19940283 Ver 1_Complete File_19940325

JAMES B. HUNT. JP-
GOVERNOR
na
9yaB3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 23, 1994
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
2 IQa
MAR 5
J

SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Svv11
10o
Dear Sir: Alleghany County, Replacement of Bridge No. 10
over Brush Creek on US 21, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-21(1), State Project 8.170801, T.I.P. No.
B-1014.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed with 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 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior
to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps
of Engineers. .

A . 1r.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Ms. Robin Little at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. 0 Quinn, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/rml
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Thomas, COE-Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, PE, Division 11 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
A.,
Alleghany County
US 21
Bridge No. 10 Over Brush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-21(1)
State Project 8.1700801
T.I.P. No. B-1014
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
'Z/2 &W /? I I.
A15ATt, H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
z a? ?
DATE icholas L. Graf, P.E.
tivision Administrator, FHWA

Alleghany County
US 21
Bridge No. 10 Over Brush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-21(1)
State Project 8.1700801
T.I.P. No. B-1014
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February, 1994
Documentation Prepared By
JBM Engineers and Planners
259
Ke eth W. Smith, P.E.
Project Manager
^w09°ca9ce?ca;;c^;?,, ,
°
SEAS °
1; 320
O 4
t%V
?9dpcaeaaaoaaee°°°°
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
. Q
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. B dwin
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

