19930245 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
°C. BOX 1890
WILMINGTCN, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
May 17, 1993
Action ID. 199302146 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. Jack Ward
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward
}
3
Reference your April 12, 1993 application for Department of the Army
authorization to replace Bridge Number 5 on S.R. 1178 over Lower Creek, near
Lenoir, in Caldwell County, North Carolina. You are proposing to replace the
above referenced structure on existing location. No wetlands will be impactec.
by the construction. This project has been coordinated with the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission. (WRC).
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.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 14 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
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 nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit 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 nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked.
Also, this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that
period, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification
e
{ µ_

-2-
or the activity complies with any subsequent modification of --he nationwide
permit authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit
authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that
the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under
construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the
nationwide permit will remain authorized provided the activity is completed
within 12 months of the date of the nationwide permit'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].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
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
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
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Chris Goudreau
Route 6, Box 685
Marion, North Carolina 28752
I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANS ION
1 ??????(((
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I DA;EI o o 3 I
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning
DEM, DEHNR
Room 625-D
Archdale Building
--- ...? ..o..v-? ?n?a _.___. - u--r vrt rvvrt rnwrt?nw nvn -
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

im
? f
r * s, yTq?o
? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
April 12, 1993
13?
Dlsti,ct E i i lneel I
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
W=1m_ngtor, North Carolina 2840;2
J - Z.aTT_ON . Rea" l atory Branch
Dear S17 :
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subs eCt : CaldWe_l County - Replacemel]t of Bridge No. 5 on
SR ' 1'= over Tower C,-e= T.I.P. No. B-2524
S-aLe Prolec_ No. 8. _-3180`'_
n -p.
.. - ?.?..:
m:_C ',,c th Car -li :a De- a,_ ?mr1]t (. ?7 ansc ?r-a -,_
LO r= lac- the a c 'e-r;i=reYii =d Str'it L .l-e on 6xistli2a
_?ca ion . Trait W1__ stiJ detoured onto a temcorar_ brio a2
dllr _ y, c o n,_. t r u c t i o l 2 of he n -, ?L idge
At ic' ed??:i you information i a c--py of the- p_o-et".'_
31 a71i2 ] ? r T vr--" t ]e 'Jrop oS d Wor',i. Th prof it is being
p ?"_. esse l by file ." II] gi?Wd' Admi niStr3ty Qn d : a
Cdtego_icdi E1C__iS?On\ in a c c _13122 With 23 CFR /_.1_?{ ?, .
? e we o nrocee'' with i li:-, pro-e-t under a
NC _i^" i12 ac?orda-ac Wit 33 C F R 33 i Appelic_x A
_sS,ued N c v ember 1 1 !-911 , by the J . S, Army -orpS
Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendi_H A
C; of the: e _ =cti? atiel:s w-11 be fcllowed in the construe Zion
of tYI_s project.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
? ') w?.l? be required pr?.o? to
Wildlife Resou,ces Commission (WRC will - t
authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment. NCDOT hereby requests review by WRC.
r

If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone]
Si rely
B. J. 'Quin? P.E.
As. nt ager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJC/cl
Attachment
cc. Mr. Steve Lund, COE, ?shevilie Field Office
V??r. John Dorney, DEM, DEHNR
?r. John Parker, DC114, DEHNR
Mr. David Yow NCWRC
Kr. Cnr s Gaudreau, WRC, otri.C` 8, 'Tarj'?n
MS . Stephan e -Toud eau . 'SRC.. Marion
Mr. Kally Barger, P.'-:!., Project Management
M1 . L Jn Mo1 P . , Dew
Mr .L. Ha_kins , .. E . , Hydrau_ ic s
Mfr . Join S ?it z, Jr. , P . E. , Structure De: _g??
.r . Tom. Shearin ; P. E. , Roadway Des - gn,
A
Xr. W.E. Hoke, P.E., D'v4sion 11 Engineer.
MS. Leigh Cobb, Plann; g & Environmental
11
I r
Caldwell County
SR 1178
Bridge No. 5 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1178(1)
State Project 6.503236 (Prelim. Engr. Funds)
State Project 8.2731801 (R/W & Constr. Funds)
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2524
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1L ? J3
TE

