19980952 Ver 1_Complete File_19980916

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NC ENR
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
September 25, 1998
Montgomery County
WQC 401 Project # 980952
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge # 60 over
Little River, as you described in your application dated September 16, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3127. This Certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is
sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation
may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
n Howard, r. P.E.
c
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
980952.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
I a
?.STA?t
n r ~ AO?
aw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
September 9, 1998
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. David Timpy
NCDOT- Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 60 ON SR 1565 OVER LITTLE RIVER, RAN
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-3005. on??0
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. NCDOT proposes to replace the existing structure with a new structure
approximately 18.3 (60 feet) south of the existing alignment. The new structure will be
approximately 78.4 meters (257 feet) in length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. Upon completion of the new structure. Bridge No. 60 will be
left in place, but permanently closed to traffic and maintained by the NCDOT. 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 under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
Bridge No. 60 was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places in 1979 by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Since the proposed
alternative preserves Bridge No. 60 in place, SHPO has determined that this project will
have "no effect" on the bridge.
A recorded prehistoric archaeological site (31 MG 10) is located in the southeast
quadrant of the proposed project area. Preliminary investigations suggest the site is
probably eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, because the

a it
impact to the site, as currently planned, will have no adverse effects on the site, no further
archaeological work has been recommended. A list of measures, detailed in the
Environmental Commitments on pages 1 and 2 of the document, will be implemented to
protect the site.
The last Environmental Commitment is a pledge from DOT to "evaluate the deck of
the new bridge during design to determine if deck drains over the creek can be eliminated."
This evaluation determined that it will not be possible to drain rain water efficiently without
deck drains due to the length of the bridge, cross slope of the bridge, and the slope of the
road. The NCDOT believes that the design without deck drains would compromise motorist
safety due to the accumulation of storm water on the bridge. Therefore, the design calls for
14 deck drains over the creek.
No wetlands occur within .the project area. There will be impacts to surface waters,
however they are not expected to exceed 0.10 acre. It is possible that a temporary causeway
will be required during project construction. If the causeway is deemed necessary, DOT wil l
forward the plans to the appropriate resource agencies as an application for a Nationwide
Permit 33.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. for their review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mc.
Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., Planning & Environmental
10
It It. a
Montgomery County
Bridge No. 60 on SR 1565
Over Little River
Federal Project BRZ-1565(1)
State Project 8.2550201
TIP # B-3005
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
2- 29-q'1 ` q1- e.'ze
Dateer? H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
't°' Planning and Environmental Branch
2- 2 9--9 7 aL cSJ a... -C _
Date icholas Graf, P. t
Division Administrator, FHWA
r OF
^ It Montgomery County
Bridge No. 60 on SR 1565
Over Little River
Federal Project BRZ-1565(1)
State Project 8.2550201
TIP # B-3005
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
iZ 23q? L
Date John . Williams, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
/2-29.97 141 y?, ?? 077_
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
? 2- 29 97 Q- ? ?/ --
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. , Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
CARO
9%
SEAL
022552
hr yGI N.. P? .
N „
Montgomery County
Bridge No. 60 on SR 1565
Over Little River
Federal Project BRZ-1565(1)
State Project 8.2550201
TIP # B-3005
Bridge No. 60 is located in Montgomery County on SR 1565 crossing over Little
River. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as
a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a
"Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
SR 1565 will be realigned as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge on new
alignment approximately 18.3 meters (60 feet) south of the existing structure. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Bridge No. 60 (a Pratt Truss
Bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) will remain in place to be
maintained by NCDOT upon completion of the project.
The new bridge will be approximately 78.4 meters (257 feet) in length and
7.2 meters (24 feet) in width including two 3.0 meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-
foot) offsets.
New approaches will extend approximately 160 meters (524 feet) to the west and
226 meters (741 feet) to the east. The roadway will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes
and 1.6-meter (5-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed
shoulders will taper to 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is not required. The existing
bridge will remain in place upon completion of the new bridge. Based on preliminary
design work, the design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 1,329,000 including $ 1,300,000 in
construction costs and $ 29,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the
1998-2004 TIP is $ 730,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 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."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
•?
High Quality Waters Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be implemented during
construction to protect fisheries within the area.
To protect an archaeological site on the southeast quadrant, construction (including
easements of all types) shall not extend further than 27.4 meters (90 feet) south of the existing
road. Any activity proposed outside this range must be cleared through NCDOT Archaeologist,
Gary Glover. In addition, the following will be implemented:
• The site's boundaries will be marked prior to construction to insure that the archaeological
deposits at the site are avoided by construction.
• An experienced archaeologist will monitor the initial grading in the area of potential effect.
• NCDOT will notify and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office concerning any
changes in the protect alignment or design.
• NCDOT Archaeologist, Gary Glover ([phone] ext. 286), will be invited to the pre-
construction meeting.
Upon completion of the new structure, Bridge No. 60 will be permanently closed to traffic
but left in place and maintained by NCDOT.
NCDOT will evaluate the deck of the new bridge during design to determine if
deck drains over the creek can be eliminated.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be required.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1565 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 100 vehicles per day (VPD) and
projected at 300 VPD for the year 2020. SR 1565 has no posted speed limit and is
therefore subject to a statutory 55 mph speed limit. The road primarily serves a farming
community.
The existing bridge was built between 1910 and 1920 (exact date not known) and
moved from a different location. In 1953 it was moved to its present location. It is 87
meters (286 feet) long. There is approximately 8.5 meters (28 feet) of clearance under
the superstructure. The deck includes 4.5 meters (16 feet) of bridge roadway width.
There is one lane of traffic on the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 31 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 8 tons for single
vehicles and 12 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The horizontal alignment is tangent on the east approach and curved on the west
approach. The bridge is in a vertical sag. The pavement width on the approaches to the
bridge is 4.9 meters (16 feet). Shoulders on the approaches to the bridge are
approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch reports that one accident has been reported within
the last three years in the vicinity of the project. This accident resulted from a deer in the
road.
A
There are four school bus crossings daily over the studied bridge.
The only utility in the area is an aerial power line. Along the west approach, it
follows the south side of SR 1565. At the west end of the bridge, the line crosses the road
to the north side, then crosses over the Little River and continues east away from the
project area.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace the existing bridge with a new 78.4-meter (257-foot) long
bridge on the existing location. The new bridge would be
approximately 5 meters (16.4 feet) higher on the west end and 3
meters (10 feet) higher on the east end. The existing bridge would
be removed in this alternate. Traffic would be detoured along
existing secondary roads during construction. The design speed
would be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Alternate 2) (RECOMMENDED) Replace the existing alignment with a new
alignment approximately 18.3 meters (60 feet) to the south of the
existing bridge. The new bridge would be approximately 5 meters
(16.4 feet) higher on the west end and 3 meters (10 feet) higher on
the east end. The new bridge will be 78.4 meters (257 feet) in
length. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. Upon completion of the new structure, Bridge No.
60 will be permanently closed to traffic but left in place and
maintained by NCDOT. The design speed would be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
The "Do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the
road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge for continued traffic use is neither practical
nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2
New Bridge Structure $ 594,000 $ 594,000
Bridge Removal 29,000 N/A
Roadway & Approaches 280,000 269,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 271,000 268,000
Engineering & Contingencies 176,000 169,000