Alleghany County
US 21
Bridge No. 10 Over Brush Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-21(1)
State Project 8.1700801
T.I.P. No. B-1014
Bridge No. 10 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The project is located in a "trout" county and was coordinated with the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC). In response to recommendations made by the WRC
(Attachment B), the following environmental commitments will be fulfilled:
1. Construction will be prohibited during the trout spawning period of November 1
through April 15 in order to protect the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
2. Disturbed riparian vegetation will be replanted upon project completion.
3. Upon removal of the temporary detour, disturbed areas will be reclaimed to match
pre-construction conditions.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 10 will be replaced at its existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in. Figure
2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a double IYW x I PH reinforced
concrete box culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two 12-foot
lanes with eight-foot usable shoulders (two feet of which will be paved) on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot pavement throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be maintained during the construction period with an on-site temporary
detour. The temporary detour structure will consist of double 96" corrugated metal pipes.
1
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $492,075. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement Program, is $608,000 ($525,000-
construction; $83,000-ROW).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southeastern portion of Alleghany County, between the
communities of Cherry Lane and Roaring Gap (see Figure 1). The area is rural in nature
consisting of sparse residential development.
US 21 is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is a Federal Aid Highway. There is no adopted Thoroughfare Plan for
Alleghany County.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 21 has a 20-foot pavement width with four to eight-foot
unstable shoulders (see Figures 3 & 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat across the
bridge with the grade slightly increasing in both directions. The existing bridge is located
on a tangent which extends approximately 500 feet north and 500 feet south from the
structure, providing adequate sight distance in both directions. Curves of approximately
three degrees and four degrees are located to the north and south, respectively. The
roadway is situated about 17 feet above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 2800 VPD is expected to increase to 5500 VPD by the year
2015. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). There is no speed limit posted through the project area, therefore, the
speed limit is assumed to be the statewide maximum of 55 mph.
The existing bridge (Figure 3) was constructed in 1927 and rehabilitated in 1936. Bridge
No. 10 is a single-span structure that consists of a concrete deck on reinforced concrete
deck girders. The substructure is comprised of reinforced concrete abutments.
The overall length of the structure is 43 feet. The clear roadway width is 24 feet. There
are no posted weight limits on this bridge at the present time.
Bridge No. 10 has a sufficiency rating of 47.8, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there are overhead
power lines on both sides of the roadway through the project area.
Two accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 10 during the period from
May, 1989 to April, 1992. One accident was a two car, rear-end collision and the second
accident was a single vehicle incident resulting from a tree limb falling onto the vehicle.
The two accidents resulted in two injuries.
2
One school bus crosses the bridge twice a day.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were studied for replacing Bridge No. 10. Alternative 1 and Alternative
2 consists of replacing the existing bridge at its present location. Alternative 3 consists of
replacing the existing bridge on new location immediately west of its present location.
The approach roadway for each of the alternatives will consist of two 12-foot lanes with
8-foot usable shoulders (two feet of which will be paved) on each side. The proposed
typical section of the roadway through area is included as Figure 4.
For Alternatives 1 and 2, a temporary, on-site detour consisting of two 96" corrugated
metal pipes will be provided during the construction period. The detour will be located
about 50 feet west (upstream) of the existing structure. The existing structure will serve
as on-site detour for Alternative 3. The design speed for each of the alternatives is 60
mph.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended)- involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment with a double I TW x I PH reinforced concrete box culvert. The
proposed replacement structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate the roadway
typical section. Improvements to the approaches will be required for approximately 225
feet in each direction. This alternative is preferred because it is less costly to construct
than both of the other alternatives and it maintains the existing tangent alignment through
the project. Additionally, a culvert will generally be constructed in less time than will a
bridge, which reduces the exposure time of the traveling public to the construction work
zone and temporary detour.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment
with a bridge 90 feet long providing a clear roadway width of 40 feet. The structure width
will accommodate a 24-foot travelway with eight-foot shoulders. Improvements to the
approaches will be required for approximately 225 feet in each direction. This alternative
is not recommended because of its higher construction cost.
Alternative 3 - involves replacement of the structure on new location immediately west of
the existing structure with a double 13'W x 11'H reinforced concrete box culvert.. The
proposed replacement structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate the roadway
typical section. Improvements to the roadway alignment include approximately 750 feet
of new pavement on each of the approaches. This alternative is not recommended because
of its higher construction cost and because of the resulting undesirable alignment required
to tie into the existing roadway at both ends of the project.
3
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by US 21.
The Division Office concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of closing the road
during construction because of the traffic volumes using US 21 and the excessive length of
additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
The Alleghany County Superintendent of Schools indicates that maintenance of traffic on-
site during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs for the three alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Structure $ 137,200 $ 180,000
Roadway Approaches 124,510 146,710
Detour Structure & Approaches 143,130 143,130
Structure Removal 5,160 5,160
Engineering & Contingencies 65,000 75,000
Right-of-Way/Easements/Utilities 17.075 17,075
Total $ 492,075 $ 567,075
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternative 3
$ 137,200
417,640
5,160
90,000
39,000
$ 689,000
Bridge No. 10 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure
2, with a double 13V x I PH reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements to the
existing approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 225 feet north of the
replacement structure and 225 feet south of the new structure.
A 24-foot pavement width with eight-foot usable shoulders (two feet of which will be
paved) on each side will be provided throughout the length of the project in accordance
with the current NCDOT Policy (see Figure 4). US 21 is classified as a rural minor
arterial; therefore, criteria for a rural minor arterial was used for the structure replacement.
The design speed is 60 mph.
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the existing bridge is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour
route is considered unacceptable due to the traffic volumes using US 21 and the excessive
length of additional travel required.
4
The WRC recommends that the temporary detour be located downstream (east) of the
existing structure to "minimize disturbance of riparian vegetation". However, the
recommended alternative locates the detour upstream (west) of the existing structure for
the following reasons:
1) The Cherry Lane Community Center is situated on the east side of the highway
approximately 300 feet south of the existing bridge. A detour on the east side
will impact the Center's parking area.
2) Overhead power lines on the east side run the entire length of the project. The
poles supporting these lines are located approximately 20 feet off the existing
edge of pavement. A detour on the east side will require relocation of
approximately 600 feet of these lines. Overhead power lines on the west side
run approximately half the length of the project and their poles are located
