19920727 Ver al_Complete File_19920921

P.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO December 1, 1992
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199300050 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions) - -?"
?e
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch nn
State of North Carolina II (SEC - 91992
Department of Transportation
Post office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your September 21, 1992 application for Department of the Army
authorization to replace Bridge No.99, on S.R. 1756, over the Upper Little
River, in Caldwell and Alexander Counties, North Carolina. Bridge No. 99 will
be replaced with a new bridge to be located approximately 170 feet east of the
existing bridge. No wetlands will be impacted. This project has been
coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
of the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that
the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required state or local approval.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such

f
-2-
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water, Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
/'Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
?\Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Chris Goudreau
Route 6, Box 685
Marion, North Carolina 28752

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina
sr^R ,
a *
4 1
Septem
92
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
284
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Alexander/Caldwell
Upper Little River,
BRZ-1756(1), B-2118
Counties, Bridge No. 99, SR 1143/SR 1756, Over
State Project 8.2731401, Federal-Aid Project
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to
proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A
(B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of the project.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
DOT will apply directly to NRCD for that permit when plans have been
developed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
LJW/plr
Attachment
cc: Mr. John
Mr. John
Mr. C. W.
Mr. J. T.
Mr. A. L.
Mr. W. E.
Mr. R. W.
Sincerely, /
• 0M
L. ard, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Leggett, P. E.
Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Hoke
Spangler
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Alexander/Caldwell Counties
Bridge No. 99
SR 1143/SR 1756
Over Upper Little River
State Project 8.2731401
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1756(1)
B-2118
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ate J. W r , P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Da a Nich Graf, P.E.
P4Divi ?on Administrator, FHWA

.r
Alexander/Caldwell Counties
Bridge No. 99
SR 1143/SR 1756
Over Upper Little River
State Project 8.2731401
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1756(1)
B-2118
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
'4
'L C
Cha es R. Cox
Project Planning Engineers
Richard-B. Davis, E. "'
Project P ning ee , Uni ead
ran lin Vick, P.E., Assistant Manger
Planning and Environmental Branch
,SSJ•SSIS1111///j
C rI o?
•FESS/0 q
SE AL
6944
'.?%'•FNCI mt J` .
RD 111 B. 01.0
t
Alexander/Caldwell Counties
Bridge No. 99
SR 1143/SR 1756
Over Upper Little River
State Project 8.2731401
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1756(1)
B-2118
This project is included in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project has been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. No wetlands will be disrupted by the project.
Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize any impacts.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 99 should be replaced on new location approximately 170
feet east of the existing bridge, as shown by Alternate 4 in Figure 2-1.
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 540 feet
long and 28 feet wide. Approximately 500 feet of approach roadway work is
necessary.
Traffic will be detoured along existing SR routes that cross the
Upper Little River to the north of Bridge No. 99.
The estimated cost of the project, based on current prices, is
$19397,000. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the current
Transportation Improvement Program, is $ 640,000. The difference is due
to the necessity of a longer bridge and approach work to improve the
existing alignment.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge Number 99 was built in 1927. The structure is a Pratt pony
design, one lane truss bridge, consisting of a timber floor on low steel
trusses and I-beams on reinforced concrete abutments. It has a clear
roadway width of 11 feet and a structure length of 210 feet. The bridge
has a sufficiency rating of 14.4, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The estimated remaining life is 4 years. The bridge is
currently posted for 9 tons for single vehicles (SV) and 9 tons for
tractor-truck semi-trailers (TTST). Since the existing bridge is a
one-lane, two-way structure, motorists must first look to insure the
W11%. i
•S
2
bridge is clear of oncoming traffic before they proceed to cross. During
periods of limited visibility, such as dense fog, flashing signals warn
motorists that the bridge is closed. No school buses cross the bridge.
The Icard Dam is located north of the existing bridge. Built in
1919, it is an inactive hydroelectric dam owned by Duke Power Company.
The dam was retired from service in 1969.
SR 1143 approaches the bridge from Alexander County while SR 1756
approaches it from Caldwell County. Both SR routes are classified as
Rural Local Routes in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
are not part of the Federal-Aid System. The roadway width for SR 1143 is
approximately 14 feet, while SR 1756 is approximately 24 feet wide; both
are unpaved in the vicinity of the bridge. The speed limit is not posted.
The alignment of SR 1756 is quite poor; motorists traveling from Caldwell
County must slow down and maneuver through a sharp 180 degree turn and
then another 90 degree turn to cross the bridge.
The current traffic volume of 70 VPD is projected to be 700 VPD by
the construction year 1994 and 1,500 VPD by the year 2014. This projected
volume includes 1% tractor-truck semi-trailers (TTST) and 2% dual-tired
vehicles (DUAL). This increase will be due to SR 1756 and SR 1143
becoming part of a major thoroughfare route across the Upper Little River
to support the growing traffic north of the Hickory-Newton-Conover area
(See Figure 5).
Five accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the
period from March 1, 1989 to February 29, 1992; three of the five
accidents were located in Alexander County, and two were located in
Caldwell County. There were no fatal accidents reported during this time
period.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Four methods for replacing Bridge No. 99 were studied. All of the
alternatives include a replacement structure that is 28 feet wide. The
alternatives are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replacement of the existing structure at its present
location. Traffic would be detoured along existing roads
during the nine month construction period (see Figure 2-1).
Approximately 200 feet of new approach roadway would be
required. The design speed would be approximately 20 MPH.
Alternate 2 - Replacement of the bridge at its existing location.
Traffic would be maintained on-site during construction by
providing an on-site detour located immediately east of the
existing structure (see Figure 2-2). Approximately 250
feet of approach roadway would be necessary. The design
speed on both structures would be approximately 20 MPH.
Alternate 3 - Replacement of the bridge on new location approximately 100
feet east of the existing structure. Approximately 400
feet of new approach roadway would be required (see Figure
2-2). Traffic would be maintained on the existing struc-
ture during construction. The design speed would be about
30 MPH.