Total Construction $ 1,350,000 $ 1,300,000
Right of Way 25,000 29,000
Total Cost $ 1,375,000 $ 1,329,000
Although Alternate 2 is on new alignment, it is less costly than Alternate 1. There
are three primary areas where Alternate 2 was less expensive. The first was in borrow
material; the alignment for Alternate 2 included a significant cut area which helped to
balance the fill required. The second was in guardrail; much less was required for
Alternate 2 because the alignment was straighter. Furthermore, Alternate 1 included
bridge removal where Alternate 2 did not. These three differences were compounded in
the Mobilization & Miscellaneous and Engineering & Contingencies categories.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
SR 1565 will be realigned as recommended in Alternate 2 with a bridge on new
alignment approximately 18.3 meters (60 feet) south of the existing structure. Traffic will
be maintained on the existing structure during construction. Bridge No. 60 (a Pratt Truss
Bridge eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) will remain in place to be
maintained by NCDOT upon completion of the project.
The new bridge will be approximately 78.4 meters (257 feet) in length and
7.2 meters (24 feet) in width including two 3.0 meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-
foot) offsets.
New approaches will extend approximately 160 meters (524 feet) to the west and
226 meters (741 feet) to the east. The roadway will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes
and 1.6-meter (5-foot) grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed
shoulders will taper to 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is not required. The existing
bridge will remain in place upon completion of the new bridge. Based on preliminary
design work, the design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60 mph).
Because Alternate 2 avoids an adverse impact to the historic bridge and is less
costly than Alternate 1, Alternate 2 is the recommended alternate. Tile Division F
Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to 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 this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. 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.
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.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are expected to be low.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Montgomery County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. "Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS
responded that the project will not impact prime-.or important farmland soils.
D. HISTORICAL ARCHITECTURAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that they are
aware of one historic structure in the area. Bridge No. 60 (a Pratt Truss Bridge) is
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Since the proposed alternate
preserves Bridge No. 60 in place, the SHPO has determined that this project will have
"no effect" on the bridge (see attached concurrence form). There were no other structures
of interest in the area.
E. HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
A pedestrian survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted to locate
and assess any significant archaeological remains that could be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed project. The survey used surface collection, shovel testing, and test trenches
which concentrated on the previously recorded prehistoric archaeological site (31MG10)
in the southeast quadrant of the proposed project area. Recovery of a variety of lithic
artifacts combined with previous collections indicate the site served as a primary lithic
reduction station and short-term habitation site between the Early Archaic and Late
Woodland periods. The proximity of Town Creek Indian Mound State Historic Site and
nearby prehistoric quarries and quartz outcrops prompted consultation with the Office of
State Archaeology to address the site's possible association with the Pee Dee site
complex five kilometers to the south.
Shovel tests revealed a shallow plowzone containing a mixture of prehistoric
lithic artifacts. Archaeologists, both professional and avocational, have recorded Early
Archaic to Late Woodland components at 31 MG 10. Following recommendations of the
Office of State Archaeology, wider areas below the plowzone were exposed to determine
if features intruded into the clay subsoil. Five additional test trenches were added to the
investigation. One truncated hearth was discovered and the recovered charcoal and soil
submitted for radiocarbon and OCR dating. The two dating methods corroborated an
Early Woodland date for the hearth.
The establishment of a confirmed Early Woodland occupation at 31 MG10 is
significant in the archaeological record of North Carolina, making a good case for the site
being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. However, because the impact
to the site as currently planned will have no adverse effects on the site, no further
archaeological work is recommended. If changes in the design plan occur in the future,
potential impact to the site will have to be reassessed. It is recommended that pre-
construction review and possible protective demarcation of the site be undertaken to
assure that no secondary impacts occur.
F. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Geology
The project area lies within the Carolina Slate Belt of metamorphic rocks. A
number of rock types interface near the project area, but it appears that, at the site, the
rocks are metanudstone and meta-argillite, interbedded with metasandstone,
metaconglomerate, and metavolcanic rock. Other rock types in the vicinity include felsic,
intermediate, and mafic metavolcanic rocks. The project area lies just north of the edge
of the Triassic Basin. The presence of extensive geologic contacts can have a great
influence on vegetation and stream characteristics.
Physiography and Soils
The project is located in the Piedmont physiographic region in south-central North
Carolina. The landscape is moderately rolling to hilly. Steep slopes and very narrow
floodplains occur north of the project area along the Little River; south of SR 1565,
broad, gradually sloping floodplains are present. Major drainageways are dendritic, but
the ridges are very irregularly dissected. The elevation at the level of the Little River is
about 65 meters (215 feet). The elevation at the termini of the study corridor on the
ridges is about 79 meters (260 feet). The highest elevations in the project vicinity are
approximately 137 meters (450 feet).
The soils of the project vicinity have not been mapped at this time. This is one of
the last areas in the county that has yet to be mapped for a modern soil survey.
Information provided by the Montgomery County soil scientist indicates that the
floodplain soils belong to the Riverview and Chewacla soil series, and the upland soils
are probably in the Mayodan series. The loamy alluvial soils occur on nearly level to
gently sloping floodplains. The Riverview series is a strongly acid, well drained soil on
higher areas just away from streams. Chewacla soil is somewhat poorly drained and
frequently flooded, occurring in the lower areas away from larger streams. The Mayodan
soil forms from sedimentary rock and occurs on gentle to steep slopes. The soil is well
drained with a loamy surface and a clayey subsoil. The hazard of erosion and a moderate
shrink-swell potential are the main limitations of Mayodan soils.
The Chewacla soil may have wet spots and inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee
loam soil. These would typically occur in depressions or adjoining the upland sideslopes.
Water Resources
Waters Impacted
The project region/vicinity lies in the Little River sub-basin (03-07-15) of the
lower drainage area of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The lower drainage area
includes the Rocky and Little Rivers and covers 6756 kilometers2 (2639 miles z) in
North Carolina. Flows of most streams in the project region, including the Little River,
are generally in a southerly direction, with drainage ultimately into the Pee Dee River.
The affected stream is Index No. 13-25- (19.5) (NCDEHNR 1993).
There are no small perennial or intermittent streams in the project area. The Little
River will receive directly all of the runoff from the roadway and construction activity.