approximately 50' off the edge of existing pavement. A detour on the west
side will require relocation of approximately 200 feet of these lines.
3) A driveway on the west side of the highway and located immediately north of
the existing bridge will be impacted by a detour on the east side. Access to the
driveway during construction will have to be provided through the
construction zone for an east-side detour. Direct access to the driveway is
available for a west-side detour.
4) The additional riparian vegetation that will be disturbed by a detour on the
west side of the existing bridge is minimal.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a
double ITW x 11'H reinforced concrete box culvert. It is anticipated that the elevation of
the new roadway will be approximately the same as the existing roadway. The final design
of the culvert will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the
current 100-year floodplain limits. The dimensions of the new structure may be increased
or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on January 20, 1993 to verify documented information
and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred
by a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1)
search for State and Federally protected plants and animal species; 2) search for unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4)
5
identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two natural plant communities occur within the study area, Montane Alluvial Forest and
Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest. The riparian area immediately adjacent to Brush Creek
is narrow and grades into Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest. There is also a man-
dominated community adjacent to the Alluvial community.
The riparian vegetation associated with Brush Creek is typical of a floodplain terrace
consisting of a variety of species including poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple
(Acer rubrum), great rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), hickory (Carya sp.),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
The floodplain terrace has been somewhat disturbed along the north side of the stream but
has remained undisturbed along the south side. This plant community grades upslope to a
man-dominated community on the northeast side of Brush Creek and to a dry-mesic oak-
hickory forest community on the south side of the Creek.
The area to the northeast of the Creek and existing bridge is man-dominated and is
cleared, mowed, grazed and maintained as pasture. Fescue (Festuca sp.) and rye (Lolium
sp.) are dominant with some encroachment of plantain (Plantago sp.), clover (Trifolium
sp.), and dandelion (Taraxacum sp.) noted. West of US 21, the area is dominated by a
small, white pine (Pinus strobus) plantation, which lies adjacent to a residence.
On the south side of Brush Creek and the existing bridge structure, the vegetation is
relatively undisturbed. Plant species are diverse in this dry-mesic oak--hickory forest
community and include chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), red oak (Q. rubra), white oak (Q.
alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus), and scrub pine (P.
virginiana). The understory is diverse as well and includes laurel (Kalmia latifolia), great
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), hawthorn (Crataegus sp.), Christmas fern
(Polystichum arostichoides), and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Other species noted include
hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), holly (Ilex opaca), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), St. John's-wort
(Hypericum sp.), and honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Due to the seasonality of the
project field investigation, many of the plant species were dormant.
Wildlife (General)
Riparian communities are valuable habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Amphibians in
particular are highly water dependent for completion of larval stages in their life cycle and
some species are totally aquatic.
6
Reptiles and amphibians likely to occur in the project vicinity include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), northern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens),
spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus fuscus), white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus), American toad
(Bufo americanus), and green frog (Rana clamitans).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reports that Brush Creek is
designated as hatchery-supported public mountain trout waters and that a wild population
of brown trout (Salmo trutta) is also present. Other fish species likely to inhabit Brush
Creek include various chubs (Nocomis sp., and Semotilus sp.), shiners (Notropis sp.), dace
(Chnostomus funduloides, Phoxinus oreas, Rhinichthys sp.), darters (Etheostoma sp.),
and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
recommends that a spanning structure be constructed at this site to preserve instream and
riparian habitat, reduce the potential for blocking fish passage, and to limit the potential
for thermal pollution that could result from the widening of the channel. They also
requested that construction be prohibited during the trout spawning period of November 1
through April 15 in order to protect egg and fry stages from sedimentation, (see
Attachment B). The NCDOT will consider the Wildlife Resources Commission's
comments during the design and permitting phases of the project. A final decision will
then be made regarding the type of replacement structure that will be used at this location.
Riparian corridors also act as natural passageways for mammals. They also serve as
refuges for mammals forced from more disturbed upland sites. Mammals likely to inhabit
the area include opposum (Didelphis marsupialis), shorttail shrew (Blarina brevicauda),
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), bats (Lasiurus sp. and Myotis sp.), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), chipmunk (Tamias striatus), mice (Peromyscus sp.), cottontail (Sylvilagus
jloridanus), and deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
Birds likely to inhabit the study area include the turkey vulture (Carthartes aura), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), and American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis).
Physical Resources
Soil
Soil series located within the project area are presented and summarized on the following
page:
7
SOIL SERIES
Tate loam (TaQ
6 to 10% slopes
Watauga loam (WaE)
10 to 25% slopes
CLASSIFICATION
Non-hydric
Non-hydric
HYDRIC INCLUSION
none
none
Tate loam is a well-drained gently to strongly sloping soils formed in local alluvium from
surrounding upland material. This particular soil series is found in and adjacent to Brush
Creek and is the most prevalent soil series in the project area.
The Watauga series consists of well-drained, micaceous, sloping to steep soils, formed in
residuum from mica schist and phyllite. If cultivated, this soil requires intensive
conservation practices to reduce runoff and control erosion. It is one of the most
extensive soils in the county.
Water
This bridge replacement project spans Brush Creek, a tributary to the Little River,
contained within the New River basin. The stream channel is well-defined with widths
varying from twenty to twenty-five feet. The substrate consists mainly of rock, cobble and
sand. The flow-rate is moderate. Water depth varies from one to two feet at the project
site and is of good clarity. No aquatic vegetation was noted. An alluvial floodplain,
comprised of hardwood vegetation, is adjacent to the creek and is most extensive south of
the channel.
Brush Creek has a "best usage" classification of "C-Tr". Class C designates waters
suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife
and agriculture. The supplemental classification of Tr (Trout) indicates waters suitable for
natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, addresses the long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the use of benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive
to very subtle changes in water quality. Specific data for Brush Creek are not available.
However, the Little River, Brush Creek's receiving stream, was sampled at the NC 18
bridge, approximately ten miles downstream from the proposed project location.
Sampling efforts at this location were conducted on three occasions between 1984 and
1988, each resulting in an "excellent" bioclassification rating. There are no permitted
dischargers in the vicinity of the proposed project.
8
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Brush Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Observation Point Upstream 100 ft. Existing Crossing Downstream 100 ft.
Substrate Boulder, cobble, sand
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width (ft.) 20-25 20-25 25-30
Bank Height (ft.) 6 4 3
Water Depth (ft.) 3-4 2-4 1-3
Water Color Clear Clear Clear
Water Odor None
Aqua c iVegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood fringe - poplar, maple, rhododendron
Wetlands Bank to Bank
The general gradient of Brush Creek is moderate and riffle-pool ratios are balanced