3
Alternate 4 - (Recommended) - Replacement of the bridge on new location
approximately 170 feet east of the existing bridge (see
Figure 2-1). Traffic would be detoured along existing
roads during a portion of the construction period (4
months). Approximately 500 feet of approach work would be
necessary to improve the existing alignment. The design
speed would be approximately 40 MPH.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is undesirable due to the other limited access routes
across the Upper Little River.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
(Recom.)
Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Structure $380,000 $380,000 $386,000 $957,000
Roadway Approaches 46,000 150,000 105,000 162,000
Structure Removal 54,000 54,000 54,000 54,000
Detour Structure - 114,000 - -
Engineering & Contingencies 70,000 102,000 80,000 177,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 24,000 25,000 26,000 47,000
Total $574,000 $825,000 $651,000 $1,397,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
The replacement of Bridge No. 99 with Alternative 4 would require the
closure of the existing bridge for approximately 4 months. The Division
11 and 12 Engineers concur that traffic can be detoured during
construction as shown in Figure 1. Approximately 2.8 miles of additional
travel will be necessary for the average vehicle affected by road closure.
A road user analysis, based on a 4-month road-closure period, indicates
the cost of additional travel would be approximately $7,200.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to the low
current traffic volume and the availability of a suitable detour. The
detour roadway and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic
during the construction period.