L.Q J! Ward, P . E . , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

4al 3 Nic, P6, ? V q- r- , Z L 6,,-! ?' ?'
h s G f, P.E.
'? ivi ion Administrator, FHWA
' r r
Caldwell County
SR 1178
Bridge No. 5 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1178(1)
State Project 6.503236 (Prelim. Engr. Funds)
State Project 8.2731801 (R/W & Constr. Funds)
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2524
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1992
Documentation Prep ec?Jby Wang Engineering Company:
,.•,?.?H CAR01
.,.•'FESSrp'• . 9 '
Ja s • Greenh 11, P.E. - : SEAL ?
Pr ject Manager 12979
??'••,s M. GREG; ;.•?.
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
on more, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
L gh Cgbb
roject Manager
Caldwell County
SR 1178
Bridge No. 5 over Lower Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1178(1)
State Project 6.503236 (Prelim. Engr. Funds)
State Project 8.2731801 (R/W & Constr. Funds)
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2524
Bridge No. 5 has been included in the current Transportation
Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The
project is not expected to have a significant impact on the human
or natural environment and has been classified as a "Categorical
Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 5 should be replaced on the existing location as
shown by Alternate 3 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 40 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 24-foot
travelway way with 8-foot shoulders.
Approximately 200 feet of rebuilt roadway approaches will
be required. The approach roadway should consist of a 24-foot
pavement with 8-foot shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 90 feet
in length should be provided. The elevation of the new structure
should be approximately the same as the floor elevation of the
existing bridge.
During construction of the replacement bridge, traffic will
be maintained on-site with a temporary bridge.
The estimated cost of construction, based on current prices,
is $434,200 including right of way and utility relocation costs.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999
Transportation Improvement Program, is $270,000.
II. 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. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any
possible impacts.
Since the project is located in a designated "trout" county,
approval must be obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Further coordination will be done during
the permit application phase.
The State Historic Preservation officer has determined that
a comprehensive archaeological survey is needed for this project.
This survey will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1178 (Hibriten Drive) is classified as an urban collector
in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is a major
thoroughfare route in the mutually adopted June, 1987 Lenoir -
Hudson Thoroughfare Plan. No widening or upgrading of this route
is currently planned.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1178 has a 20-foot
pavement with 6-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical
alignment is generally rolling. Horizontal alignment of the
structure and north approach is tangent with an approximate 14
degree curve on the south approach.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
residential, agricultural, commercial (gas station and car wash),
and recreational (a privately-owned, public-use golf course).
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include
telephone lines, electric lines, a 12" waterline which is
attached to the upstream side of the bridge, and a loll sewerline
which is located immediately adjacent to the downstream side of
the bridge. All utilities will require minor relocations.
The projected traffic volume of 3500 vehicles per day (VPD)
for the anticipated construction year of 1995 is expected to
increase to approximately 7000 VPD by the year 2015. The
projected volumes include 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT). A two-lane bridge will
adequately accommodate the anticipated future traffic at level of
service "C".
The existing bridge, as shown in Figure 3, was constructed
in 1963. The single span structure consists of a paved timber
deck on I-beams. The substructure is composed of wood abutments.
The structure is located 12 feet above the stream bed and has a
50-year flood frequency.
Overall length of the bridge is 45 feet. Clear roadway
width is 19.3 feet. The posted weight limit is 14 tons.
Bridge No. 5 has a sufficiency rating of 24.2 compared to a
rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 5 during
the three year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1991.
School buses cross the studied bridge six times daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 5 were
studied. In each alternative, a bridge 90 feet long with a deck
width of 40 feet would be provided. This structure will
accommodate two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders. The approach
should consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot shoulders. On
all three alternatives, the proposed bridge and roadway elevation
should be approximately the same elevation as the existing.
The alternatives studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as
follows:
Alternative 1 - involves replacement of the bridge on new
location immediately east (upstream) of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment of the bridge
approaches include approximately 1100 feet of new pavement.
The existing structure would be used for maintenance of
traffic during the construction period. The design speed
for this alternate is 40 mph, dictated by the 10-degree
horizontal curvature on the south approach.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge on new
location immediately west (downstream) of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment of the bridge
approaches include approximately 1200 feet of new pavement.
The existing structure would be used for maintenance of
traffic during the construction period. The 7-degree curve
on the south approach allows a design speed of 50 mph for
this alternate.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the
structure along the existing alignment. Improvements to
alignment of the bridge approaches includes approximately
200 feet of new pavement. A temporary on-site detour would
be provided during construction for maintenance of traffic.
This alternate will be constructed on tangent horizontal
alignment based on a 40 mph design speed. The adjacent 14-
degree curve on the south approach is not anticipated to be
a part of this project; however, if during final design, the
project is extended into this curve, it will be an exception
to the design criteria.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service provided by SR 1142.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternatives discussed in this section and shown on Figure 2
are based on functional plans prepared on an uncontrolled photo
map. All distances and directions are approximate. Final
construction plans will be based on detailed survey information
and may slightly vary from the alternatives presented here.
3
1 r
A.
V. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at
the studied bridge site is necessary. Existing roads in the area
were examined and the length of a detour on existing routes was
found to be excessive (5.3 miles).
In view of this factor and the volume of traffic, it is
clear that traffic should be maintained at the existing bridge
site during construction.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Structure $172,800 $172,800 $172,800
Roadway Approaches 182,700 212,700 72,700
Detour Structure &
Approaches - 0 - - 0 - 100,000
Structure Removal 4,500 4,500 4,500
Engineering &
Contingencies 65,000 60,000 50,000
Right of Way & 220,500 44,750 34,200
Utilities
Total $645,500 $494,750 $434,200
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 5 should be replaced at its existing location as
shown by Alternate No. 3 in Figure 2.
The recommended improvements will include about 200 feet of
new roadway approaches. This includes 100 feet on each approach.
A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot shoulders should be provided on
the approaches. A 40-foot clear roadway width is recommended on
the replacement structure. The cross section on the structure
will consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot shoulders. The
proposed 40-foot bridge width will accommodate the anticipated
design year traffic of 7000 VPD at level of service "C".
This alignment will provide a minimum 40 mph design speed.
If final detailed design extends the project into the 14 degree
curve on the adjacent south approach, the curve will be an
exception to the design criteria.
4
Traffic will be maintained on-site with a temporary detour
during the construction period. The temporary detour will consist
of a bridge 45 feet long and will be located immediately east
(upstream) of the existing structure. The detour roadway will
consist of a 20-foot wide pavement with 6-foot shoulders. The
detour alignment will provide a minimum 30 mph design speed.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, it is recommended
that the new structure be a bridge approximately 90 feet long.
It is anticipated the elevation of the new bridge and roadway
will be approximately the same as the elevation of the existing.
The existing bridge and roadway are above the 50-year design
storm frequency. The length and height of the bridge may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by future hydraulic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that
Bridge No. 5 be replaced at the existing location and that
traffic be maintained on-site with a temporary detour. (See
letter in Appendix.)
Alternates No. 1 and 2 were not favored due to higher
estimated costs and the increased amount of right of way
required.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion"
due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental
consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse
effect on the quality of the human or natural environment with
the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations. No change in land use is
expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation. Right of
way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
5
The project is located at Lenoir in Caldwell County near the
western edge of the Piedmont physiographic province in the
foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains. The study area is located
in a setting of small commercial development, farm fields, and
scattered residential sites. Farming is a major industry in this
predominantly rural county.
NOISE & AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air
Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for Caldwell
County 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 Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
770 do not apply to this project.
The project will increase traffic volumes only moderately;
therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will not be
significant. Noise levels could increase during construction but
will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all
burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Life
Disturbed remnants of Piedmont/Low Mountain/Alluvial Forest
exist in a narrow strip along the banks of the creek and between
the golf course and SR 1178 to the west. These fringe
communities are remains of a mixed alluvial hardwoods/mixed
subcanopy hardwoods/mixed shrubs. The following species were
found in these forested borders:
Canopy Trees: Sycamore - Platanus occidentalis
River birch - Betula nigra
Wild cherry - Prunus serotina
Black walnut - Juglans nigra
Poplar - Liriodendron tulipifera
Subcanopy Trees: Red maple - Acer rubrum
Willow - Salix sericea
Alder - Alnus serrulata
Dogwood - Cornus florida
Shrubs, vines, and herbs in the area are largely early
successional species typical of disturbed areas.
6
The minimal removal of vegetation associated with the
construction of approaches and temporary detour should have a
negligible impact to fauna utilizing the area because it
represents only a tiny fraction of the available habitat.
Animal Life
Due to the impact of prior disturbance and the ongoing human
activity in this area, its value as wildlife habitat is severely
limited. Species likely to occur include the following mammals:
eastern cottontail - Sylvilagus floridanus
possums - Didelphis virginiana
short-tailed shrew - Blarina brevicauda churchi
eastern chipmunk - Tamias striatus striatus
white-footed mouse - Peromyscus leucopus leucopus
hispid cotton rat - Sigmodon hispidus komareki
meadow vole - Microtus p pennsylvanicus
woodchuck - Marmota monax monax
Various songbirds may feed or nest in the area, especially
those that might prefer open fields or thickets along the creek.
Few birds were seen or heard during the field visit. No birds of
special concern nest in the area.
Aquatic organisms would include crayfish and other
invertebrates important in aquatic food chains could be found in
the creek. This portion of Lower Creek is too small to have any
fishing significance. The following small fish may occur:
Rosyside dace - Clinostomus funduloides
Bluehead chub - Nocomin leptocephalus
Golden shiner - Notemigonus crysoleucas
Creek chub - Semotilus atromaculatus
Except for the aquatic species, most of the wildlife
frequenting the area would move away from the construction site.
Siltation would be the major concern at this site in order to
protect the water quality and stream life. Other animals likely
to be here are largely species adapted to living in association
with human activity. The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) lists "No special concerns" for this area.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
The soil maps and descriptions provided by the 1989 Soil
Survey of Caldwell County indicate that most of the soil in the
immediate vicinity of Bridge #5 is Wehadkee loam, frequently
flooded. However, as the elevation increases in the south and
east quadrants, Alternates No. 1 and No. 2 would encounter Masada
loam, 8-15% slopes.
7