Stream Characteristics
The Little River in the project vicinity is a moderate-size gentle-gradient rocky
Piedmont stream. Fish (1968) puts the stream in his "largemouth" ecological
classification. This classification of stream is described as follows: over 3 meters
(10 feet) in width, moderately long deep pools, minimum flows over 20 cubic feet per
second, warm summer temperatures, varying turbidity, and with gravel, silt, and muck
bottoms. Fish reports the average width of the Little River in this general region to be 21
meters (68 feet). Fish notes that fly-fishing for largemouth bass and sunfishes is a
popular activity in this section of river. Tributaries of the Little River in the project
vicinity are reported by Fish to be lacking in game fish habitat.
The Little River streambed in the project area near the bridge varies between
about 30-46 meters (100-150 feet) in width. The banks are either very low, from
0.3-0.9 meters (1.0-3.0 feet), or gradually tapering into the floodplain. At the time of the
site study, the water in the river was very clear, and there was a moderate current. The
stream bottom is a mosaic of rubble and gravel beds. There are also some large boulders.
There are many small pools (particularly near the bridge supports), some larger open
shallows, and some small riffle areas. Some larger pools with water up to 1.2 meters (4.0
feet) deep exist near the project area. The average depth of the water around the bridge
was about 30 centimeters (12 inches). Extensive beds of water willow covered most
shallows and some of the rubble. Attached red algae and aquatic mosses covered most
submerged rocks in fast currents.
Best Usage Classification
The Little River in the project vicinity is classified as a Class "C" stream
(NCDEHNR 1993). All nearby tributaries and most of the streams in the Little River
watershed are also Class "C." These are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1996).
This is the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a
minimum. All unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which
they are tributary.
There are several "HQW" (High Quality Waters) streams and stream segments in
the watershed above the project area, but not nearby. There are no HQW, Outstanding
Resource Waters ("ORW"), "WS-I" or "WS-II" water supply watersheds located within
1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the proposed project.
Water Quality
There are only a few chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for
chemical or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] available for the Little River
and its tributaries. The project area was a monitoring station in 1989; th6
bioclassification was rated "Good-Fair". A site on the Little River near Star, about 28
kilometers (17 miles) upstream, was rated "Excellent" in 1985, 1988, and 1989.
The waters of the Little River sub-basin are generally classified "Good" to
"Excellent," based on samples from the Little River and many of the headwaters and
tributary streams (NCDEHNR 1991). Factors contributing to this high bioclassification
are the absence of large metropolitan areas, the geology of the Slate Belt and Triassic
Basin that inhibits agriculture, and the presence of large sections of tile Uwharrie
National Forest (NCDEHNR 1989).
There are only two discharges in the Little River watershed with permitted flows
greater than or equal to 0.5 million gallons per day. The waste water treatment plants for
Troy and the town of Biscoe are located approximately 25 kilometers ( 16 miles)
upstream. Apparently, the Troy and Biscoe discharges have no negative effects on
benthic organisms, and thus, the Little River is considered to be of exceptional quality; it
is urged that future discharge be studied carefully to avoid any degradation (NCDEHNR
1988).
No streams near the project area have been given support ratings. However, five
stations, all considerably north in the watershed, have been rated "Supporting" their
designated uses (NCDEHNR 1994).
Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicate that streams in the project area are presently
supporting their designated uses. These uses can be impacted by construction activity.
Substantial pollution discharges are possible when roads, culverts, and bridges are
constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters, with pollutants and sediment
loads affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint. Because of the
generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving from
construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage, control runoff, and
reduce or eliminate stream disturbances. These measures must include an erosion and
sediment control plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water
management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management
Practices should be employed consistently.
Table 2 summarizes potential water resources impacts. The Little River bridge
crossing is the only water resource that will be impacted. Up to 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres)
of the riverine system (surface waters and wetlands) will be potentially affected by this
crossing.
Table 2. Water resources potential impacts.
Little River crossing 37 meters (120 feet) width of stream
0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in study area
There should be no impacts to any other jurisdictional waters. Even though the
project area lies at the edge of a large floodplain, sites do not meet the definition of
jurisdictional wetlands. There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite
wetlands.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of the Little River,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past construction of
the existing bridge. Streams can be crossed effectively with appropriately designed and
placed bridges and culverts. Careful design should avoid the necessity of any stream
relocation. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect the river, and all
instream activities should be scheduled during low flow periods.
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in
species composition will modify affected stream reaches. Sediment deposition will
adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Biotic Resources
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the Central
Piedmont Ecoregion. A few unusual elements were located during the field investigation,
as noted below.
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project study area. The natural vegetation of the protect area can
be classified along a gradient upslope from the river. The natural communities along this
gradient would be Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Dry-Mesic-Oak--
Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakly 1990). However, much of the land surface is no
longer covered in the natural vegetation, and, elsewhere, the community types are not well-
developed on the limited available and appropriate topography. For purposes of discussion
and quantification, fourteen communities and land types are recognized in the study area.
These are divided into three groups: Natural Communities, Agricultural Communities, and
Maintained and Developed Land Types. These communities and land types are described
below, and acreage estimates for each classification are given in Table 3 (pg. 16).
Natural Communities
Upland Forest. This forest type exists on the short slopes on the west and east
sides of the river. It is more mature and in better condition on the northwest side of the
bridge above the edge of the study area where it turns into a Basic Mesic Forest on a
