according to Weakley et al.
(1998, Draft) when applicable. These community names are capitalized in this report. Scientific nomenclature
and common name (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal species listed. Subsequent
references to the same organism include only the common name.
V.B.2.a. Terrestrial Communities
Four plant communities are found in the project area: mixed hardwood forest, alluvial forest, pasture, and
maintained. The mixed hardwood and alluvial forest communities offer high plant diversity due to increased
soil fertility and water availability, and thus provide high quality wildlife habitat. These forests provide a
variety of habitat for amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
The mixed hardwood forest community is situated along the western edge of SR 1422 near the southern
terminus of the project study area. This community is a variation of the Northern Hardwood Forest, as
identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Northern Hardwood Forest occurs along medium to high
elevation coves, flats, and slopes. These forests are naturally uneven-aged climax forests with reproduction
occurring only in canopy openings. They are common in high mountain areas, especially those in the northern
part of the State. The age of the forested stand was estimated at approximately 25 years old, based on an
average diameter-at-breast height (dbh) of approximately eight inches (20 centimeters). Dominant species
noted in the canopy included eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple
(Ater rubrum), and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Rose (Rosa multiflora), viburnums (Viburnum spp.), eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), dogwoods (Cornus spp.), great laurel (Rhododendron maximum), mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) were commonly observed shrubs and vines.
Herbaceous vegetation consisted primarily of Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), chickweed
(Stellaria sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), violet (Viola spp.), aster (Aster sp.), and broomsedge (Andropogon sp.).
An alluvial forest community was observed along the southern portion of Brush Creek downstream (west) of
the existing bridge and along the northern edge upstream (east) of the bridge. The alluvial forest community
appears to be a variation of Schafale and Weakley's (1990) Montane Alluvial Forest. These forests occur along
stream and river floodplains at moderate to high elevations. They are palustrine and flood on an intermittent
basis. According to Schafale and Weakley (1990), the Montane Alluvial Forest may be eroded or disturbed by
catastrophic floods. Flood-carried sediment undoubtedly provides nutrient input to this community and also
serves as a natural disturbance factor. These forests occur throughout the mountain region except in the lower
15
valleys. Dominant canopy species associated with this community consisted primarily of red maple, black
cherry, and several oaks. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and rose were commonly observed shrubs.
Pasture lands were observed along the eastern portion of SR 1422, upstream of the existing bridge and along
the western portion of SR 1422 on the northern side of Brush Creek. Species composition included black
cherry, pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), fescue (Festuca sp.), red
maple, poison ivy, and dogwood.
Maintained communities were observed along the right-of-way of SR 1422, as well as the area northwest of the
bridge crossing over Brush Creek. Maintained communities represent areas that are periodically maintained by
human influences. These areas include, but are not restricted to, roadside and power line rights-of-way,
regularly mowed lawns, and open areas. The dominant vegetative species inhabiting this community are
primarily herbaceous. The study area includes fescue, dandelion (Taraxacum ofcinale), chickweed, henbit
(Lamium sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), asters, and plantain in these areas.
The project study area likely exhibits a diverse amphibian population. During field reconnaissance in May
2000, biologists observed several species. These species are indicated by an asterisk (*) in the following text.
Species such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), and various salamanders, such as the northern
dusky (Desmognathus fuscus), seal (D. monticola), mountain dusky (D. ochrophaeus), blackbelly (D.
quadramaculatus), two-lined (Eurycea bislineata), Jordan's (Plethodon jordam), ravine (P. richmondi), and
red (Pseudotriton ruber), may exist within the project study area. Newts and salamanders forage on insects,
both aquatic and terrestrial, crustaceans, worms, and other organisms along the forest floor and in Brush Creek
and its unnamed tributary. The eastern newt spends its juvenile life in wooded areas adjacent to streams. Once
it reaches adulthood, the newt inhabits primarily streams. Salamanders can be found in a variety of habitats,
although most are associated with small streams and seepages. Species such as the mountain dusky, Jordan's,
and the ravine salamander are found primarily in terrestrial habitats under rocks, leaves, and woody debris. In
addition, spring peepers (Hyla crucifer) and pickerel frogs (Rana palustris) are also likely present. Spring
peepers mainly inhabit woodlands while pickerel frogs are found along shaded streams and wet areas. No
amphibians were observed in the study area during field surveys.
Reptile species associated with the project study area likely include brown snake (Storeria dekayi), timber
rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Other species, including lizards
and turtles, may also exist. The brown snake forages mainly on slugs, earthworms, and insects in the leaf layer.
Timber rattlesnakes inhabit rocky hillsides and river valleys. They forage primarily on small mammals. The
northern water snake is commonly observed resting on overhanging limbs and logs at the water's edge. It
forages primarily on fish and amphibians.
Bird species inhabiting or migrating through the study area may include red-bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes
carolinus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), downy woodpecker (P. pubescens), eastern wood-pewee
(Contopus virens), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carohnensis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula),
American robin* (Turdus migratorius), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), pine warbler (D. pinus), northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Game species such as
woodcock* (Scolopaz minor), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) may
also be present. Other predatory species include great blue heron* (Ardea herodias), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), and northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus).
16
A diverse mammal population is expected in and surrounding the project study area. Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), smokey shrew (Sorex fumeus), star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), eastern cottontail*
(Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), gray squirrel*
(Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), muskrat* (Ondatra zibethicus),
coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale
putorius), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are likely inhabitants of the project region. In
addition, bats such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), silver-haired (Lasionycteris noctivagans),
eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), red (Lasiurus borealis), and Rafinesque's big-eared (Plecotus
rafinesquii) may be present in the project study area.
V.13.2.b. Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
The quality of aquatic habitat in Brush Creek and its unnamed tributary is expected to be diverse in the riffle
section upstream, under, and downstream of the existing bridge. The project region is experiencing increased
disturbance to water resources as a result of timber harvesting operations, land clearing, and construction.
Brush Creek, upstream of the project study area, is a relatively slow-moving, deep stream with numerous
underwater bar areas. The substrate is composed primarily of sand and silt. Aquatic diversity is expected to be
low to moderate through this section of the creek.
Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), warpaint shiner
(Luxilus coccogenis), New river shiner (Notropis scabriceps), Kanawha minnow (Phenacobius teretulus),
Mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus oreas), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), blacknose dace
(Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (R. cataractae), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersom), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdr) are
species that may exist near the bridge and immediately downstream. These fish feed on a variety of living and
organic matter, including algae, insects, worms, crustaceans, snails, and detritus. Other fish species, including
the brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), is likely present in the slow-moving waters upstream of the bridge.
It is omnivorous, foraging primarily on crustaceans, insects, worms, mollusks, and other fish.
During field investigations, rocks were over-turned throughout the riffle section at the bridge and immediately
downstream. Benthic macroinvertebrates including caddisfly* (Order Tricoptera), cranefly* (Family
Tipulidae), and dragonfly* (Order Odonata) larvae were commonly observed clinging to the undersides of
these rocks. Other benthic macroinvertebrates including stonefly (Order Plecoptera), mayfly (Order
Ephemeroptera), and damselfly (Order Odonata) larvae also likely exist. These macroinvertebrates are a link in
the aquatic food chain. They act primarily as a source of food for larger organisms and serve as an indicator of
water quality. A survey for freshwater mussels was not conducted due to the cold water temperatures. No
shells were observed in the study area during site visits.
Other aquatic species likely include several of the previously mentioned amphibian, reptilian, and mammal
species. Salamanders, frogs, turtles, muskrat, and mink are a few of the species that inhabit both terrestrial and
aquatic communities.
17
V.B.2.c. Biotic Resource Impacts
V.B.2.c.i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
As shown in Table 2, all of the build alternatives will impact terrestrial communities in the project area.
Alternatives A and B are expected to impact an estimated 2.33 acres (0.93 hectare) of biotic communities while
Alternative C is expected to impact an estimated 1.46 acres (0.59 hectare) of biotic communities in the project
study area. As such, Alternative C impacts approximately 0.87 acre (0.34 hectare) less area of terrestrial
communities as compared to Alternatives A and B. Temporary fluctuations in population of animal species
that utilize these communities are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving, burrowing,
and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will
be displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in the adapted communities will result in a
redefinition of population equilibria.
Table 2: Estimated Area of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities

Community
Alternative A
(Realignment of SR 1422)
Alternative B
(Maintain the Existing
Horizontal Alignment &
Use an On-Site Detour) RECOMMENDED
Alternative C
(Maintain the Existing
Horizontal Alignment &
Use an Off-Site Detour)
Alluvial Forest 0.29 acre (0.11 hectare) 0.29 acre (0.11 hectare) 0.29 acre (0.11 hectare)
Pasture 1.61 acres (0.65 hectare) 1.61 acres (0.65 hectare) 0.83 acre (0.34 hectare)
Maintained Communities 0.43 acre (0.17 hectare) 0.43 acre (0.17 hectare) 0.34 acre (0.14 hectare)

Total Area of Impact 233 acres (0.93 hectare) 233 acres (0.93 hectare) 1.46 acres (0.59 hectare)
V.B.2.c.ii. Impacts to Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment, and environmental impacts from
construction activities may result in long-term or irreversible effects. Impacts usually associated with in-stream
construction include increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the
substrate and impacts adjacent streamside vegetation. Such disturbances within the substrate lead to increased
siltation, which can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian
species. Siltation may also cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibit
their ability to obtain oxygen. These organisms are slow to recover and usually do not, once the stream has
been severely impacted.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction enhances erosion and
possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts by supporting the
underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials into
the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, bars may form at and downstream of the site.
Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may increase water temperatures.
Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that depends on high oxygen concentrations.
18
V.113 Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analyses pertinent to "Waters of the United States"
and rare and protected species.
V.B.3.a. "Waters of the United States"
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands are those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
V.11.3.a.i. Surface Waters
The NCDWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for the majority of the
year. These channels usually have some or all of the following characteristics: distinctive streambed and bank,
aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge (NCDWQ, 1998). Two perennial streams, Brush Creek and an
unnamed tributary, were identified in the project area. Detailed stream characteristics, including specific water
quality designations, were previously discussed on pages 13 and 14 of this document. Both streams are
classified as jurisdictional waters.
V.11.3.a.ii. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands, as described in the USACE Wetland Delineation
Manual, include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology. One jurisdictional wetland
was discovered approximately 100 feet (32 meters) upstream of Bridge No. 53 within the narrow riparian
corridor and on the north side of Brush Creek. It is a seepage covering approximately 400 square feet (37.2
square meters). Vegetation consists of tag alder, seed box (Ludwigia alternifolia), fescue, and soft rush (Juncus
sp.). A thin layer of moss (Sphagnum sp.) was present throughout the area. Soils exhibited a matrix color of 10
YR 4/2 (dark grayish-brown) with many distinct 10 YR 5/6 (yellowish brown) mottles. Hydrology was
saturated to the surface throughout the year, reflective of most seepages in the area. According to the NCDWQ
Rating System (4s' Version) (1995), this wetland received an overall score of 27 out of a possible 100 points.
The low score was based on the relatively small surface area covered by the wetland.
The project proposes to replace the existing bridge over Brush Creek with a new bridge. The existing bridge
has one pier in Brush Creek. The proposed project will remove the timber pile by cutting it off level with the
surface of the streambed. The concrete sill will be removed in its entirety. In the event that there is not a
practical alternative to non-shattering methods of removal, alternative methods that may include the use of
explosives will be discussed with and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal and state
resource agencies having jurisdiction over the resource, in accordance with NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BUT-BDR). The proposed alternatives do not include
placement of new piers in the water. While removal of the concrete sill may have a temporary impact to the
stream, no permanent stream impacts are anticipated from project construction.
19
V.11.3.a.iii. Impacts to "Waters of the United States"
Both Alternatives A and B will equally impact approximately 400 square feet (37.2 square meters) of the
jurisdictional wetland upstream of the existing bridge. Alternative C avoids this small wetland and does not
impact any other wetlands. Alternatives A and B are both expected to impact an estimated 150 linear feet (45.7
meters) of the stream channel while Alternative C is expected to impact approximately 130 linear feet (39.6
meters) of the stream channel.
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly follow the BMP-BDR.
Alleghany County is listed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as a county with
Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs). The NCWRC requires a moratorium on in-stream construction from
November 1 to April 15 for designated trout waters. As such, the proposed project falls under Case 2 of the
BMP-BDR. As per the BMP-BDR, all methods of demolition shall be considered and implemented where
practical, other than dropping the bridge in the water. Bridge No. 53 over Brush Creek is composed of steel
and timber. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any components into the water during
project construction. While removal of the concrete sill may create a temporary impact to the stream, no
permanent stream impacts are expected to occur due to either build alternative. Bridge pilings for Alternatives
A and B are proposed to be placed outside the bankfull width and slope protection is proposed to be located
outside of the stream channel.
V.B.3.a.iv. Permit Requirements
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal administrative agency of the Clean
Water Act; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementation, permitting,
and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Permits will be required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetland communities and surface waters.
The Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for approved Categorical Exclusions is expected to be applicable for all
impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project.
In addition, a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #2745) is also required for any activity
which may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal permit
or license is issued. If foundation test borings are necessary, a General 401 Certification Number
3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 will be required. Certifications are administered through the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with the USACE. The NCDOT will coordinate with the
USACE after the completion of final design to obtain the necessary permits.
The NCWRC requires a moratorium on in-stream construction in Alleghany County from November 1 to April
15 for designated trout waters. No discharge activities will be authorized by Section 404 Nationwide Permits
within MTW counties without a letter of approval from the NCWRC and written concurrence from the
Wilmington District Engineer.
V.B3.a.v. Wetland and Stream Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy which
embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and
maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the United States," specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoidance of impacts (to
20
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts
(40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must
be considered in sequential order.
The maximum length of stream channel that will be impacted during construction by Alternatives A and B is
approximately 150 linear feet (45.7 meters) and 130 linear feet (39.6 meters) by Alternative C. For impacts to
perennial streams greater than 150 linear feet (45.72 linear meters), NCDWQ requires compensatory
mitigation. Compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required by the USACE. A final determination
regarding compensatory mitigation requirements rests with the USACE.
V.B.3.a.v.(a) Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of the United
States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the United States EPA and the
USACE, "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts must be determined. Such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. It is the project's purpose and need to
replace the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge over Brush Creek. Encroachment into
surface waters may be inevitable, as riprap will likely be needed for bank stabilization along the river channel.
V.B.3.a.v.(b) Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts to
"Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths.
Minimization can be effectively employed along the proposed project. Examples of minimization include:
1. Strict enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control sedimentation during
project construction.
2. Reduction of clearing and grubbing activities.
3. Reduction or elimination of discharges into Brush Creek.
4. Reduction of fill slopes at stream/wetland crossings.
5. Sensitive placement of drainage structures.
6. Utilization of a spanning structure over the creek.
7. Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious pesticide and herbicide
management.
8. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
9. Use of responsible litter control practices.
V.B3.a.v.(c) Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United States"
have been avoided and minimized to maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been achieved. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
"Waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site, if practicable.
21
Section 404 Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA
between the EPA and the USACE. For impacts to perennial streams greater than 150 linear feet (45.72 linear
meters), NCDWQ requires compensatory mitigation. However, as previously discussed, final decisions
concerning permits and compensatory mitigation rest with the USACE.
V.B.3.b. Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are, in the process of decline due to either natural forces or
their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified
as federally protected be subject to review by the USFWS. Other species may receive additional protection
under separate laws.
Based on a letter dated January 27, 2000 by the USFWS and a subsequent March 2001 review of the USFWS
listing, there are no federally endangered or threatened species potentially occurring in Alleghany County;
however, the USFWS has identified one threatened species due to similarity of appearance (T(S/A)) and 13
federal species of concern (FSC). 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 federally
endangered or threatened. The NCNHP lists of July 2001 included these species and identified an additional
11 species receiving protection under state laws. Table 3 lists the species, their status, and the availability of
suitable habitat within the project area.
V.B.3.b.i. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, and Proposed
Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. One
species, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergh), is federally designated as Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance in Alleghany County. As such, this species is not protected under Section 7 of the ESA of 1973.
The description of this species is provided for informational purposes as their status may be upgraded in the
future.
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergit)
Federal Status: THREATENED (Due to Similarity of Appearance)
State Status: THREATENED
Bog turtles are a small, 3 to 4.5-inch (7.6 to 11.4 centimeter) reptiles with a weakly keeled upper shell that
ranges from light brown to ebony. The species is readily distinguished from other turtles by a large,
conspicuous, bright orange to yellow blotch on each side of its head. Bog turtles are semi-aquatic and are
infrequently active outside of their muddy habitats, except during specific temperature ranges. They can be
found during the spring mating season from June to July and at other times from April to October when the
humidity is high, such as after a rain event, and temperatures are in the 70°s F (20°s Q. Bog turtle habitat
consists of bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and other wet environments, specifically those that have soft
muddy bottoms.
In the November 4, 1987 Federal Register (pages 55822-55825), the northern population of the bog
turtle (from New York south to Maryland) was listed as federally threatened, and the southern
population (from Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as federally threatened due to similarity of
appearance(T(S/A)). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and interstate or international
22
Table 3: Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species - Allegbany County
State Available
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Status Habitat
Vertebrates
mbystoma talpoideum Mole salamander -- Sc No
Clemmys muhlenbergii og turtle T (S/A) T No
Crotalus horridus horridus Timber rattlesnake - SR Yes
Mountain Population --
Cryptobranchus alleganienis ellbender FSC Sc No
mpidonax alnorum der flycatcher -- SR No
theostoma kanawhae Kanawha darter -- SR Yes
urycea longicauda longicauda ngtail salamander - SC Yes
xoglossum laurae** onguetied minnow -- SR Yes
Otis leibii astern small-footed myotis FSC Sc Yes
asserculus sandwihensis avannah sparrow -- SR Yes
ercina caprodes** ogperch -- T No
ercina oxyrhynchus** harpnose darter - SC Yes
henacobius teretulus Kanawha minnow FSC SC Yes
lethodon wehrlei ehrle's salamander - T No
Ursus americanus * * lack bear - SR Yes
ylvilagus transitionalis New England cottontail FSC SR No
Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler - SR No
Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged warbler -- SR Yes
Vireo ilvus Warbling vireo -- SR Yes
Invertebrates
scetocythere cosmeta Grayson crayfish ostracod FSC SR Yes
utochton cellus olden-banded skipper -- SR Yes
olotoperla rossi stonefly -- SR Yes
Catocala dulciola Sweet underwing SR No
Ceraclea mentiea caddisfly - SR Yes
yclonaias tuberculate Purple wartyback SR Yes
lliptio dilatator pike -- SC Yes
rora laeta** Early hairstreak -- SR No
rynnis martialis Mottled duskywing SR Yes
uphydryas phaeton Baltimore SR Yes
ixsenia favonius ontario Northern hairstreak SR No
eterocloeon petersi mayfly -- SR No
eptoxis dilatator Seep mudalia - T No
itobrancha recurvata Brown drake mayfly -- SR Yes
eophabr fuscus caddisfly - SR Yes
phiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail FSC SR Yes
peyeria diana Diana fritillary FSC SR Yes
peyeria idalia** Regal fritillary FSC SR Yes
Tritogonia verrucosa** istolgrip - E No
Ventridens coelaxis** identate dome - SC Yes
Vascular Plants
dlumia fungosa Climbing furnitory SR No
23

Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status State
Status Available
Habitat
rethusa bulbosa Bog rose -- E No
risaema triphyllum ssp. stewardsonii Bog Jack-in-the-pulpit -- SR No
Calamagrostis canadensis Canada reedgrass SR No
Caltha palustris Marsh marigold -- SR No
Campanula aparinoides Marsh bellflower -- SR No
Carex buxbaumii Brown bog sedge -- C No
Carex lepronervia wood sedge -- C No
Carex sp. #S en sedge -- C No
area woodii Wood's sedge - SR Yes
aulophyllum giganteum Northern blue cohosh -- SR No
helone cuthbertii uthberfs turtlehead -- SR No
Cladium mariscoides wig-rush -- SR No
optis trifolia spp. groenlandica oldthread -- SR Yes
alibarda repens Robin runaway -- E No
elphinium exaltatum* all larkspur FSC E-SC No
lyceria laxa mannagrass -- SR No
elianthemum propinquum Creeping sunrose - C No
ydrastis canadensis oldenseal -- E-SC Yes
ilium canadense ssp. editorum Red Canada lily - C No
ilium grayi Gray's lily FSC T-SC No
iparis loeselii en orchid - C No
eehania cordata eehania - SR No
. uartia groenlandica Greenland sandwort - C No
onotropsis odorata** weet pinesap FSC C Yes
arnassia grandifolia ge-leaved grass-of- C/PT No
arnassus -
latanthera grandiflora ge purple-fringed orchid - SR No
renanthes roanensis loan rattlesnakeroot - SR No
hynchospora albs Northern white beaksedge - C No
obinia hispida var. fertilis ruitful locust - C No
anguisorba canadensis Canada burnet - SR No
axifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage FSC C No
enecio paupercu/us alsam ragwort - SR No
ilphium connatum Virginia cup-plant - SR Yes
ilphium perfoliatum Northern cup-plant - SR Yes
partina pectinata * Freshwater cordgrass - SR No
piranthes lucida Shining ladies-tresses - C No
tenanthium robustum Bog featherbells - SR Yes
Thelypteris simulates Bog fem - T No
Vaccinium macrocarpon Cranberry - C No
Veronica americans American speedwell - SR No
Woodsia appalachiana ppalahian cliff fern - SR No
Woodsia ilvensis us cliff fem - SR No
24
State Available
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Status Habitat
onvascular Plants
Cephaloziella spinicaulis Liverwort C No
Coscinodon cribrosus Copper grimmia -- C No
rthotrichum keeverae eever's bristle-moss FSC E No
Status Nomenclature:
E - Endangered - These species are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T - Threatened - These species are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance - These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to consultation under Section 7 of the ESA of 1973.
FSC - Federal Species of Concern - These species may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing).
SC - Special Concern SR - Significantly Rare C - Candidate
* Historic Record - The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Obscure Record - The date and/or location of the observation is unclear.
commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land-
management activities by private landowners in North Carolina. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the
USFWS considers the southern population of the bog turtle an FSC due to habitat loss. Appropriate habitat for
the bog turtle does not exist in the project area.
V.B.3.c. Impacts to the Floodplain
Alleghany County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). While Flood Hazard Boundary Maps have been prepared by
FEMA, no detailed studies have been conducted in the project area. The bridge crossing occurs in an area
where approximate methods have been used to establish the floodplain and where base flood elevations have
not been determined. As illustrated in Figure 6, the crossing is found on Alleghany County Flood Hazard
Boundary Map Panel 370004 0003 A, effective date July 1, 1977. During site investigations, hydraulic
engineers were told that one residence located near the project site has had flooding problems in the basement.
The length of the proposed bridge is greater than that of the existing to ensure that the proposed project will not
make the flooding potential worse for this residence and will likely reduce its chance of flooding.
The existing structure has a history of overtopping and does not appear to meet NCDOT hydraulic design
guidelines regarding freeboard above the design flood. Construction of the proposed roadway will be at a
higher elevation than the existing SR 1422 alignment. Raising the bridge elevation will increase the area
provided under the structure for flow and improve the freeboard space above the design flood. The proposed
structure meets NCDOT hydraulic design guidelines for the majority (approximately 75 percent) of the
proposed bridge length. Because the bridge is located on a steep slope, as shown in Figure 3b, the remaining
section of the bridge is expected to have an estimated freeboard above the design flood that, while just below
the standard two feet (0.6 meter), is an improvement over the existing conditions. The proposed vertical
alignment will require additional embankment fill in the floodplain. The floodplain impact will be minimized
by increasing the length of the bridge opening to cause no increase in flood elevations. The proposed project
will decrease flooding around the new bridge.
25
V.B.4. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
Noise levels could temporarily increase during construction. The proposed project will not substantially
increase or decrease traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have substantial impact on noise levels. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772).
The project is located in Alleghany County, which is currently designated as an "attainment" area and is in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is an air quality "neutral"
project. As such, it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO
analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable.
This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. 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
satisfies the 1990 CAAA and NEPA assessment requirements for air quality.
VI. Conclusions
Based on the studies performed for the proposed project, it is concluded that the project will not result in
substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts. The project's "Categorical Exclusion"
classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23 CFR 771.117, is appropriate. The project is expected to
have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
26
£Ob£-g 4.oe[o-Id W% H:)WVQ SISAWW 1V1N3WNObIAN3 .,.•..eanbj? Neej0 ysnug JOAO aNV immomma i3movd r
£5 *ON e6ppq aoojdea NOI1VilOdSNVb1 d0 .'
44unoO fuoybepd 1N3WlNVd3a VNnovra MION ...
911W 1 0
dew A.?iuiO1A