The Wehadkee loam, frequently flooded soil is nearly level
and is poorly drained. It is on flood plains along streams.
Areas of this soil are generally long and narrow. Depth to
bedrock is more than 60". Surface run-off is slow or ponded.
The permeability is moderate and the shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil ranges from strongly acid to slightly acid
throughout except where lime has been added. The seasonal high
water table is at or near the surface. Seasonal wetness is the
main limitation, and frequent flooding is a hazard. However, at
this site, it appears that both Lower Creek and a small stream
coming into the creek from the north by the golf course have been
channeled and much of the adjacent soil artificially drained.
Construction and grading at the car wash in the north quadrant
has also rearranged and filled areas to within a few feet of the
creek bank. Less fill was used in the golf course in the west
quadrant but it has also been altered by the channeling of water
drainage.
The Masada loam soil is well drained. It is found on stream
terraces adjacent to flood plains along streams. Surface run-off
is medium, and the hazard of erosion is severe in unvegetated
areas. The permeability and the available water capacity are
moderate. The shrink-swell potential is moderate. The soil is
very strongly acid or strongly acid except where lime has been
added, such as the field to the south and the golf course to the
west. Depth to bedrock is more than 60".
Erosion of this soil is a hazard at construction sites.
Therefore, erosion and sediment control practices are needed
where soil is without plant cover. Neither of the soils here are
considered prime farmlands. However, Masada Loam, 8 - 15% slopes
are of statewide and local importance.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important
farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
project will impact farmland soils and to complete Form AD-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating. The completed form is
included in the Appendix.
According to the SCS, Alternatives 1 and 2 will impact 0.59
acres of statewide and local important farmland soil and
Alternate 3 will not impact any prime or important farmland
soils. This represents very little of the total 78,560 acres of
prime or important farmland soils found in Caldwell County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006
indicates that the site's assessment and relative scores are 52.2
for Alternate 1 and 47.4 for Alternate 2 out of a possible 260.
A score of 160 or more would indicate that mitigation should be
considered.
8
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland
soil, as defined by the SCS, is minimal and therefore, no
mitigation is proposed.
Water Resources
Lower Creek rises in the foothills of the Southern
Appalachians and flows southwest through the City of Lenoir,
turns south and eventually empties into Lake Rhodhiss (Catawba
River) near Morganton. Bridge #5 is located approximately 14-15
miles upstream from the mouth of Lower Creek. At this point, the
creek is about 25' wide with an average depth of 811-10". There
are no pools and the bottom type was medium sand.
The current stream classification for this portion of Lower
Creek is C. Best usage for water of this class is aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Too small to have fishing
significance, Lower Creek's main concern would be the maintenance
of water quality and protection of downstream fisheries. Lower
Creek is not a trout stream or a tributary of a trout stream.
A small, deeply channeled creek runs into Lower Creek about
25' west of Bridge #5. This stream drains the area around the
golf course.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Data Base (May 1991) lists a
1989 sampling of Lower Creek at Harrisburg Street in Lenoir.
This site is downstream from Bridge #5. The taxa richness at
that site was 65/22 and the bioclassification was good - fair.
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction and after project completion.
Likely adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of
silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control
measures required of the contractor and specified in the State
approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. To avoid
adding to the silt load and degradation of this stream, "Best
Management Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented. No
channel changes, channel fills, or alteration of drainage
patterns are foreseen.
Potential impacts to Lower Creek which could result from
construction of a temporary on-site detour and structure include
increased sedimentation from channelization and erosion. Fill
material placement for the approach roadway may enter the stream,
scouring the channel bed on-site and downstream of the project.
Care should be taken to assure that fill used does not interfere
with the normal stream flow and is kept well away from the bed of
this flood-prone stream. Upon removal of the temporary on-site
detour, the stream and surrounding land will be restored to its
original condition.
With proper implementation of the Department's sediment and
erosion control measures and "Best Management Practices", overall
9

environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a
result of this project.
Caldwell County is a participant in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain
in the project area is shown in Figure 4.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-
plain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of
about the same magnitude. The floodplain in the adjacent area of
the crossing is woods, farm fields and a golf course. The amount
of floodplain and floodway to be affected is not considered to be
significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible
harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
Although wetland soil is indicated on soil maps, these soils
have largely been altered by filling or artificially draining.
As a result, almost no true wetlands remain, and the hydrology
has been altered. The creek does still have a tendency to flood
periodically, but that tendency has been greatly reduced in this
immediate area by channeling and fill. The wettest area
remaining is the corner of maintained golf course in the
northwest quadrant of the study area. It appears that no true
wetland remains at this site that possesses all required criteria
for "wetland". If the existing site or Alternate No. 1 is
chosen, then this area would not be impacted.
Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were contacted to obtain
current lists of protected species known to inhabit Caldwell
County. Due to the relatively small area to be investigated, an
on-site survey was conducted by carefully walking through the
entire area to search for species of concern. Special attention
was given if suitable habitat for a protected species was found.
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E) and Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal Candidate (C)
species have also been listed, but are not provided protection
under this Act. No survey was conducted to determine the
presence of candidate species.
Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) - (E)
An erect (1 to 5 dm tall) hirsute perennial herb with a
basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves arising from a
10

I
horizontal rhizome. Inflorescence terminal, a few - flowered,
indefinite cyme. Flowers actinomorphic with 5 hirsute green
sepals, fused at the base, and 5 separate bright yellow petals.
Stamens and pistils numerous, distinct; pistils simple, ovaries
superior and hirsute, persistent as a beak in fruit. Receptacle
ringed with dense, tan, stiff hairs. Fruit a hemispheric
aggregate of hirsute, beaked achenes. Flowers, June to October;
Fruits, July to October; Vegetative, May to October.
Range: Distribution includes the northwestern mountains of
North Carolina and eastern mountains of Tennessee.
Habitat: Endemic to balds on high mountains over 3800' in
elevation. This plant often occurs on steep rock faces and narrow
ledges.
This project site is under 1000' elevation and no rock faces
or ledges occur, therefore suitable habitat for spreading avens
is not found here. This project will not impact on spreading
avens as none grows in the area.
Heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri) - (T)
A small, erect ( 1 - 5 dm tall), glabrous perennial herb
with a thickened, rounded, cornlike rootstock. Narrow, linear,
entire, simple, alternate leaves are numerous and spirally
arranged. Flowers (florets) are small and sessile in a compact
head on a common enlarged receptacles, surrounded by an
involucre. The heads are arranged in an elongate, racemiform
inflorescence, flowering from top to bottom. Distinguishing
characteristics are its short stature and its very short pappus.
Fruit a cypsela (achene or nutlet by some authors), 2.5 to 5 mm
long, tan to blackish, somewhat cylindrical but tapered at the
base into a blunt point, ribbed, hairy, particularly along the
ribs; pappus of rather stout, capillary, barbellate bristles,
tan, 1/2 or less the length of the corolla tube. Flowers, July
to September; Fruits, August to October; Vegetative, July to
October.
Range: Northwestern Mountains of North Carolina; one
population in Alabama.
Habitat: Open, rocky outcrops, ledges, cliff faces and rocky
woods at elevations above 2800 feet.
No rocky outcrops occur at this site and the elevation is
less than 10001, therefore suitable habitat for this plant does
not occur at this site. This project will not impact on Heller's
blazing star.
Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidaao spithamaea) - (T)
An erect, caulescent, somewhat foul-smelling perennial herb
arising from short stout rhizomes. Stems angled above, 1-4 dm
tall, sparsely to densely pubescent or glabrate below. Leaves
basal and cauline, simple, alternate, serrate, smooth to slightly
scabrous above, glabrous beneath, ciliate. Lower leaves 3-10 cm
long and 1.5-4 cm wide with winged petioles; upper leaves
becoming smaller and sessile. Flowers are in compact heads
surrounded by involucral bracts in several series, firm,
glabrous, green-tipped, and rather narrow. Secondary
inflorescence densely corymbiform. Ray flowers 2-3 mm long,
yellow, pistillate, and fertile; disc flowers numerous, 20-60,
yellow, perfect and fertile. Calyx represented by a pappus of
11