through the project area. Though some flats are developed behind the riffle areas,
sediment loads will, for the most part, be carried downstream from the project site. The
stream banks are high enough to contain most storm events and overtopping floods will be
contained within the adjacent floodplain terrace.
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
No wetland plant communities will be affected by this project. The stream banks are steep
and well drained and wetland hydrology does not occur in adjacent communities.
Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative impact to plants
and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act of
1973. In the case of state-funded actions, where federal wetland permits are likely to be
required, for example, the FWS can require consultation to insure that the proposed action
does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the absence
of federal actions, the FWS has the power, through provisions of Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of a protected plant or animal.
The FWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction in this resource
area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
9
16 USC 661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect certain plants and
animals where statewide populations are in decline. 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. These Acts are administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture.
The FWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) were consulted to
identify the potential for occurrences of protected species in the project study area.
Federally Listed Species:
Information from the FWS dated September 20, 1993, indicates that there are no federally
protected species listed in Alleghany County.
The FWS did, however, identify candidate species, (species that are currently under status
review), that may occur in the project study area. A list of these species is provided in
Table 2, below.
TABLE 2
COMMON NAME
Bog turtle
Hellbender
Kanawha minnow
Midget snaketail dragonfly
Regal fritillary butterfly
Gammon's Stenelmis riffle beetle
Tall larkspur
Gray's lily
Gray's saxifrage
Sweet pinesap
SPECIFIC NAME SUITABLE HABITAT
Clemmys muhlenbergii No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No
Phenacobius teretulus No
Ophiogomphus howei No
Speyeria idalia No
Stenelmis gammoni Yes
Delphinium exaltatum No
Lilium grayi No
Saxifiraga caroliniana No
Monotropsis odorata Yes
* Indicates no specimen from Alleghany County in at least 20 years.
State Listed Species:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program for protected animal and plant species
reports one state-listed species as Threatened, the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii),
also a candidate for federal listing. Additionally, the mole salamander (Ambystoma
talpoideum) is state-listed as Special Concern. Both of these species inhabit wetlands,
including bogs, wet meadows, and roadside ditches for the bog turtle and bottomland
forests containing large floodplain pools for the salamander. The preferred alternative will
not impact these habitat types; therefore, impacts to these state-listed species will not
occur.
10
Impacts
The preferred alternative consists of replacement of the structure at its existing location.
A temporary detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Construction of the new structure and approach roadways will impact the ecological
community. Portions of the riparian and upland hardwood communities will be destroyed
by land clearing, excavation, filling, draining and paving. As a result, these communities
will be altered and, consequently, the habitat quality lessened to some degree. During
construction, efforts should be made to minimize impacts to the riparian and hardwood
forest communities.
Approximately 0.15 acre of riparian habitat will be impacted by the new construction.
These losses are relatively small compared to the amount of similar habitats that are found
in the region.
Impacts due to the proposed project will mainly affect aquatic organisms. Dredging,
filling, pile-driving operations, slope stabilization, and land clearing are construction
activities which can result in the direct loss of benthic organisms due to an increase in silt
load. The removal of benthic organisms reduces the potential food supply for fish and
other vertebrates.
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to Brush Creek. Construction of
the new structure, as well as the construction and removal of a temporary detour are likely
to create short-term increases in siltation and sedimentation in Brush Creek. Fill material
placement for the approach roadway may enter the stream, and construction of the
proposed structure could result in increased turbidity both on-site and downstream of the
project area. Other impacts might include alterations to water levels and flow due to
interruptions or additions to surface and/or groundwater flow; increased concentrations of
toxic compounds from construction, and reductions to sensitive invertebrate species due
to alterations in water clarity and light-incidence resulting from increased turbity.
However, these potential impacts are avoidable. Appropriate measures, consistent with
Best Management Practices, will be implemented during the term of the project to
minimize, control and/or contain the potential impacts.
Unique and/or Prime-Quality Habitat:
The Montane Alluvial Forest community is not uncommon but few examples remain
intact. The Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest community is common and small tracts are
intact and/or protected. Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest communities of significant size
are relatively rare, however.
Brush Creek is not a designated wild or scenic river.
11
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States". In addition, the project is located in a
designated "trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of approval from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and provide it to the Corps of
Engineers.
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 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 United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include
test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for
laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or wetlands. These
activities will require authorization under Nationwide Permit No. 6.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
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 and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented. Fill material from the temporary detour within the
floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to the extent reasonably possible, to
promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
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 Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
12
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
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.
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.
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. The
project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
The Area of Potential Effect as determined by the Department, is depicted in Figure 5.
There are no properties within the Area of Potential Effect that are eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places. The existing bridge itself is not historically
significant. There are no other properties of architectural, historic, or archaeological
significance in the project area which will be affected by the proposed project (see
Attachment Q.
In a memorandum dated January 26, 1993 (Attachment A), the Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Therefore, no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
This project has been coordinated with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. With
the exception of the construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done within the
13
existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
prime, unique or important farmland acreage.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Winston-Salem Regional
Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The
ambient air quality for Alleghany County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise
levels and air quality will be insignificant. 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 State
Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23, Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section
revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Alleghany County does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program,
consequently, no detailed study of the area is available. The approximate 100-year
floodplain limits is depicted in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is
not considered to be significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm. The final design of the structure will be such that
the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits.
In the vicinity of the project, there are two residences located within the limits of the 100-
year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
14