17917 ` ••?

II!H 4?1b 9917 t 171717 l
l6b l ° 9917 l :r_"? &
'
9
I
/ O /
/
/ AeII°A GP°IJ

6Lbl ti E91VV I aDH i b
59171

E9b1

Lbl
J
• b9bl

<• 2 99Vt ZZbt
LSbL? b9bL \ 99171

te'
? • igloo
,\
S . v a
--
•?,
8517 t , i /fin
4. ZZb L
I •
V b?T ""
17517 l
•
?
8
7 . /d NIV L
/
VI
g
b l n 0617 l
9 ZZ17 V/ t
?'
• 6 17 ll
/ /0 ? -

zev ?
V, L 9v L

I I 0917 vi?? Z9b1
Lbb bEbI ?• 1
L ?9bb

• ? O 'l

OCX?
E J_
? W
_ ? L9bL 6Eb1
/
C?b
Eb 8l
•
° 19bb L sPH ssa:) ?' q' i
0517 l r Uls??
/ 11
\1 i
v LE L r b l b l
- --- Obb L 6Eb L
-- / / / `
86171 t

'_
/ I --
o
CQ p \

I/
I?
All,
1

COVE-9 ?Oelo-+d 'd'i"1 HDNVVG SISAIVNV IVJIN3WNOVIAN3 .Y,tMe° N
a? eant5! Neeao ysnjq JGAO QNV 1N3wdOl3A3a IDNOU
ES-
ebpIa8 eODOG A?
a NPIIYIIOdSN"l JO
A4-unao Auoy5e11d 1N3V4MVd3a ?VNnOM HIMON
uo -? PUOO ADMPDo?j 6uI4sIx3 J-O sgdD-J504-0qd
Z17
Zc

PHOTO #4: Northwest face of Brid
No. 53
Photographs of Existing Bridge Conditions
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alieghany County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 53
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND over Brush Creek Figure 2b
`'?•., „,. d ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project B-3403

r. ? x X II
a ? ? I
x t
I I r4)K
x
`1 I
\ fa 1 ? I I I
g
i
s<:
I
0 z Z
c -I
3Ezrim
o O
-, M Z
=1-Y?iI?D
-z m l' ? I p r
m z
ZZ vim V
r,?r
DI-? D
Z?z z
Ni N
R??N?Ipgb?NpQb
jQ? 8 y N N
-? v
n X' o° W
z
K 2
v
s
i A A
4 ?

f1
GI x
QI
p ?
a°
a
q

$
4 k
p 0

u
ra
*(
0

w •;Mutrx
1
b
r
,
It
q
N

. ?r Q
?a
'a
qj
tir
\
S

xl I II
X
I ? ,
?
1

i? Ire
vvI I
ll

'

I'I? Z -I
vp
? Ir nw
P+
I
` ?% \ \ to
F ? m o
,
'y I }. n m

` \ IV ?
?a
(
i x
I . .p '1
?
x

`I I i 1 ?