4
Since the Upper Little River separates the school systems for
Caldwell and Alexander Counties and no school buses cross Bridge No. 99,
there are no objections from the schools to close the bridge for
construction.
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 99 should be replaced on new location about 170 feet east
of its present location, as shown by alternate 4 and Figure 2-1. The
recommended structure is 540 feet long and 28 feet wide. This structure
width will provide a 22-foot travelway with three feet of lateral
clearance on each side.
The roadway approaches will consist of a 22-foot pavement with 6-foot
grassed shoulders. The design speed is approximately 40 MPH. A design
exception will be required since the statutory speed limit of the roadways
exceed the design speed of 40 MPH for the bridge.
The proposed structure will be built at an elevation above the
100-year floodplain to conform to the recommendations of the Hydrographic
Unit.
Coordination with the Bicycle Unit indicates there are no unusual
levels of bicycling on this roadway, and no special accommodations for
bicycles are needed on this project.
Alternate 4 is the preferred alternative because it provides the
alignment improvement that would eliminate the existing safety hazard on
both ends of the existing bridge. As noted earlier, drivers on the
Caldwell County side must drive down a vertical grade of approximately 8%
and maneuver through two sharp turns before crossing the bridge. The
approach from Alexander County is only slightly better; however, neither
approach roadway is within the NCDOT design standards.
Alternate 4 is also preferred because it conforms to the adopted
Hickory-Newton-Conover 1986 Urban area thoroughfare plan (see Figure 5).
This thoroughfare plan shows Bridge No. 99 as a vital link for a future
major connector route between NC 127 and US 321. As part of the improved
connector, Divisions 11 and 12 have programmed the paving improvements of
SR 1143 and SR 1756 to be complete within 5 years. In addition, a new
roadway facility between SR 1757 and SR 1756 in Caldwell County to
complete the connection is on the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area
Transportation Improvement Program priority list for 1992/93. Thus, the
improved alignment of Bridge No. 99 is important in the larger scope of
the connection route.
The Division Engineers from Divisions 11 and 12 concur with the
recommended alternative.
VIII ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Natural and Ecological Resources
The proposed project is located between Alexander
Counties. These counties are located in the piedmont
province near the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.
rolling.
1. Plant Communities
a. Upland: Hardwood-pine Forest
and Caldwell
physiographic
Topography is
Upland communities are prevalent along the proposed
alignments. Dominant species along the north banks and slopes
of the Upper Little River include Virginia pine Pinus .
virginiana), dogwood Cornus florida and white oak uercus
albs). River birch Betula ni ra is dominant in the northwest
quarter of the project area. White pine Pinus strobus
ironwood Car inns caroliana) and American holly Ilex o aca
are subcanopy species. Honeysuckle Lonicera 'a onica is
rampant in the understory. The area as been disturbed,
presumably by hurricane Hugo.
Dominant species- along the south bank and slopes of the
Upper Little River include white pine and tulip tree
Liriodendron tulipifera). American beech Fa us grandifolia)
is also present. American holly, red maple Acer rubrum
bladdernut Sta h lea trifolia), and Rhododendrons Rhododendron
spp•) are present in the understory. There are also seedlings
and saplings of chestnut oak uercu_s montana present. Ground
cover consists of galax Galax a ph lla heartleaf (Hexastylis
spy and partridge berry (Mitchella re ens .
b. Wetlands
The only wetland present is found under the bridge on the
north side of the project and extends a short distance to the
east. Alder Alnus serrulata) and an unidentified grass are the
dominant species ere. This wetland is considerably less than
one-third acre. The estimation of size is less than 700 square
feet. Riparian wetlands are not present elsewhere in the project
area because of steep topography and the presence of bedrock
along the shores. Alternate 4 does not impact any wetlands (See
Table 1).
C. Impacts to Plant Communities
Direct impacts, in terms of the area of the plant community
impacted, are summarized in Table 1. These figures are
preliminary and may change with road design.