white capillary bristles. Fruit a cypsela (achene or nutlet by
some authors), 2.5-3.0 mm long, subterete, several nerved,
pubescent. Flowers, July to September; Fruits, July to October;
Vegetative, July to October.
Range: Tennessee (Carter County) and North Carolina
mountains (Avery, Caldwell, Watauga, and Mitchell Counties).
Reports from Alabama and Georgia have not been recently
documented.
Habitat: Rock crevices and balds above 3800' in mountains.
Suitable habitat does not exist for Blue Ridge goldenrod in
this project area. This area is below 1000' elevation.
Therefore, this project will not impact Blue Ridge goldenrod.
Federal Candidate Species:
Diana Fritillary Butterfly (Speyeria diana) - (C)
Wings black basally and blue outward. Front wing markings
pale, almost white. Ventral hindwing essentially without silver
spots in discal area. Dark larvae are nocturnal and feed on
violets. The adult is little attracted to flowers and can be
baited with dung. Adults are found chiefly in the mountains
flitting along woodland roads.
A Liverwort (Bazzania Nudicaulis)* - (C)
A tiny non-vascular plant (0.8 - 1.5 mm wide) in wiry mats
with many stems denuded. Leaves are transversely inserted with
underleaves uniformly present and dentate. Plants brownish or
blackish.
On rock or bark of fir trees at high elevations, these
plants are usually found only on peaks above 5000 feet.
Mountain Bittercress (Cardamine clematitis) - (C)
A stoloniferous perennial with erect stems to 2.5 dm tall,
the lower stem densely pubescent. Basal leaves orbicular,
cordate, crenate, or remotely lobed; stem leaves pinnately
dissected with 1 or 2 pairs of lateral divisions, margins dentate
to crenate. Petals white, 5 to 19 mm long.
This plant grows in high elevation seeps, shaded outcrops,
and streambanks in the mountains of North Carolina.
Bent Avens (Geum geniculatum) - (C)
A perennial herb with basal rosette of leaves. The stem is
5 to 7 dm (19.5 to 2711) tall, slightly angled, and sparsely to
densely hairy. The basal leaves have 3 large terminal division,
and the stem leaves are 3-lobed or divided into 3 leaflets. The
flowers are on stalks from the end of stem branches, with 5
sepals spreading with glandular hairs. There are 5 pinkish,
whitish or lavender petals approximately the same length as the
sepals, almost trucate at the apex, and gradually narrowed to
prominent claws. Stamens and pistils are numerous. Flowering
occurs July to August.
Range includes the northwest mountains of North Carolina and
eastern Tennessee. Habitat includes wooded slopes and balds at
high elevations.
12
i 1
A Liverwort (Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii)* - (C)
A relatively large liverwort with long decurrent leaves on
upper side of stem, with margins turned back. Teeth of leaves
fewer than 10, large and several celled; leaves narrowly ovate.
Shoots 1.5 to 2 mm wide with creeping caudex and upright or
pendant shoots. Plantlets not produced.
Usually found on moist shaded rocks or underledges in the
mountains of North Carolina.
* Indicates no specimen from Caldwell County in at least 20
years.
The NCNHP files have no record of any federally protected
species occurring in the vicinity of this study site. Of the
species listed for Caldwell County by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, none would occur at this lower elevation in Caldwell
County. All listed species for this county occur in the higher
elevations and suitable habitat does not exist in the area
impacted by this project.
State Protected Species:
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by
the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of
Agriculture.
No species of state concern were reported by the NCWRC or
the Natural Heritage office for this site, nor were any found.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of
330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
Since this project is located in one of the 25 westernmost
North Carolina counties that contain Mountain Trout Waters, the
North Carolina Department of Transportation is required to obtain
approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and to fulfill its Section 404 permit obligations. A Section 401
Water Quality Certification, administered through the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, will be required. This certificate is issued for any
activity which may result in a discharge of dredged or fill
materials into waters for which a federal permit is required.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural
resources has been delineated and is shown on Figure 2.
13
There are no historic architectural resources in the
vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Officer was consulted and concurred with the above
statement. (See letter in Appendix.)
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the
project boundaries. However, since the project area has never
been systematically surveyed, the State Historic Preservation
Officer has recommended that a comprehensive archaeological
survey be conducted to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project. This survey will be accomplished prior to
construction.
IX. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that,
with proper implementation of the Department's erosion and
sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices", no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
construction of this project.
14
sF .
1
d
.60
'11 a 21 e/ FAP
18 -/ .
®? 327 a_
? 'nee
LENOIR 3A ;
POP. 13,748 ?`K T
11_•
'' b0
/ n
i
21
?i
I ti
117! ?
ma
it^.tt

16 ?\
000,
.000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
SR 1178, BRIDGE 5
OVER LOWER CREEK
CALDWELL COUNTY
B-2524
7 9 2 m ile FIG. i

HERMN MTN.
ELEV. 2265
J rur?
` i

DOWNSTREAM SIDE VIEW
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
B-2524
BRIDGE NO. 5
CALDWELL COUNTY
FIGURE 3

I
i
ZONE X \
ZONE X

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
Soo 0 500
- - ZONE X

100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
;PROJECT SITE1
i!B-2524 i
tI18P- Ij Ej--?
ONE X
ZONE X
ZONE X,-,.