Q
I W

I
i R
? N
?I I ll,
1 a o
II
a
w
I,
I
(IM i
_ I
?
?
?I
fl

t u
j
I
?
I I
\
1 ?
1
'T??
10
1
SR 1422
5' 17'-0' (CLEAR ROADWAY) 5'
EXISTING TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION
CL
SR 1422
8.0' WHERE GUARDRAIL REQUIRED
I' 4.0' II.O' I 11.0' *5.0'
RADE POINT
1/4'/1' 1/4'/I' • )•/I'
PLEASE NOTE:
PROPOSED TYPICAL APPROACH SECTION FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN
WILL BE DETERMINED,
BASED ON THE FINAL
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
-L- CL SR 1422
I'- 28'-0' ROADWAY 1•_5•
GRADE POINT
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION ON BRIDGE
Typical Sections
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Allegheny County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 53
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND over Brush Creek Figure 4
•`'. °, .,.•.•°' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
T.I.P. Project B-3403
- ?a I -
1498' -N r l _ ---- - ?.
\
1414 1 37 0'` 1439 1440 ?' - - -
\
a51? i ` 1450
G Blevi s
Cross Rds. 1446
145

1439 1451
1500
.. --.,
14 47
446 14
I 1434 1452
1448 450 - -?
I
' Ennice
I 1453
\ '-?- Ba it 1422

?--?
1422 1459

1490

14
\ `•\ -?
Be e
ga?? 1
r,Nor ? ?
14 3 ,•?" •\ ,
a ?--_-
Ck
_? 145 p?

1454
0 1422 -1
" 1 --

458

1459
?o _
A
Tooker 1494
1
~ ,1
456 1457
Q 1454
,
1422 J . \ 1455
1
486
•?
? Rd
. 3
143
•?
ad?1444
1492
\
?o G 1464
1504 a? 147

1432 % 1463 '
1, 33 ?-
V

\
1465 3
?
Q
Hare 1463 1479
Glade Valley
1466 1491
1444 1466 Rich Hill
?-.\-- 1 143 ?•
464
Proposed Off-Site Detour Route
0 I mile
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alleghany County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 53 Figure 5
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND over Brush Creek
,4,°,,,.•°' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project 8-3403

'•. 2000' O 2000'
Approximate Scale In Feet
The map above was obtained from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Alleghany County Flood Hazard Boundary 100-Year F l o o d p l a i n
Map Panel 370004 0003 A. Effective Dote
July 1.1977.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Alleghany County
OF TRANSPORTATION Replace Bridge No. 53
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND Over Brush Creek Figure 6
.•d ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH T.I.P. Project B-3403
APPENDIX A
AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE LETTERS
FEDERAL
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
January 27, 2000
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Atlanta Regional Office,
February 10, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, June 29, 2000
STATE
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, January 19, 2000
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), March 3, 2000
SHPO, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, February 3, 2000
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), January 4, 2001
LOCAL
Alleghany County Board of Commissioners, January 19, 2000
A-1 through A-4
A-5
A-6 through A-7
A-8 through A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
QPP??' T OF Ty?i
y
?/ N b
?ggCH 3 18A9
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 27, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422 over Brush Creek, Alleghany County, North
Carolina (T.I.P. Project No. B-3403)
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and are providing the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
Our records indicate that, with the exception of the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), there are
no endangered or threatened species recorded from Alleghany County. The southern population
of the bog turtle, extending from portions of southern Virginia to northern Georgia, is federally
listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance. This designation prohibits collecting turtles
from this population and bans interstate and international commercial trade. However, this
population of the species is not currently considered to be biologically endangered or threatened
and therefore is not subject to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. We do, however, consider
the bog turtle in the southern portion of its range as a species of Federal concern due to habitat
loss and would appreciate your assistance in protecting this species and its habitat if surveys
indicate that it does occur within the area potentially affected by the proposed project. In view of
this, we believe that requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied for this project.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was
not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that
may be affected by the identified action.
Although we do not currently have any endangered or threatened species recorded from
Alleghany County, we have enclosed a list of species of Federal concern that may occur within
A-1
the impact area of the project. Species of Federal 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 to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if surveys
indicate that any of these species do occur within the area potentially affected by the proposed
project.
Any environmental document prepared for this project should provide a complete description,
analysis, and comparison of the available alternatives and their potential effects on the aquatic
and terrestrial resources of the project area. Preference should be given to alignments,
stream-crossing structures, and construction techniques that avoid or minimize encroachment and
impacts to these resources. We recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge,
not a culvert. The new bridge design should include provisions for the roadbed and deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer
should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the run-off of storm water and
pollutants. The bridge design should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside the bank-full width of the
streams. The bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in the
damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approaches in order to restore some
of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within
the affected areas. Adequate erosion- and sedimentation-control measures should be in place
prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into
contact with the stream. Heavy equipment should not be operated in the stream channel, and any
cutting and removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks should be avoided to the
maximum extent possible.
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Mr. John Fridell of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-00-055.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
A-2
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES
AND FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN,
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Alleghany County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Hellbender
Eastern small-footed myotis
Kanawha minnow
Invertebrates
Grayson crayfish ostracod
Pygmy snaketail
Diana fritillary butterfly
Regal fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Tall larkspur
Gray's lily
Sweet pinesap
Carolina saxifrage
Nonvascular Plants
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Myotis (=subulatus) leibii FSC
Phenacobius teretulus FSC
Ascetocythere cosmeta FSC
Ophiogomphus howei FSC
Speyeria diana FSC
Speyeria idalia FSC*
Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Lilium grayi FSC
Monotropsis odorata FSC*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Keever's bristle-moss Orthotrichum keeverae FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
December 20, 1999 Page 1 of 2
A-3
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
December 20, 1999 Page 2 of 2
A-4