l
Table 1 Summary of Plant Community Impacts
Acres
Alignment Upland Wetland
Alternate 1 0.2 0.1
Alternate 2 0.3 0.1
Alternate 3 0.4 0.1
Alternate 4 1.6 0.0
2. Wildlife
Common mammals that may be found within the study area include
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus Virgin ianus), red fox Uroc on
cinereoargentus), gray squirrel Sciurus caroliniensis), raccoon
(Procyon lotor beaver Castor canadensis) and Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana).
Bird species that are common to the area are pied-billed grebe
(PPodilymbus podiceps), great blue heron Ardea herodias , wood duck
Aix s onsa turkey vulture (Cathartes aura red-tailed hawk Buteo
jamaicensis), Mourning dove Zenaida macroura), tufted titmouse
Parus bicolor and American robin Turdus migratorius).
Reptiles and amphibians native to the area are spotted
salamander Amb stoma maculatum mud salamander (Psuedotriton
montanus), American toad Bu o americanus), gray tree frog H la
chr soscelis southern leopard frog (Rana sh enoce hala snapping
turtle Che ra serpentina), five-lined skint (Eume?ces fasciatus),
black racer Coluber constricter), Rat snake Ella he obsoleta),
Redbelly snake Storeria occipitonaculata), Copperhead (Agkistrodon
controtrix) and timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus).
Any alteration of the natural environment (e.g. placement of
fill, cutting of trees) affects wildlife. Development in an area
usually results in a tradeoff between positive and negative impacts.
For example, removing forested vegetation has a negative impact on
wildlife dependent on forested vegetation and a positive impact on
field and open habitat species.
One important function of river corridors is that they also
serve as wildlife corridors. Mammals travel along these corridors
and birds utilize these areas during migration. Contiguous tracts of
habitat are to wildlife what highways are to people.
3. Fisheries
An ecological classification of "Smallmouth" for the Upper
Little River is provided by 'Fish (1968). This classification
includes Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui), rock bass
7
(Ambloplites ruprestris), and crayfish as species inhabiting this
river. A North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission fisheries
biologist was contacted to identify any special concerns this project
may have on fish resources. A concern with sedimentation was
mentioned. This section of the Upper Little River receives little
fishing pressure.
Possible impacts to fish include temporary or permanent habitat
degradation throughout a watercourse due to sedimentation. Removal
of pools, riffles, logs, or other hiding places at bridge
construction sites may be a concern.
4. Water Resources
The project occurs within the Catawba River basin. The North
Carolina Department of Environmental Management (NC-DEM 1991) has
classified all major water bodies in the state. These classifi-
cations reflect the "best use" of these waters. The Upper Little
River is a Class C water. Its best use is for "aquatic life propaga-
tion and survival, fishing wildlife, and secondary recreation." No
data from the Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network are
available.
. Impacts may include increased sedimentation from construction.
Potential impacts include increased concentration of toxic compounds
from highway runoff, increased water temperatures due to removal of
riparian vegetation, and increased atmospheric deposition of the
byproducts of internal combustion engines. Sediment runoff should be
controlled as much as possible. Strict adherence to Best Management
Practices will be implemented during project construction.
5. Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records were checked
for the presence of protected plant and animal species present in the
study area. No protected species are known to occur here. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists Blue Ridge goldenrod Soli
dago spithamaea), Heller's blazing star (Lia?tris helleri), and
spreading avens Geum radiatum) as federally protected species for
Caldwell County (Table 2). Only candidate species, not protected
species, are listed for Alexander County. The project area does not
support habitat suitable for this species; therefore, no impacts are
anticipated.
8
Table 2 USFWS List of Protected Species for Alexander (A)
and Caldwell (C) Counties.
County Scientific Name Common Name Status
C Geum radiatum Spreading Avens E
C Liatris Helleri Heller's Blazing Star T
C Solidago Spithamaea Blue Ridge Goldenrod T
E-Endangered. A taxon that is threatened with extinction in the
foreseeable future.
T-Threatened. A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the
foreseeable future.
6. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the United
States Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States".
The subject project is classified as a CE and will likely come
under Provisions of Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in
part, by another federal agency, and that the activity is
"categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it
is included within a category of actions which neither individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary
authority of the Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project borders Caldwell County, a county
containing designated Mountain Trout Waters. Approval from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and concurrence from the Army
Corps of Engineers for the proposed project will be obtained prior to
construction.
Bridge No. 99 crosses a Duke Power Company's licensed lake
project. Therefore, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
will require a permit to authorize construction within this area.
7. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide
Permit.. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be strictly
enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream/wetland ecosystems.