B-2524
BRIDGE NO. 5
CALDWELL COUNTY
Guif Course 3inrlc ?
U
' .}t, ySfw7F °?
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. 0. Box 250
JAMES G. MARTIN North Wilkesboro, NC 28659
GOVERNOR August 26, 1992
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: B-2076, B-1013, B-2169, B-2116, & B-2524
Request for Concurrence in Preliminary Draft
Categorical Exclusion Documents
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. L. J. Ward, PE
Manager of Planning and Environmental
Branch
ATTN: Leigh Cobb
It). 9. yoke
FROM: W. E. Hoke, PE
Division Engineer - Division 11
As requested by letter to me from Mr. Jeff Williams of Wang
Engineering (the firm), we have the following comments
relative to design concepts selected by the.firm:
B-2076
Division concurs with the firm in Alternate 2, which improves
the alignment of SR 1580 in the vicinity of the bridge.
B-1013 It is agreed that construction of the proposed
structure must be in existing location. There appears to be
no feasible alternative.
Relative to handling of through traffic, no final
conclusion has been previously been reached by this office,
pending further research by the firm. There are negatives
associated with every alternative.
Although SR 1155 has been paved since project scoping
recommendation was made by this office for an on-site detour,
alignment and profile of SR 1155 are poor. A poor sight
distance exists at the intersection of SR 1155 with NC 113.
Therefore, preliminary conclusions are to avoid the use of
SR 1155 for a temporary detour during construction. It has
not been determined by this office if school buses would have
to utilize SR 1155 or how fire protection and emergency
services might be affected.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
a .
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE -2-
August 26, 1992
We agree in the selection of the on-site detour as described
in alternate No. 1; however, we do have concerns. Can
satisfactory alignment be achieved in the transition from NC
113 to the on-site detour without excessive right of way and
construction costs and associated irreversible proximity
damage to the residence in the northwest quadrant?
The property owner expressed his concern to the Location
party that he did not want a road going through his garden;
it should be noted, however, that garden topsoil can be
stoc:cpiled but the loss of buffer, noise barrier, aesthetics,
and stability of the rock cut is not reversible.
It should be noted that NC 113 traffic, if not required to
stop on the on-site detour, which would be very dangerous,
will necessitate moving stop signs on SR 1152 and SR 1157. A
stop ahead sign does not say "The stop sign has been moved
toward you XX feet and there is high speed traffic between
you and where the stop sign-was before it was moved."
These concerns should be considered during design with
improvements in sight distance and additional signing as
necessarv.
B-2169
Division concurs with the firm in Alternate 2, which
recommends closing of SP, 2233 and replacement of the bridge
in existing location.
B-2116
The firm concurs with Division that SR 1142 should not be
closed during construction. Division previously recommended
Alternative 1 on the assumption that use of existing
structure to handle traffic during construction would be more
economical than construction of a temporary structure. In
consideration of the cost studies we concur in Alternative 2.
--? B-2524
The firm concurs with Division recommendation in memorandum
to you dated April 3, 1990. (Ai-T. 5)
Please advise if you need additional information.
REP/bp
cc: Jeff Williams, PE
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date Of Lana Evaiuation Request May $ 1992
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 1 s
Name Of Project T.I.P. No. B-2524 (6.5003236) 1 Federal Agency Involved FHWA (Construction Only)
Proposed Land Use Highway I County And State Caldwell County, NC
.
PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional pars of this form). Acres Irrigated I Average Farm Size
Major Crop(s)
y .: w ,
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acces <:.. S(d Zt1; ?j °1.
Name Of; Local Site. Assessment; Ys nt:. Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres:.... 7 S (v U 96 3 9. y
Date Ladd Evaluation Returned By SCS
Iternative Site Rating
3 ?r
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site a Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 1.18 1.52 0.20 0. 20
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres In Site 1.18 1.52 0.20 .20
PART IV'-(T6 be.cornpletedby SCSF-'Land E aluatFeie> fnfo = -.
A: Tlosa[ 8rii A Ucrigae-farmlan?l
00
S. Total Acres Statewide-And. Local tmpmont:
G:' F We entao&-Gf PatYrdand fil County OS-L-& xEa`ti

.ICiRiedictiOiY,Wiftk58?Uttii?:Y,?flf
D'. Pgraerliage.Of F2dnftindiriGovt. ?. ' : µ ` ?? G v 0

fit.. . O

E'Y ^s
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluatioi-CrltErlon
• " rRetative.•Yalge?Q?Fairuilartc3'Ta , . ttz?,+?
y?? ?
? - ?? -?
?.- ? . -
' -
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 656.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use /O S S O
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 2.0
S
O
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government yv O
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services -- -- -
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average S S O
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 257 O O 0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 S' -11Z 0
10. On-Farm Investments ZD 10 /0 0
11. Effects Of Conversion On Fihm Support Services 2s
' O
I

12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 0
.0
0 10 en
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above ora local
site assessment) 160 3( 3 ! O
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 $Z. 2 47. O