steep slope. (This basic mesic forest known as the "Little River rich slope" is noted as a
priority area by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The forest is younger
toward the top of the slope nearest the pine plantation. The description that follows
includes some of the portion on the north side at the edge of the study area. The basic
mesic forest outside the study area is more lush and includes many additional species.
Canopy dominance is shared by several species, including northern red oak, white
oak, water oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, sweetgum, winged elm, black walnut,
and loblolly pine. The oaks are present only on the north side and are approximately
52 centimeters (20 inches) diameter at breast height (dbh). Red cedar, black oak, red
maple, wild black cherry, and tree-of-heaven are present. Hop hornbeam, many
15-20 centimeter (6-8 inch) dbh, is an abundant subcanopy tree. Common subcanopy
trees are flowering dogwood and southern sugar maple. American holly is present.
Infrequent species in the shrub layer include hackberry, Chinese privet, painted buckeye,
arrow-wood, spicebush, and pawpaw. Common vines are climbing dogbane, Virginia
creeper, and Japanese honeysuckle. Muscadine and cross-vine are present. Herbs are not
abundant in this forest. Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort, and bellwort are the most
common. Other herbs present are aster, common blue violet, yellow crownbeard,
rattlesnake-root, witchgrass, a grass, and sedge. This community has suffered some foliar
damage, even death, due to reckless herbicide spraying under the adjacent powerline on
the north side. The topography in this part of this forest on the north side is uneven and
cut away, apparently due to past construction activity for the bridge.
Alluvia Forest. This forest occupies the relatively narrow floodplain in the
project area. The forest is more open in the southeast section of the project area, where
10
there are also some shallow, meandering, moss-covered, dry ditches. The abundant trees
are river birch sycamore, water oak, and willow oak in the canopy and ironwood in the
subcanopy. Common trees are sweetgum, tulip tree nearer the slopes, American holly,
green ash, loblolly pine. Cucumber tree, hackberry, and red elm are uncommon
transgressives. Chinese privet is common to abundant. False indigo-bush, pawpaw,
spicebush, arrow-wood, and Virginia willow are common shrubs. Tag alder and swamp
azalea are present in a few places at the river edge. Some other infrequent shrubs in the
forest are black haw, painted buckeye, and strawberry bush. Virginia creeper is the most
common vine; other vines present are cross-vine, common greenbrier, saw greenbrier,
and trumpet-creeper. Herb diversity is high. The most abundant taxa in the herb stratum
are Christmas fern, bellwort, Japanese grass, river oats, and witchgrass. Common taxa
are aster, black snakeroot, white avens, honewort, Jack-in-the-pulpit, wingstem, cut-leaf
coneflower, jewelweed, smartweed, clearweed, and wild rye. A few other infrequently
occurring species are rush, thorough-wort, goldenrod, hog peanut, foanflower, bur-
cucumber, and self-heal.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest. Loblolly pine is the most abundant; some of the
pines are in excess of 51 centimeters (20 inches) dbh. Sweetgum, winged elm, honey
locust, hackberry, southern red oak, willow oak, and water oak are common. A couple of
specimens of laurel oak are present. Common subcanopy trees are tuliptree, red maple,
willow oak, ironwood, and flowering dogwood. A few transgressives of sourwood, red
cedar, American holly, and sassafras are present. Chinese privet is the most common
shrub; highbush blueberry and paw paw are present. Several vines are common,
including climbing dogbane, Virginia creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, and Muscadine.
Saw greenbrier is present. Herbs are rare. Ebony spleenwort and heart-leaved aster are
the most common; pipsissewa is present. Old erosional ditches are present.
Old Pine Forest. This forest is quite similar to the mixed pine/hardwood forest
except that sweetgum and winged elm are the only common hardwood trees in the
canopy. Also, Chinese privet, pawpaw, and hackberry are not important.
Pine Plantation. Loblolly pine is dominant in the size range from 10-25
centimeters (4-19 inches) dbh. There are a few larger specimens. Small hardwood trees
are common to abundant in this plantation, including sweetgum, red maple, northern red
oak, white oak, and black gum. Cumcumber tree, red cedar, southern red oak, and
mockernut hickory are present. Smaller transgressives are numerous and include
sweetgum, flowering dogwood, hop hornbeam, ironwood, American ash, red maple,
northern red oak, willow oak, white oak, post oak, and shagbark hickory. The shrubs are
sparse, but include infrequent specimens of New Jersey tea, sparkleberry, deerberry, and
blueberry. Muscadine is a relatively common vine. Other vines present are poison ivy,
Virginia creeper, Japanese honeysuckle, and yellow jessamine. Herbs are infrequent, but
include occasional specimens of wild ginger, slender spike-grass, sericea, elephant-foot,
and ebony spleenwort. There are a few spots in old logging roads and fire trails with wet
species present.
Old Field and Scrub Thicket. This community type occurs on uplands in the
southwest section of the study area. Scrub trees and shrubs cover an old fence-line, and
the nearby successional old field includes a mixture of coarse herbs and shrubs. The
small trees present are red cedar, Virginia pine, laurel oak, and red maple. Shrubs and
vines are smooth sumac, Chinese privet, blackberry, and Japanese honeysuckle. The
herbaceous plants are fescue, mullein, yellow crownbeard, sericea, and goldenrod.
Alluvial Thicket. The open alluvial area under and on both sides of the bridge is
covered in a thicket of herbs bound together by vines in places. Coarse herbs are
II
abundant, including ironweed, sunflower, smartweed, wingstem, wild rye, and river oats.
Herbs present in lesser frequency are cut-leaf coneflower, black snakeroot, wild lettuce,
false nettle, cup-plant, jewelweed, clearweed, bottlebrush grass, and Johnson grass. The
common vines are poison ivy, Virginia creeper, trumpet creeper, and Japanese
honeysuckle. Common greenbrier is present. There are occasional tree-of-heaven
saplings and elderberrry.
Stream. The Little River in this section has 50% or greater coverage with beds of
water willow, generally in the still shallows. There are occasional plants of clearweed
and water pimpernel in soil pockets. Scattered about in only a few small locations in rock
piles are mallow and clumps of shrubby river birch, and sycamore. Most of the
submerged rocks are covered with extensive growth of macroscopic red algae. There are
firm-textured algae approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches) in length growing attached to
the rocks wherever there is good current. Tuomeya always grows in rapidly flowing
water (Whitford and Schumacher 1969). Fountain moss is common on the rock, but it is
much less abundant than the red algae. Some filamentous green algae are present in some
of the still pools.
Wet Spots. A couple of small wet spots, the largest about 19 meters z (200 feet),
occur in old logging roads through the pine plantation on the upland. Burlrush is well
established in the largest wet spot.
Agricultural Communities
Cropland. The only cropland that falls within the study area is currently planted
in soybeans. Sickiepod is an abundant weed. Ragweed and three-seeded mercury are