B.
C.
Historical and Cultural Resources
1. Historic and Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section
106 requires that if a federally-funded, licensed or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of the
potential effect (APE) were provided by NCDOT and reviewed with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
SHPO concurred with NCDOT's opinion that there are no properties
within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), including the bridge
itself, that were eligible for or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (the letter of concurrence is included in the
Appendix).
2. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has reviewed the
project area for archaeological resources. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on the
present knowledge of the area, it is highly unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. The SHPO recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
These comments are made pursuant to
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
Historic Preservation's Regulations for
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 of the National
the Advisory Council on
Compliance with Section 106,
Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of construction and land
acquisition projects on prime and important farmland soils. Such soils
are defined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked
to determine whether any of the alternatives under study will impact
farmland soils. The SCS responded that no prime or important farmland
soils will be impacted by any one of the four alternatives studied.
Therefore, further consideration under the auspices of the Act is not
required (see the Appendix for forms).
E. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The drainage area for Upper Little River at this location is
approximately 40.0 square miles. Alexander County is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance Emergency Program, while Caldwell County is a
. ..
10
participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This site is
designated as a flood hazard area in both counties but is not within the
limits of the published detailed study. The Flood Boundary maps for
Alexander and Caldwell Counties show the approximate limits of the
100-year floodplain. (See Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The floodplain in the
area of the crossing is mostly rural and wooded. The proposed replacement
will not have any significant effect on the floodplain.
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
The project is located within the eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Alexander and Caldwell
Counties has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation
control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to
this project.
Only one receptor is located near each terminus of the project. Due
to the set-back distance of the receptors and predicted low traffic volume
of the proposed facility, these receptors will not perceive a substantial
change in their acoustical environment. Also, the noise transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural features and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate any future obtrusive traffic noise.
Hence, the traffic noise and air quality impacts from the proposed project
will not be significant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements in Title 23 of the code
of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (highway traffic noise) and Part 770 (air
quality), and no additional reports are required.
G. Other Resources
The bridge replacement will not affect the quality of human life or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
No businesses or homes are to be relocated. Therefore, no impact on
families or communities is anticipated.
No effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project
is not expected to affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in
the area.
H. Summary
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
CC/plr
Upton V
% Globe l21
90
-'Patte?.or K
A 9 L U E
e c
°olletlswlle V-almea
++ lcao
l
1
,Gamawall,I
?? 18 Y Hu son
`\Hato Gr 7711
\ am
1 7
4
b
Creek 16 +
11 -t we Valley
t ALEXANDER
r ?iaylorsrdlI
* „ffi,H l
90 t S S °fI
1s t Hiddetnle
Little River ,. rt.
I 4 Stnny
i I ?. r ` ? U rj
?O
J !U
W ' Cc
LAJ
? 10
z
SR 1744 v k
J
- 1--?'
8R I1 a$ tua
N '
ULA
r
N
?.
SR 11343
BRIDGE NO. 99
gn 143
r tt? urz C1
Jf .
--- --` --- - - --- ?ll _
1-0-0-0-STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