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
D
(See Instructions on reverse sideJ Form AD-1006 i10-831
14 1
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K2
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
June 24, 1992
Ms.'Ruby D. Pharr
Environmental Consultant
111 York Street -
Morganton, NC 28655
SUBJECT: Request for special concerns regarding fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of 11 bridges to bew ^
replaced by the NCDOT _
Dear Ms. Pharr:
This correspondence responds to a request by you for any
special concerns the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has regarding fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity
of each of 11 bridges. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace these bridges with new
structures.
We have the following comments on these projects:
ALLEGHANY COUNTY; O tc?
Bridge #11 on NC ,113 over PineyBranch: This stream is a
tributary to Piney Fork,) which is Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water. PinelBranch may support wild brown trout. A
state listed snail may also occur within Fie wa ershed.
ANSON COUNTY
1) Bridge #199 on SR 1600 over Richardson Creek: This is a
large stream with significant warmwater fish habitat.
Species of particular concern include a listed fish
(Carolina darter, Special Concern) and several listed-or
proposed freshwater mussels, all of which have been reported
from nearby Rocky River tributaries. Many of these aquatic
species would be adversely affected by sedimentation of the
stream bed at or below the construction site.
2) Bridge #207 on SR 1610 over Cribs Creek: Although this is a
smaller tributary than the previous site, similar concerns
Memo Page 2 June 24, 1992
exist regarding fish and mussel habitat. The Carolina
darter has been collected from Cribs Creek.
NOTE: Both of these bridge sites presently involve sharp
road curves in the immediate vicinity of the existing
structures. For purposes of improving safety, NCDOT may
propose relocation of these bridges up- or downstream, using
existing bridges as on-site detours. Additional aquatic and
riparian habitat affected by such operations should be
included in the study area.
BURKE COUNTY
1) Bridge #210 on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek: No special
concerns.
2) Bridge #102 on SR 1438 over Johns River: This stream
supports an excellent smallmouth bass fishery in the
vicinity of the bridge replacement. A federal candidate
mussel species is also known from the Johns River system.
CALDWELL COUNTY
1) Bridge #5 on SR 1178 over Lower Creek: No special concerns.
2) Bridge #106 on SR 1142 over Lower Creek: No special
concerns.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Bridge 1213 on SR 1512 over First Broad River: No special
concerns regarding fishery resources. A state threatened
mussel has been reported from the First Broad River
watershed.
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Bridge #126 on US 64 over Clinchfield Railroad: No special
concerns.
SURRY COUNTY
Bridge 164 on SR 2233 over Fisher River: No special
concerns.
WATAUGA COUNTY
Bridge 298 on SR 1580 over Watauga River: The stream is
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the vicinity of
the bridge and provides excellent fishing for brown trout.
Fishing pressure is heavy in this area. A state listed
endangered mussel occurs in the Watauga River system.
Y
Memo Page 3 June 24, 1992
Although we have no special concerns in the vicinity of
several of -these projects, the NCWRC expects ?Fi?CDb?to
routinely minimize ac?versempacts. to fish _ an _wildlife re- sources
in?he-vicinity of-bridge replacements.i The NCDOT should install
and-mal -E -! sedimentation controi measures throughout the life
of each project and-prevent wed concrete from contacting water
f lowing _in or i- nto these streams .
While no special wildlife concerns exist for any of these
bridge sites, replacement of bridges with spanning structures of
some type, as opposed-to pipe culverts, is recommended in all
cases_.. Span g structures allow wildlife passage a ong
streambanks' r`educing_population fragmentation an ve i.cle-
related mortality at highway crossings.
-- . -
For additional information regarding endangered or
threatened species in the vicinity of these construction sites,
please contact Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Section Manager, at [phone]. If you need further
assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to
review and comment on this project.
Sin erely,
(1`'
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
John Alderman, Piedmont Region Nongame Project Leader

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
r ?c?l
rg JUt 201992
D1V1S1p? ,?
?,? 1-l1GH , / OF ^C>
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancii of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categoricai
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/7 33-47 63.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: 11L_. J. Ward 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett

It
Relace Caldwell County, B-2524, 8 615003236, ER 92-8536
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
this pr We recommend that no historic
located within the are of ducted l for effect.
architectural survey be project boundaries.
There are no known recorded
has never been systematically sue eyed to determine
However, the protect area ea
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
ts on
that may be damaged ebe assessedhpriorto cthe projet. Potential
tiatCOn o construction
unknown resources should
activities.
July 16, 1992

1d

(?
? r1r)
C\j i

0
L LO
?
C m
n
e
e U t e
4
t
1 ?
a i
C 8t ??.+
H
y
2 2
W y
J
O.
1
1 I
11
II
? i
c m o
z (? Q
u W x ??
QQ
3
b U n
W
O , to
®® J LQ
z z
W hz?
® ® zQz? m
Q 11
a ,
iau-
ti
V
a
j
H
EN
<m
4 4
W N
X N •
n
J
}
W
W

3
w
pO
S
3
0
H
J
a
x
J .J
2
Z N O
C) a?
p
w is 1a-
V1 N N
J
C 00
U
a ?O
y, ?n
f- '- In
W
as
7 N N

w o€
O
J

N
O J J J

°
Z
r8
Z
W
F F
N Vl N J

U O O O
N N _
r
N In F W

?O
N/
?Q
N
O
Z
I F-I
s D
W W
U
?
2 Q
d 6
J
4

O
W
m W
D
O

7 O
L
W
D =
1••
a r
6
c

Ts

f
1
C I W
°

C

v
w 1

?

? C O
$' }
d
o m W
a
c
1 N N i N W
a O
"
m a
m w m
a J W
a
D m
o m
I m m
D A J W
O O O_
W O
O p
p
=
1- W
O
1
,.
g ?
W ?' QC ?
3
K as
¢o
I
Q?'? as

, a aW
m aN
_
a>>
h 1
T
) ?V is SO

W L

f
I
1.
o
p=
..iN
F

Q W
IV
U VO
I V V?
y CN
6 U
t 6? .W a
R• .Q W?
N . ?N Z z?.?' <m

OW O ?= m VC
f V W V ?
0`4 Q
n F?
ml- x
Oi X!R O W?• O
0
W
I 3
F
O
W
z
77
1 W
W !
1 I ?
t m
W
'J
r
Sr
U)
Z
U
U
2 W
N
? J
U
a
J
}
W
Ir
2
LL
= Z
3 O
m
- ? U
W
W N
9
rl U
a
r
I-
gQ4
u N
? g
u0 S
810
,m w
c---+'