common.
Pine Woodland Pasture. There are several variations of this type. One is a
relatively young pine forest on the upland flat on the southwest side that has not been
pastured for some time. The pines are 10-20 centimeters (4-8 inches) dbh with a few
larger individuals. This area has been burned recently and was more recently pastured.
Another variation is on the slope above the alluvial forest in the same area where the
pines are consistently larger. The other is old forest in low ground on the northeast side
that is currently used for pasture and is virtually barren of shrubs and herbs. Loblolly
pine is dominant in all situations. Individuals of red maple, winged elm, green ash, and
sweetgum commonly occur. Infrequent occurrences include Virginia pine, red cedar,
ironwood, red mulberry, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, northern red oak, American
ash, willow oak, tuliptree, persimmon, sourwood, American holly, black gum, redbud,
and flowering dogwood. Beauty--berry and blackberry are infrequent. Trumpet creeper
is common. Sericea is the only common herb, except in the old pine forest where
Japanese grass is abundant. Other herbs infrequently present are rush, milkvine, Spanish
needles, tick-trefoil, ground cherry, cinquefoil, wingstem, fennel, elephant-foot,
goldenrod, ragweed, and wood sorrel.
Maintained and Developed Land Types
Upland Powerline Thicket. This type has been heavily sprayed with herbicide
within the past year to kill the underlying vegetation. Most of the woody plants are dead,
and only herbaceous weedy species are present. The most common herbs are ragweed,
pokeweed, wood sorrel, fireweed, sunflower everlasting, and a sedge. Other species
present are partridge pea, spotted broomspurge, mullein, cup-plant, green-and-gold,
thistle, fennel, witchgrass, Indian grass, and foxtail.
12
Maintained Roadside. This is a community maintained in a low state of
succession by regular mowing or bush-hogging. The community is variously grass or
herb dominated, depending on the location. Vines and low scrubby woody species from
the surrounding forests are present. The berm areas are the most regularly maintained,
while roadbanks are maintained less frequently. Common woody plants are poison ivy,
Japanese honeysuckle, yellow jessamine, smooth sumac, winged sumac, rose, St. John's
wort, red maple, winged elm, sourwood, and willow oak. Dominant grasses include
Japanese grass, oat grass, panic grass, fescue, fescue, crabgrass, sweet vernal grass,
lovegrass, and dallis grass. Some common herbs are asters, Spanish needles, and
horseweed. Some parts of the roadside are barren of any vegetation. An intermittently
wet roadside ditch on the northeast side includes smartweed, false nettle, wild rye, and
elderberry in addition to some of the above species.
Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions are also important in estimating
the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below. Those
taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct evidence was seen are noted with an
asterisk (*) in the text.
There is a wide diversity of habitat types in the project area. The habitat type of
most extensive area is pine woodland pasture, but the most important habitat types are the
stream and the older forested areas.
Many of the habitat types (particularly forest) are large and contiguous, though
only a small part may be within the project area. In the vicinity, the upland and mixed
pine/hardwood forests on slopes and the alluvial forest are the most important. Over 50%
of the project vicinity is forested, and, elsewhere nearby, forest coverage approaches
100% over large areas. Habitat types as units are generally large and not fragmented.
Overall, animal diversity is expected to be high because of the good mix of habitat
types and econtonal areas. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be generally
good for birds of a variety of habitats, particularly those requiring the interiors of large
unbroken forest. Avian fauna were found to be abundant, especially those species
utilizing forested habitats. There are a few small farm ponds in the project vicinity, but
none in the study area. The distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent
letic environments is not expected be important in the project areas, however, the larger
stream system provided excellent habitat for a number of animals. The low human
development of the vicinity should allow the presence of many species that are intolerant
of human intrusion and the require large expanses of natural communities.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general groups.
Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is considered somewhat
ubiquitous. The specific habitat groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of
maintained roadsides and croplands; intermediate habitat, consisting of old field and
scrub thickets, powerline and alluvial thickets, and most ecotones; forests of all types;
and aquatic habitats of the river.
13
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland
chorus frog, and spring peeper. The vegetated stream margin and the few wet spots in the
project area appear to be good habitat for northern cricket frogs. Southern leopard frog
should be present, utilizing the stream margins. The three-lined salamander, the eastern,
newt, and the slimy salamander are expected in the moister forest habitats. *Treefrogs
should be common in the forested areas. Ambystomid salamanders are not expected
because of the apparent absence of suitable breeding pools in the vicinity.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, earth snake, timber
rattlesnake, and copperhead. The eastern hognosed snake might be expected in some of
the more open areas in friable soils adjacent to the project area. In intermediate habitats,
likely occurrences include *eastern fence lizard, eastern garter snake, and eastern milk
snake. Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box turtle, ground
skink, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake.
The avifauna of open areas include American kestrel, *turkey vulture, killdeer,
brown-headed cowbird, loggerhead shrike, *mourning dove, field sparrow, common
grackle, American robin, common starling, eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow,
and eastern bluebird. Birds in intermediate areas include *song sparrow, *chipping
sparrow, brown thrasher, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, American goldfinch,
*indigo bunting, common yellowthroat, eastern kingbird, white-throated sparrow, and
*northern bobwhite. Forest species include *blue-winged warbler, yellow-throated
warbler, *northern parula, wood thrush, *tufted titmouse, summar tanager, *eastern wood
pewee, eastern phoebe, *white-breasted nuthatch, *red-eyed vireo, *white-eyed vireo, and
blue-gray gnatcatcher. Species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk,
*red-shouldered hawk, eastern screch owl, *American crow, *northern cardinal,
*Carolina wren, *yellow-billed cuckoo, *blue jay, *rufous-sided towhee, red-bellied
woodpecker, downy woodpecker, *common flicker, and *Carolina chickadee. *Chimney
swifts are present. *Green heron and belted kingfisher probably utilized the stream,
wood duck could be present there also. *Red-winged blackbirds and *great blue heron
were noted in the vicinity near a farm pond.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew, least
shrew, long tailed weasel, eastern harvest mouse, meadow vole, and hispid cotton rate.
Those ranging into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-
tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray fox, red fox, white footed mouse, and
eastern cottontail. Several species usually shunning open areas, but in the intermediate
and forested areas, include opossum, eastern chipmunk, pine vole, golden mouse, and
southern flying squirrel. Several kinds of bats such as eastern pipistrelle and red bat
might be expected foraging over the Little River and adjacent forests. Species that occur
mostly in forests include raccoon, gray squirrel, and evening bat. *White-tailed deer, a
typically mid-successional species, are abundant in the area. A *river otter was observed
in the river near the project area. Muskrat and mink and should be common along the
river.
Aquatic Life
Fish expected to be common in the Little River are largemouth bass, suckers,
bullheads, and various sunfishes (Fish 1968). Species observed were *largemouth bass,
*suckers, *robin, * bluegill, *gizzard shad, *longnosie gar, and *darters. Other fish
observed during the study appeared to be creek chub and rosyside dace.
14
Several *frogs were the only aquatic amphibians observed, but the stream and
some of its pools and wet areas should support two-lined salamander, northern dusy
salamander, bullfrog, green frog, and pickerel frog.
The habitat should be suitable for several turtle species, including snapping turtle,
river cooter, and yellowbelly slider. Northern water snake, queen snake, ribbon snake are
the most likely water snakes of the area.
Both gastropod and pelecypod mollusks were abundant. *Snails were numerous
in the finer substrates and on rocks. Shells of *mussels were abundant.
*Crayfish were observed in the river.
*Mayfly nymphs were abundant in the river. A fair number of adult *dragonfilies
and *damselflies were observed over the river and the largest wet spot. Various
*butterlies and *skippers were common.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
Terrestrial Systems
The land and community types present in the study area and the surface area of
each type that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project construction are
presented in Table 3. Calculations are best approximations given the design
specifications available and the precision possible in this study. Area measurements were
calculated on a copy of an aerial photograph onto which the boundaries of the study area
were drawn. The Pine Woodland Pasture community will be most heavily impacted. The
data in Table 3 suggest only the potential direct impacts on land and the community types
due to construction. The actual impacts to biotic communities will be less than those
indicated in Table 3 because the calculations are based on study area limits, rather than
construction limits.
Table 3. Area estimates of community and land types potentially impacted in study
corridor.
hectares (acres)
Upland Forest 0.09 (0.23)
Alluvial Forest 0.09 (0,22)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.19 (0.48)
Old Pine Forest 0.03 (0.08)
Pine Plantation 0.15 (0.37)
Old Field and Scrub Thicket 0.02 (0.05)
Alluvial Thicket 0.06 (0.16)
Stream " 0.20 (0.50)
Wet Spots <0.01 (<0.01)
Cropland 0.15 (0.38)
Pine Woodland Pasture 0.42 (1.04)
Upland Powerline Thicket 0.10 (0.25)
Maintained Roadside 0.19 (0.46)
Roadway 0.23 (0.58)
Total 1.94 (4.80)
15
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on how much
of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction. There will be no net loss of
habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such
as roadsides. There will be reduction in the available habitat for animals that require
forest and intermediate habitats, the amount lost depending on the specific alignment.
Some of the communities, such as Maintained Roadsides, will be re-created following
construction.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value should not
change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills should not increase.
The riparian zone of the creek is probably an important corridor for animal movement.
The existing roadway already disrupts natural corridor movement. Construction of a new
bridge, with the old bridge remaining in place, will introduce a significantly new factor
potentially impending animal movements.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. Such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure and
injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging substances, and
skinning of trees by machinery. With the exercise of proper care, such damage can be
avoided.
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears
that all construction will occur in proximity to the existing roadway. Species that require
large tracts of unbroken forest (such as many neotropical migrant birds) should not be
affected.
Aquatic Systems
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
There will be impacts to aquatic systems on-site. Any impacts to aquatic systems
off-site and in the project vicinity should be minimal or non-existent. If construction is
done carefully to reduce sediment runoff, there should be no impact to off-site aquatic
systems.
Sediment deposition adversely affects breeding sites and periphyton communities.
Stream productivity and oxygen levels in the substrate are reduced. Many breeding
vertebrates and invertebrates and grazing benthic invertebrates depend on oxygenated
substrates.
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers to fish movement'are introduced.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for-some aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. This segment of the
Little River will be exposed to these impacts.
16
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway and bridge construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct
taking and by alteration characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater
wetlands are important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered
species; maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and
removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater
hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness in their own right; and their aesthetic value in
some cases. Highway construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these
functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of
jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.2 (b) based on best judgment
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters and wetlands in the riverine system of the Little River are the only
jurisdictional waters present in the project area. It is determined that no jurisdictional
wetlands are present in the floodplain or elsewhere in the study area. None of the alluvial
forest or successional lowland systems in the project area meet the criteria for
jurisdictional wetlands. Some jurisdictional wetlands maybe present downstream of the
bridge site and potentially will receive inputs from road construction.
The amount of jurisdictional water impacted directly by construction is potentially
significant. The riverine wetlands and surface waters present in the study area total up to
0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) (Table 2).
The Little River is not easily classified using the NWI system (Cowardin et al.
1979). The difficulty relates to the presence of extensive water willow beds in a stream
with upper perennial characteristics. However, in the NWI system, the emergent wetland
class occurs only in the lower perennial subsystem. It is suggested that the Little River is
most appropriately classified as some combination of R3UB 1 H (Riverine, Upper
Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-Gravel, Permanently Flooded), R3RB2I-I