LLE GF

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
US 21
BRIDGE NO. 10 OVER
BRUSH CREEK
B-1014
l,4 ? :.. "L.J r 1422
- •'

?
1504
1428
1444
G"
.7
I, p 14

f 429 ?.1 1432 1433
Hai

•4
146,
1444
•? , ?++ g
Glade Valley
? 1465
,o '
4 Hill
.49
9 1.9
Fq-S 1466 .6 ~ ry
NZ, 1466
- 'Q
1467
.0
21 Cherry Lane BLUE
2
1464 14'
UIIHEAD ;. 1111 .s 1.3
MTN. =; s? a
.7 471
1112 ?O 1470
1.2

?A 1471
1109 1111
.S
2.1 5 1108 p
.? ?, ? •! .B
1463 m
e
1.0 BRIDGE NO. 10
t 1109
11101202 A Brush vy?
i
. ^'`' 118
....?
RICH MT - 110
36°25'
1105 •,t
1512

.. '0 0 03
Fmice' 4
I8 G
1 104
9
Knob
parta.
i
e
Gla
Y N aller
Roaring Gap

2i
3
4
Roarin P3 0 1 2

•` SCALE
(mi)
FIGURE 1
;e

US 21
ALLEGHANY CO.
BRIDGE NO. 10
B-1014
SIDE VIEW

SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
w
O a
F
W
F
?z

N
t` A >
¢zxW
z0
w F- W
z >
o
O H w pW
U N O U

n. a oo?x
z? i=LuD
"

w m
W
0
op
zz o o m a m
o

r ?
2 0 ,+?
J J

O O
H ?
W W
N N
V C7 U W -a
d
UJ c? F 00
a Z-4
is

CL
= 0
CL 0
=
In. UJ CL CC
J
V J
U ?
`
c
a
H H

a
J J C
co cC
n
y O C ? ?