?? ? SAY
'n 1-0113

Lu
0-1
l
Ulm
.^..?I.__LA KE.?.?
/ / r 1
?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGH\VAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 99
ALEXANDER / CALDWELL COUNTIES
B-2118
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
l t
- •,id ,m ? r # •a `? Mfr 1? ?' +?.°i 4 { '? ?. ?''"t '°y ls? °t
y a
9 ~
L ,
v
n ? h
INC
LU
F j
?. ,: + aul;° ?. ' '?' t-', , s .• ,may},
N
'Iwi
5
m Y'
4 e
r
Ilk
k F
low re?"hr
? nt ? .??. ? ?,? ? " w[ ?+sa? ? {? f? ti?'• yr i i,.?{ ? ?N?..
ri
.
s
n ..
41
n ? w* 5
x
''11y
? d
y 1:? 'M '?.. X + TYa`r*r''"`

w y, a 2

BR I DGE NO. 99
ALEXANDER/CALDWELL
COUNTIES B-2118
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
fI:
it
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH

l Lu
U Q C
f
1 State
1
State
BETHLEHEM. CO
G
cy)
x 1146 cc
v N
U

e Rd. 1184
Sao
Q s
..\ o U
Slate Rd. 1222
cr
PROJECT SITE \
(BRIDGE NO.99) i
i
c7i
Rd.
ZONE A
1143 O Stoke
T
' M
m /
•: D `o? 4? ? O o
cli
V
N
.. .
ZONE A LAKE:<:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ALEXANDER COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 99
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
B-2118
5/92 FIG. 4-1
r t:aZtr,i..
PROJECT SITE
(BRIDGE NO.99)

'mac
E300
NOARY
ZONE X
F
0
9
3
+r
r,+
F156
r_
ZONE X
Caldwell County
Unincorporated Areas
370039 t
inr
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
o BRANCH
CALDWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 99
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
B-2118
5/92 FIG. 4-2
s
\?_? ?• u-
` a ?• OC W Z o
J II m - % / ??' % W Q Q O
ZO 0 W U Z W
U. 0
?a0? F-Z=
O
c r h P. :; 1 ?l?_ •? ,??__? w O
:i cc C:) J
N
- J1 0
ix LO
IL)
cn 0.
E-1 m
.-? H z _fl :lr
1-3
W COUNTY
P4 M
R OUNTY
/ S 1144 v \. - -? '/I? ^I
? ? ,.-? P;? ` _ ? .?:. +•? •-off / ? ? ?
? I L'3 ®c?4/ ~ 1, - aaH\.\• © AK Q^I..
jJ! _411 +? r ?- •+
,? 1 0
r Q •;_ / ` .
01
r
SR i i `51 I -
.-
'
_ \ I ._ I O \ • If 7f
a
cr-
dry / ?Jy , ? '-? CD \

a
fit
+\ ?I/ _ VIII ?1 II???I/ ? \ \ ?? IN f?\ I
w?
7
?C

Co
I ?
cy-
SR 1144
03
°0
COUNTY I-j
R/v
- 07
t
- jr 1 7.-
?.? '/_111 °I ? :?'. - -- ,+'1??0 ?\ ;.•?. __.?`..
i? Lo jY] /. 1 ?? 1
aJ
?• ,z cn =I
/ I of
0000
000000
a d I
y/ \
C-D
r ?? ? ?? 111 r 1 'v / d 1
SC?A7j o
r •», Dlr.
•?'Y Gwr, vd??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
April 14, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 99 over Upper Little
River on SR 1756/SR 1143, Alexander and
Caldwell Counties, B-2118, BRZ-17+56(1),
ER•92-8160
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of March 31, 1992, concerning the above
project.
We have reviewed the documentation submitted concerning Bridge
No. 99. We concur with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's determination that the bridge is not eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places since
better representatives of its type still exist in the state.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation
questions concerning the above
,gledhill-Earley, environmental
4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook

and consideration. If you have
comment, please contact Renee
review coordinator, at 919/733-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
Houston
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