(Riverine, Upper Perennial, Rock Bottom, Rubble, Permanently Flooded), and R2EM2H
(Riverine, Lower Perennial, Emergent, Non-resistant, Permanently Flooded).
The wet spots in the upland forest appear to be a direct result of logging road
construction, and they are not contiguous to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though they
have some hydrophytic vegetation and suitable hydrology, they have developed as
inclusions over non-hydric soils. For these reasons, they are excluded from meeting the
definition of jurisdictional wetlands.
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters, except for
potential takings in a study corridor, until the particular project design is known. It will
be impossible to completely avoid wetlands impacts in project design and construction.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill materials into any
17
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. Nationwide Permit
No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] will authorized this project. This permit authorizes
approved Categorical Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded from
environmental documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment."
Individual or General Permits are required for si-tuations where the criteria for Nationwide
Permits are not met.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction activity
in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This certification is required prior to
issuance of the 404 permit.
Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and
riverine wetlands. The only other feasible alternative for crossing the river at this point
would be to replace the bridge in-place, but even that would cause some impacts.
Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. Compensatory mitigation is
generally not required where Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized,
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE. However, if an Individual Permit should be required for the Little
River crossing, compensatory mitigation may be required. Final discretionary authority
in these matters rests with the COE.
As described in Best Management Practices, appropriate erosion control devices
will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into the river, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded area, culverts, the bridge, and other areas where the
soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and borrow locations
should not be placed in wetlands.
Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) received federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 2 May 1997, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports five species with one of these classifications for the
Montgomery County.
The current status of the eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar,'Endangered) in
North Carolina is unclear (Clark 1987). It is assumeTto have been extirpated, but reports
of its presence persist. It possibly occurs in some relatively uninhabited areas with
extensive forests where deer are numerous. Montgomery County, with the Uwharrie
National Forest and a large deer herd, is appropriate habitat. Definitive evidence of its
current existence in the state does not exist, however. Documented reports have been of
escaped or released captive animals. The project area is suitable habitat for the species.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Though becoming more common in North Carolina, the bald eagle (HaliaeCtus
leucocephalus, Threatened) is not expected to occur in the project vicinity except as a
18
possible transient. It requires mature forests near large bodies of water for nesting, and it
typically utilizes lakes and sounds for nesting and non-breeding sites. However, about 16
km (10 mi) west of the project area on the large reservoirs of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
system, there are significant numbers of non-nesting eagles and recent reports of some .
nests. Eagles usually nest in the ecotones between forest and water, often in large pines,
but less than 3.0 km (1.9 mi) from water (Lee and Parnell 1989).
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis, Endangered) inhabits mature,
open pine forest, primarily longleaf pine orf' estsin t?Uo__astal Plain and Piedmont for
breeding (LeGrand 1995). The species favors large tracts of old pines, suitable for the
construction of nesting cavities, in areas having sparse understory vegetation. The
woodpecker has been largely extirpated in most areas outside the southeastern Coastal
Plain of North Carolina due to the demise of mature pine forests following logging and
elimination of fire (Lee and Parnell 1989). Old loblolly pine stands may also be used
(Lee and Parnell 1989). The red-cockaded woodpecker is recorded in the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database at a site in the Uwharrie National Forest
approximately 4.0 kilometers (2.5 miles) northwest of the project area.
A survey for nesting and foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was
conducted on 04 September 1997. Forested areas within the project area are dominated
by hardwoods. However, one small stand of young loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) is present
in the southwest quadrant of the project area. The stand is dominated by pines that vary
between four and eight inches diameter breast height. the understory in this stand is very
dense with branches of these young pines. Therefore, this stand of loblolly pine does not
meet the descriptions of nesting or foraging habitat mentioned above. Additionally, no
red-cockaded woodpeckers, nests, or nest starts were observed during the survey.
Furthermore, the N.C. Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique
habitats was reviewed and did not contain a listing for the species within the project area.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata, Endangered) is a composite that
typically is found on basic or circ- mneutral soils derived from mafic rocks in glades,
woodlands, and open areas. This perennial from 0.5-1.0 meters (1.6-3.3 feet) tall has
distinctive heads that are easily recognizable. It flowers from late-May to July. There are
records for six counties scattered about the Piedmont, but no recent records for
Montgomery County. Marginal habitat exits in the project area, but no plants were
observed.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Schweinitiz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii, Endangered) is a tall perennial
composite with a restricted regiona istrt ution centere in the south-central Piedmont of
North Carolina, having been found in nine Piedmont counties altogether: Extant
populations have been documented within the last ten years for Montgomery County and
the surrounding counties of Davidson, Randolph, Rowan, and Stanly. It favors open
woods and roadsides, apparently because it was once a component of formerly open
prairie-like communities on basic-soils that were common in this region. There are no
known occurrences within the project vicinity. The plant flowers in September-October,
but it is recognizable vegatatively during the summer. No populations were discovered
after carefully searching for this plant in the project area. Habitat for this sunflower
appears to be marginal in the project area.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
19
FIGURES
156/
1569
1
1543 ?/ 1 CCU
-! 1565 G`
?- p
1•7 1 568
1 544 &
O Onvil
R H
a y 1565 1564 7,2
7
1005
•`cr
1543
6 ?r b
Bridge No. 60
a
1118 156
.1
ILEAD 1576