L
M

Q
CO)

IL

a
d
o _?
° o
s
y o
t

a I
tt n u
X J a F-
w
cr
D
0
LL
I
RARY DETOUR
Ai
3
CREEK
rlT
AREA OF POTENTIAL
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTE
ALTERNATIVE 1
(CULVERT)
RECOMMEND D
1*
U i
\ Vii/ ?;? r \._-. •? \?. _ /??? \ ?28I
J BM O
n 266 \
• ?i ?? r?al`01 ?/ -^ 1 ?\ 1 ° 674• 70 4
r u ? ..•V 2854 ; o
n if •1 0
if,
Br 0
f a = e u _
\jj
!t i ,R?? \' / Ch -'Lane
,\ NL% d ?iN 2680
hercx a Ch,i'_
•2733
.. I)\l?? \ -> J
1,1900
BRIDGE NO. 10
o L `2685 • /? ? 11 3 11
I\\`1 X11 .... .J M? Car >jf+`-,? ?'em 2806
I I\\ /?
-- ?? \ ff\? ? ems p
--'?? - \
R°A•O .rot / i', \ 'lam
2857
u
APPROX. 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMITS
37,
a
Camp Mier, BJtle- - iis
3000
?? \ ??I '\?\ ?\1•\'•' r A. ?-'1 /? \\ 2800
z, < <
v\

5 i

`toy Hoare+''NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
_ DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
or lak?Se??~ BRANCH
ALLEGHANY COUNTY
US 21
BRIDGE NO. 10 OVER
BRUSH CREEK
B-1014
FIGURE 6

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 6NDivision or Archives and History
Bclty Ray McCain, Secretary {`, v \ William S. Pricc, Jr., DiRCtor
January 26, 1993 X993
MEMORANDUM "'
'i p1V15iC ? ?n}
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager \y. i
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 10 on US 21 over Brush Creek,
Alleghany County, B-1014, ER 93-7956
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Mt. Carmel Church and Cemetery. South side of SR 1006, 0.2 mile northwest of
the junction with US 21, Cherry Lane vicinity. This property has not been evaluated
for National Register eligibility. (Photocopy of architectural inventory entry
enclosed.)
Please inform us if there are any other structures over fifty years of age in the area of
potential effect.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is 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. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
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 and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2907
B. Church
ATTACHMENT A

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis §?y
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
I
TO:, L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch., NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Regi n Coordinat
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of bridge on US 21
over Brush Creek, Alleghany County (TIP ,#B-1014)
This memorandum responds to a-.request by you to Mr..Joe
Mickey of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) regarding plans by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to replace a bridge on US 21 over Brush
Creek in Alleghany County. Staff field biologists have reviewed
the information provided and are familiar with fish and wildlife
values of the project site.
Brush Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water and contains populations of stocked trout and wild
brown trout. The NCWRC has the following comments and
recommendations regarding this project:
1) We concur that Alternative 1, which uses the existing
roadway, is the most desirable alignment for this project.
2) Construction should be prohibited during the trout spawning
period of November 1 through April 15 in order to protect
the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
3) The existing structure should be replaced with another
spanning structure rather than a triple 121x 10' reinforced
concrete box culvert to reduce the potential for blocking
fish passage and also for widening of the channel at the
site and creating a shallow, unproductive area prone to
thermal pollution.
4) The temporary detour should be placed east (downstream) of
the existing structure rather than immediately west
ATTACHMENT B-1
(upstream) to minimize disturbance of riparian vegetation.
The area just west of the bridge contains the best riparian
zone vegetation at the site.
5) Where riparian zone vegetation will be disturbed, we
recommend carefully removing shrubs and small trees so that
they can be replanted upon project completion.
6) Upon removal of temporary detour culverts, disturbed areas
should be reclaimed to match pre-construction conditions
(same stream width, depth, slope, bank slope and riparian
vegetation). ,
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information in
the early planning stages of this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at_704/652-
4257. -
cc: Mr. Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator, NCWRC
ATTACHMENT B-2
STATE
u?

F
O
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 15, 1993
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 10 over Brush Creek on US 21,
Alleghany County, B-1014, 8.1700801, BRSTP-
21(1), ER 93-9057
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division
:Z%s,,4nd History-

Thank you for your letter of June 16, 1993, concerning the above project.
Thank
We have reviewed the documentation provided to us regarding historic properties
in the area of potential effect. We concur with the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHwA) determination that the Mount Carmel Church and
Cemetery are outside the area of potential effect. Based upon the information
provided regarding Bridge No. 10, we also concur with FHwA's determination that
the bridge does not possess sufficient historical or architectural significance to
qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Thus, no National
Register-listed or eligible properties are located in the area of potential effect.
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 and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
C'o., ?
David Brook
D Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1&9
ATTACHMENT C