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE
Parkridge 85 North Building
3125 Presidential Parkway - Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30340
[phone]
F F 3 10 20-K
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager, Project Development
and Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:'
This acknowledges your letter dated January 6, 2000, soliciting comments on the
proposed improvements to Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422 in Alleghany County, North Carolina.
It appears that the improvement will not impact hydroelectric developments under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Therefore, we have no comment.
Sincerely,
y'4V P
Jerrold W. Gotzmer, P.E.
Director
A-5

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 29, 2000
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200020424; SR 1422, Replace Bridge No. 53 over Brush Creek, Alleghany County,
North Carolina, TIP No. B-3403.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

?004 -t.
v",
This is in response to your letter requesting input on the replacement of Bridge No. 53
over Brush Creek on SR 1422, Alleghany County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3403).
Prior 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
into waters and/or wetlands in conjunction with this project, including temporary impacts for
construction access or bridge demolition, and the disposal of construction debris.
Review of the project indicates that the proposed work may involve the discharge of
excavated or fill material into waters and wetlands. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our
Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. These plans should include
temporary impacts from any necessary construction access or bridge demolition. Bridge
demolition work should be planned in strict accordance with the latest NCDOT Policy: Bridge
Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States (BDR Policy), including the Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal. If there are only minor impacts to
waters, including wetlands, the work might be authorized under one or more nationwide or
regional general permits provided avoidance and minimization are adequately addressed.
The Corps of Engineers must assess the impacts of such activities on the aquatic
environment prior to issuing Department of the Army permits. Authorization of aquatic fill
activities requires that the project be water dependent and/or that no practicable alternatives are
available. Our initial review emphasis for North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) projects will focus on the impacts to waters and/or wetlands. However, if degradation
A-6
to other aspects of the natural environment (e.g., habitat of endangered species) is considered to
be of greater concern, an alternative resulting in greater aquatic losses may be chosen as
preferred.
In all cases, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps, the sequencing process of avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation of unavoidable wetland impacts will be satisfied
prior to the final permit decision. A Department of the Army permit will not be issued until a
final plan for compensatory mitigation is approved. Mitigation for stream impacts may also be
required.
Regarding the alternatives to be studied, the Corps recommends that NCDOT also study
an alternative to replace the structure on existing location, and detour traffic on existing roads.
This alternative would likely reduce temporary and permanent impacts to the stream and its
stable bank.
Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be directed to Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, at
telephone [phone], extension 23.
Sincerely,

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Roy Shelton
Federal Highway Administration
310 New BernAve., Rm 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Ms. Christina Miller
Arcadis Geraghty & Miller
Post Office Box 31388
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622
A-T
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
Yv and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 19, 2000
ACZ?qA'
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NC Division of Water Quality Cu 06)
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Brush Creek in Alleghany
County, State Project No. 8.2700501, T.I.P. Project B-3403.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated January 6, 2000, in which you requested Scoping
comments for the above project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge will
span Brush Creek in the New River Basin. The DWQ index number for the stream is 10-9-10 and the
stream is classified as C Trout waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
B. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
C. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, or Water
Supply Waters will be impacted during the project implementation. However, impacts to waters
classified as Class C Trout waters will be impacted. The DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to
North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B
.0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains
to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality
Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. The DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing
directly into the stream.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
A-8
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
01/19/00
Page 2
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
K. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
L. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
M. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
N. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
A-9

W< dm. STATE
V
M•t •
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
March 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook *His*c Deput y State reservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 53 on SR 1422 over Brush Creek, B-3403, Allegheny County,
ER 00-8694
Thank you for your letter of January 6, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
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 an archaeological survey be conducted if new
construction is carried out on a new alignment.
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.
cc: T. Padgett
A-10
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801
P B'?yD? t ed?ral :did &(:;Uq- IyZZ( ) ;.unty ?I I
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Q1j , ? 2- mn , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
iewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as )=!er 2S 1 - `l are
/ considered not eligibl for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
tied:

)resentativ? ff DOT Date
wA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Z A Za _V0
esentativ , H Date
l
:e Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this torn and the attached list will be included.
A-11
1j !?t4y; 5
Mr.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook Pz f noo L-
DePut3' State Histori?)Preservadon Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge 53, Alleghenv County,
TIP No. B-3403, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1442(3), ER 00-8694
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Brad M. Duplantis concerning the. above project.
During the course of the survey one archaeological site, 31AL93**, was located within the
project area. This author 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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Brad Duplands, Louis Berger Group, Inc.
FHwA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
A-12
cx ?? Alleghany County Board of Commissioners
90 South Main Street
County Commissioners Post Office Box 366 County Manap
Ken Richardson - Chairman Sparta, North Carolina 28675 Don Adai
Eldon Edwards - Vice Chairman [phone] RECEIVEC NCDOT County Attom
')'VISION I:NCaIiVEER, S OFFICE
Charity Gambill Fax [phone] N.'/1rILKESFCFtC, NC Bynum Marsh
Walter Jones
Joe Roberts 0 2000