0
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 Now Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
March 31, 1992
( ?b
In Reply Rotor To:
HB-NC
Dr. David Brook y- ?{
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ??? ?;?t?• f j
Department of Cultural Resources r? y,
109 East Jones Street 71j,`?
Raleigh, NC 27601?JQRANC?1
Dear Dr. Brook:
Subject: Section 106 Consultation, Replacement of Bridge 99 over
Upper Little River on SR; 1756/SR 1143, Caldwell and
Alexander Counties, B-2118, BRZ-1756(1)
In your January 31, 1992 correspondence concerning the subject
bridge, you asked for additional information to aid in your
determination of its eligibility for inclusion to the National
Register. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
has gathered this information, along with a set of photographs, in
response to your request. A copy of NCDOT's letter and the one set
of photographs are being submitted for your review.
If you have any questions, or need information beyond what is
submitted here, please contact Mr. Brad Hibbs in our office at 856-
4350. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
.i;
C
& -z?
For icholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc:
.... Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. , NCDOH
,VA : J
STA't
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource
Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
January 31, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 99 over Upper
Little River on SR 1 143/SR 1756, Alexander and
Caldwell Counties, B-211 8, BRZ-1756(1),
ER 92-7727
Dear Mr. Graf:
1q,

D; ?? ? X992
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of January 9, 1992, forwarding additional
information concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the information and aerial photographs regarding historic
structures located within the area of potential effect. We concur with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) finding that no
buildings are located within the area of potential effect. As for Icard Dam,
we feel this potentially eligible structure 1s located outside the area of
potential effect and does not need to be considered in your project planning.
However, we cannot concur at this time with NCDOT's findings that Bridge
No. 99 is not eligible for listing in the National Register. Our information
concerning metal truss bridges, North Carolina's Metal Truss Bridges: An
Inventory and Evaluation, 1979, is thirteen years old and many of the metal
truss bridges included in the inventory have already been demolished. Bridge
.a No. 99 is the only Pratt Pony type metal truss bridge in Alexander and
Caldwell counties. Bridge No. 99 should, therefore, be reevaluated in the
context of extant Pratt Pony metal truss bridges. Photographs of the bridge
and bridge maintenance records may reveal pertinent information concerning
the bridge's material and structural integrity.
This information will enable us to determine if Bridge No. 99 is indeed
eligible for listing in the National Register. We will complete our review of
this project upon receipt of the requested information.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

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.
Si rely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 'E"J. Ward
B. Church
.s
4y • • lOQ7t? AdOO
• h
U.S. (Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I t7b he carnorered by t=eder.3l Agency) Dan Ct Land Evaluation Necurst Ncv
Name Ot Project lb Feaenl Agency Involvea
Proposed Landx se County And State
e--e- 3r. r O q L A?exc rdec' CG\v.,,,
PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Recnved ay SCS
Ooes the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do nor complete additional parrs of this (arm). ? -~
M41or Croats) Farmaole Land In Govt. Junsdtaton Amount of Firm" As Ostineu in PPA
G 0z J Aem: 3 oa % a Acres:
I&nw Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Ot Loc:W Site Assessment System Oats Land Evaluation Returned BY SCS
Gp2 A-; L5
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative S,ta man
Site A Site a Site C Site 0
A. Total Acres To Be Converted (Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indireetiv
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be ccmp)ersd by SCSJ Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Q
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted G . 0 la L o / o CD
0. Percentage Of FarnAand In Govt. Jurisdicrion With Sartre Or Higher Relative Value .O f' ti' p
PART V JTo be completed by SCSJ Land Evaluation Criterion
L.. Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sa/eof0to 100Poina)
PART V 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Sits Acsessrttent Criteria (These uitena an anplaimO/n 7CFR 658.5(b! Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Loc31 Government
S. Oi=nea From Urban Builtuo Area
13. (Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
FL Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Suo rt Services
1Q On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm SunoorT Services
17- Comoatibili With Existin Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
'ART VII (To become/ered by Federal Agencyj
rtutuuvo value car n-aamlant: frrom Parr vi 100
iv l Si?AuJ?ent ( romParr W aa0va ora local rss rnr 160
TOTAL POINTS (Toe/ of above ? linos) 260
fta Silpcted: Oats Of Selection
swan For Setearon:
Well A Local Site Acsetsrnent UsaV
Yes ? No ?