O WOO
2 W
00
O
F 7m
W N~
J O 1?
Q rN
v -O
a .r
F a io
N -
N N?
Q Q
rr
? N
W
2
2N Z
F O
Q U
W W
9 (n
Z
Q
M aI.
> 4 N
a _
Ja
?r ?o 0
W Z J
? p J
O Q
O
H
N
W
O
O
usi
b?
J
.. W ?N NO
F SQCHJ¢ .U ?' 1
?•rl Qi "???ON U - I}j}?
n voI uI I Z?; i
' ] % h?c?uA OIN ¢ W I 8`
° aco?;¢ o o I I
'[m V C W ¢N ??
n Y W O U. W .«??
e d• N p, >
?? a N o O N W>¢ N W ? W V
m Q
HE x
' wn " ¢ vm? ?Qa ?o
I SGowJ¢ v Mme Nm
l(+ u l
• MIN NYI?H ? N + ? LL<
SSQ OI-J¢ O t0 J bm? 00
m - st ?? H R2
a [ ? / ?9J
a a ? a
J J 1 P y
•?' r
'98.q
3
7
W? r
?. w • o
) ?p v) MI O
? I? n i Q
U
our d ro e.? ? ` I4 y ! .
a'? xtiyi •n .o MVA I, r
? N
° m ebo j / I -L- PC 61.56 Ipa•'
W; f I I f . N •te
? •?•2i x? a, a•Ompmp niT`% z••'E ?•p I,
3 A?.lid5 N I saee• ba•''`1
w9r.g?.o?.wgm?•A? . ,r ' ^•p°'p'1' 15
?a.a? ?x "YS moo• '?,?, ?A.i,CO p'I'O'n ..1+?pv>,}? ' I ? ?',
?°,__? Y?f ??IU I Fl
Iff W) I I Q $ C
P o I? o
?LiL o ? I O °'°, J
I t rn
o
y to
A `? a
a
A ? •?. r:'•?' I 2b 3 ? O
F
?.\ ilk °i
2 J?
= o
U O
7 °
¢. «m x
w J Q w
¢ C
u
ro-e ° n
o n ; 8
o cg p
0
U • L
SGo.--+rc
J
Q O
? O
aCo?-mss
?a.o,K y
f
f
W r. '
CL

? 1 t
r ,.
T-Ai
t
RA. to i ., .-.
.r --r-'rG_ :r -rp7 t_l.i. I_L ?_! } tl L } j -, I r: , r r --;. ag3:= - I
J
T. 7:
1 7,
a`r F j t= ` ?? - + t
7 7-
t .... 1 .. i'T1-..i,.. ct...i
.
?- - .. ..
t - r ---' 1 - - - t1
?.:.:.:_:.._ _ t -
f 1 - } t
-------1 --
?: - 1 .7 -r. {: ,-F - l .-L -- }1 - T. ., ',..
,r ..
-- -
:77- 7 - :. -- -
f j r
7t-. 77 177.
t_' -rr-- --
7? C t L-i
r i, I 1 -a?
D
T
PIT
Y.
r r t r? r 1 - - t r
?-
m .
a
.77 .
77
1 , -'--1-L- -+ 1 {-' I t7
, pDTI
O
77-
r r_ - - - 8
T
jt-
i - t ?o c
'° . a r L
. N m oyf?
.7 .77
I-:. - - -
-7 ?7
rr.
a ?.-
Q - a T -- --
_ M-
f l.
:,:
1717 ?7
_...1 _. .?. .T- 'N
..,. .,. _,. p 1 ,.,. .
44
t: :j
I-f
4 r ?jyJ
r...
c'
7,7
--T777:7. 7. 77777:
t jet -, t 7 .7 r
.
t r., r } r :,.
f } fit-,. r -L 4+ ? r - i i
r! 7:
I E r t. !7 t 7 -1.
1 ' - 1
JF
?e Ya
2
3
TA;
3
O?
f
N
J _
S
W
N.
N
?r
t
o
0
H
4 FNm
WJW
mm
m m
gi m

--m ??M
^ t7 ? J 11..
v .It
0 ^ N LL
v V
w ? g w
i

tom Dm hm

^ N )LL
t n.3

w I w `,? w

m
m ?w
N .LL
^ m WW
w ?U
N

N
O
N
_

r
i
Qfm mm rim tDmI?
m? m+ J111 m? p
rlt7 J.NP. Bt _N O{ mT W1tf p
?? V JULL < N B? .JM?
w wJLL J i j J v", t o I V?
W W W W
I _
/
1 t
J ? d?? ? I ^ J I < ? ? tl r
°? I AIL 1 ] is I $?
po i h J I S O0 UIL
W ; p ?N I col i w
ea.9 r m f o+ I. o I o / o .ib
/ Q' I F ?? ? ? N? / rNNf
/ ?Va w1 I f0 PX gou.
// pJIL ayN ` K '
/ >c pNV F°.?T / JI..
ao?
m
n W
r LL
m Z
a
U
N -
m
m $
w
' i
I

of ta_

N
N
N f
?
?
tom
m? vim
m+ vm
ml? I
I
m el
m+?00N m
m

w ?F v 2j I v ? J.{t- 1
w ?
o' r
9 w ?
aWia N i ?
- ? - i w
?
r l' N K N I I

/ w t W
ct
/ FJw
/ P
/
i
ON N
rl?
pJU-
.r

m
In W
r LL
m Z
w
u
N -
m (m?I
IA W m ?
N
LL LL
m Z O y m Z
r W rm
W
Q J 6
fA J W N