January 19, 2000
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 250
North Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28659
RE: Bridge Replacement Number 53

?
r C:

Dear Mr. McCann,
This is in response to a letter received from William Gilmore concerning Project Number B-3403,
Bridge Replacement Number 53. The Alleghany County Board of Commissioners has discussed this
situation with B-3403. We are in favor of constructing the proposed structure upstream of the existing
structure on parallel alignment, maintaining traffic on existing alignment. If I can be of finther assistance,
please call me at [phone].
Respectfully,
z )- a-, , "
Don Adams
County Manager
JDA/kle
A-13
APPENDIX B
USDA-NRCS FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
1
1
I
I t, Oro
I
I
I
1
I
I
D'
1
I
I
ARCADIS GERAGHTY& MILLER
harm Csrotee, fw-
• 7x01 Irear.+esda Dlepe, ;
Taiefl?x ?°n
rIvRA C"a"lm 2707.1
Tel 9t! no S$) I
-J'0 SP c r' ?a v rb,; Flit l19 702 SlOS
Ielt N0. WIN:
tow 09",
ae mEt
i
R yw V nK W40a ma FaM plow tM to let W know a0loan 0 04101111
Return to Sender Q file
i
THIS 1ti x%mx6 tS oWDWED ONLY FOR TH! USE OF THR iMMIDWIi OR EN=(tY TO WHICH IT 11 ADOPMED AND MAY CONTAIN
impo wTtaw imr IS MIN71, NIP. CONFWtTIAL. AND t WApT FROM 015t:l,O511RE VNOlR APPLICAIU LAW.
If"reedw Of thkxwW96 M flat flee InandW raeplant at tPs NMI" w 8110111 ml owulbltt for delivering the mmsNse to the
hdMdld fit, you ambereby nouw ttvet any dlmmk%•tiert. dbttibutlon. er oop "of thiy CerpmVniaadon It strictly
prahibkw. If you have metwd ""mmaAwAt" in attar, pleas notlty uz It"dfAtely by Menl+orte and mtwn the er OW1
"tons" to m at the abvre Ndrm via the U.S. Postal mtmim
B-1
y
N'.1 pptrlwtent; of ARfOttlwn
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PA" 1 fro 00 F8*1VEN2 ru zu icuw
Irlreti.A
Havo01 prolm F-dmd AG" W
AROMany County, NC. SR 1422 (Poet Ridge ftacQ, B"o No, 53 FM A
9m Wush Cmwk ftw Pr*d No. 82740601, Fed" Aid
Pooled No. 8Rx 1 , TIP No. &34c&
P,epow¦a L 8nd'tAn o rMy Md qbft
Road ftht-"RV ?.. Allegh8" County, Norih Vsrafma '
1w go, polio: by
Ooww of Makin ofto. utriquo .wtetwids or lwd fa1p AW1 taurttWW In 0
(fl n% Var Ft'PA duty riot • db nat mWir d dAbr?w? pwrA of 00 ?n11. D IN= A&MV ittlp"
-1 Arsaptr ram Step
Map" Cmp(t)

ft" of Uwd EvMm*m Sy tm woo FAArnaEle.lattd Am Bove. Jw(rdin a
Astsx 7?
Nww Of local Site A>tfoddplwftt System AM" a FsMlwW A= Wood in OPPA
Acw; %
Oft Load Emk wlbn ROtnved by MRCS
PMT m (7b bw o"WAp tl by Fa dead Aowwr) Mrw+aulh. a% Row*
>x sig. s
A. Tarr Awtww To IN Ow%wW Ohm* ' 2.02 so
8, Tots) AGM To go CtfnvSfiAd UtAltfefy
0. TOWAaam In Z.88 atf
PARR N atwo bwoby KMV Lad Bw toom v* n wm
A. TOW Awia Pdapo fffnd Utptw ftanhstd
IL TodAu= @WW& tlw wtdtmd irtpOt>akM PwA*w
G Pt=OW d Fwavdwtd I* County of Uwwl Wa. Unit w be Con
D. P•twwnt aw d 1n Gv& o WMh astra or HWwr RdwtM dUw
PART V (ro otenn4014 6jrN l M Land EwlWAW CMWM
fWwoo Y rwm wnd lobe ow w w ora W too /boo
PART VI R* (p my AA~
She Aewtltlwdlwnt Crkwfiw 17haw wf o* wn &q*!nod Mr ;rCFR df jrq) M- iewtn
P'oh+le
1. Arwln Uh 1s
L MwlrRow 0 NOtwwOen Ow 10
s. ftvw o a oft ft" PL"" 2D
?, t?•
waft • Lwrd Aowmtewtt

Atra
4 vb wrtww Moat uftn va-W
M. Ohterrwr b UMutt ?edoA. o
7. 00 FMM UAR Odtltpstod to A"a w 10
B. *11o "of "9n4 ffA*l >:ww"A Lis
!R, AvwMIbMQ?Stl4rtn Aldf?at ?tykse d
10, IwwwAwMw 10
11. Woula of Owwsi*n an watt sow*" 'i
72. *WVWft;;-M; the 10
TOTAL OM ASMiMS%um papa$ lii0
PART" ae ?•din r
R melt Vow to %Mftfd (pan PM 61
100
(Irye>rtt Pitt Iy Aam or. fbwl
TOW Oft Appormill:
,at 4pown" U10
'TOTAL POwa (Towaaaor. t Xnea? lawn
rft so=;
r Me
WAS A
Yos D No D
lt"am Per ilttbm bn:
(ifiM IntaOltCtbllw OtT AWBltst dt1Aj Farm AL>1006 i10-0Cf?
B-2