3 W
3 b
1? f : 5 ti 2.0
•
1543
1541

L

.. .:• :::: •:::_:::::::.:;:: 731
:.::::::•:
``• 3

b
I
? AS
....
L
2.2 F Pekin
e p , •••:
o 1005 5
ry.

19
?.
A 1115
o
FAS
G{C
b
TOWN CREEK
1541
n I%,1r%1AAI 1/^UND
tsao

kRK IJ ?
?.^rCAA
r IC .?, 1005

?, 7
olado
\' Ladln lid

StNO(14
1

1541

7(/?

/
Uhfr
G Exway
Uwho>re FOR Star J 0
r
W. - i; 35
10
r
toy 11,
MO N T,

1

?'
?uFr ? S
1xrtlr.y ?
6and
,7M

..

E

t
DrwOOC ' ? `S _?
ni-
S S
pErO ? k,n
North Carolina
rL-N ?I Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 60 ON SR 1565
OVER LITTLE RIVER
B-3005
kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
I ! Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

i
I
St'
East Approach to Bridge
tj?i Y
I
1
I
t 1 "
e
4
j
j ,
Interior View of Bridge No. 60 Pratt Truss
North View of Bridge No. 60 (Pratt Trusses)
ATTACHMENTS

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 30, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 60 on SR 1565 over Little River,
Montgomery County, B-3005, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-156501, State Project 8.2550201,
ER 96-7718
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Dirrclor
1o5
f.
r C O ?:
'?G.g ?JlrO?
On November 14, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 60 was determined to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places on August 14, 1979. We are aware of
no other historic structures located within the area of potential effect and
recommend no further architectural survey.
Archaeological site 31 MG 10 lies just southeast of Bridge 60 on the eastern side of
the Little River. The eligibility of this site for nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places has not been determined. To avoid unnecessary damage or
destruction to this cultural resource, we recommend an archaeological survey be
conducted by an experienced archaeologist to determine the nature, extent,
condition, and significance of archaeological remains which may be affected by the
proposed undertaking. If site 31MG10 lies within the area of potential effect for
the project, it should be evaluated in terms of National Register criteria.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
1 1 /30/95, Page 2
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
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
S . Wk
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 18, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study for replacement of Bridge
60 on SR 1565 over Little River, Montgomery
County, Federal Aid BRZ-1565(1), State Project
8.2550201, TIP B-3005, ER 97-7380
Dear Mr. Graf:
w.
1), J 01c)
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of August 29, 1996, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Gerold F. Glover, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
concerning the above project.
The report does not identify, nor discuss, the archaeological remains of an earlier
bridge and Martin's Mill, adjacent to and just north of the existing National Register-
eligible bridge. Also, the evaluation of site 31 MG 10 is based upon only two small
shovel tests and a surface collection.
The approximate boundary of the area of potential effect appears to include
unspecified portions of these archaeological remains. We feel additional
background information and archaeological assessments should be undertaken for
these resources to fully evaluate the potential effects of this project. Also, we note
the proposed realignment crosses the entire length of prehistoric site 31 MG 10, yet
shovel testing was only conducted at field's edge (STP #1) and within the wooded
area (STP #2). Initial investigations in 1962 by the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill identified this site as a multicomponent Archaic/Woodland site. The
present investigation excavated a total of two 50-cm-wide shovel tests. These
were supplemented by a surface collection of artifacts from the main site area.
Forty-five artifacts were recovered, including flakes, shatter, biface fragments, a
hammerstone, several cores, and a single piece of historic whiteware.
We feel statements concerning the nature of the archaeological remains and the
potential for subsurface features have not been adequately researched and the
conclusions in the report are not supported by the data. Additional testing is
necessary within the main 31 MG 10 site area to evaluate its nature, extent,
condition, and significance. Therefore, we request additional information,
documentation, and evaluation concerning the significance of archaeological
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Noah Carolina 27601-2807 g??
Nicholas L. Graf
10/18/96, Page 2
remains associated with the SR 1565 bridge, Martin's Mill, and site 31 MG 10.
Upon receipt of a revised archaeological report, we will continue our review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at-36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
G. Glover
LI11?_ I / t-LJIl\Il./11J
sTArT
J ?
G ` J2?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 3, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study for replacement of Bridge 60 on
SR 1565 over Little River, Montgomery County,
Federal Project BRZ-1565(1), State Project
8.2550201, TIP B-3005, ER 97-7380
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Ci E
%`{I('0 ° 1991
4
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1997, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Gerold F. Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) concerning
the above project.
The revised report does not include information from a charcoal sample taken from site
31 MG 10 which was submitted for radiocarbon dating. We have been informed by Mr.
Glover that two procedures were utilized to date these remains. Please advise us
concerning the nature of these procedures and the results of the tests.
We believe information on the dating of these samples should have been presented within
the report. Scientific assessment of age for this site could possibly influence a
determination of its significance. Since this information was not included in the report, we
consider the subject report incomplete and request and additional revision that includes the
missing information. Upon receipt of the revised report, we will continue review of the
project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
"U V!
Da -id Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: H. F. Vick
G. Glover
T. Padgett
109 East Joncs Street • Ralci-h, North Carolina 27601-2507 gOD,
tLt" C-t-t-/JM1 0),

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 21, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological study of replacement of Bridge
60 on SR 1565 over Little River, Montgomery
County, State Project 8.2550201, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1565(1), TIP B-3005, ER 98-7006
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
I L 46-
AI 2 ? 1991
Dlvfs;
4 OF
rY .
ern ys Q?!
"v'?,,,,. .r
Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1997, transmitting the revised archaeological
survey report by Gerold F. Glover concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
31 MG 10, Late Archaic/Early Woodland lithic workshop and short-term
habitation site containing subsurface remains dated to 2300 ± 80 BP and
21 16 ± 63 BP, Criterion D.
An evaluation of the Martin's Mill site (31 MG 1 167 * *) for eligibility for the National
Register of Historic Places was not presented within the report. This omission may
have resulted from the site being considered "outside the area of potential effect."
Whether or not the site lies within the area of potential effect, a definitive
assessment of National Register eligibility would have been appropriate within the
Recommendations section of the report. As it stands there is a well developed
historical background for the site, but no clear statement of its eligibility.
Although we noted a recommendation for "no further work" within' the completed
site form, we do not agree with this recommendation. The fragile architectural and
archaeological remnants of Martin's Mill deserve preservation. A recommendation
for preservation by avoidance, nomination to the National Register, and/or eligibility
for the National Register would have been more meaningful. Given the historical
background presented within the report and the importance of water-driven mills to
the development of the southern Piedmont region during the nineteenth century, we
consider the Martin's Mill site (31 MG 1 167 * *) significant to the development of
local history in Montgomery County. Therefore, in our opinion, site 31 MG 1 167
109 East Jones Strcct - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2907 1_3 03
Nicholas L. Graf
7/21/97, Page 2
should be considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
According to your letter of June 30, 1997, site 31MG10 is considered eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places and the proposed undertaking will not
adversely affect it. However, it appears a small segment of the site area will be
impacted by construction of the new approach to the proposed bridge. According
to the Advisory Council's regulations this action constitutes an effect, although it
may not be adverse. To avoid an adverse effect we believe the following
conditions should be carried out as part of the project:
* Prior to construction the Federal Highway Administration and North
Carolina Department of Transportation shall prominently mark the site's
boundaries for avoidance.
An experienced archaeologist shall monitor grading with the area of
potential effect; and
NCDOT will notify and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office
concerning any changes in alignment or design for this project.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
v
DB:slw?
cc: vH. F. Vick
G. Glover
? . JrYt?f s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAP,TMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARIAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRrrARY
August 13, 1997
Mr. David Brook
Dep. State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives & History
N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Brook:
SUBJECT: Archaeological study for replacement of Bridge 60 on SR 1565,
Montgomery County, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1565(1), State Project
No. 8.25550201, B-3005. Your reference ER 97-7380.
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 1997, concerning the archaeological report on this
bridge replacement project. We note that you concur with most of the recommendations
presented in the report and that you find the report in compliance with all applicable
guidelines. Your remarks concerning the National Register eligibility of Martins L'vlill site
(31MG1167), which we recorded and documented in the report, are appreciated.
However, since the mill site is outside the bridge replacement project area, the project
will have no effects on the property and the recommendation for no additional work in
regard to the site is appropriate.
Site 31Mgl0 is considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, but, since
the portion of the site that might be affected by the project is an area demonstrated to be
highly disturbed, any effects to the site would not be adverse. We discussed this in
several meetings with State Archaeologist Steve Claggett and his staff, and agreed to
have an archaeologist be present at the pre-construction meeting to review the final plans
and coordinate efforts to avoid impacting the site. This recommendation was presented in
the report. We will notify the State Archaeology Office of the date and time of the pre-
construction meeting so an archaeologist from that office could attend the meeting as
well. We believe these measures will insure proper protection to the site, and fulfill the
same goals as the conditions listed in your letter.
0
Please respond and let us know if you concur. If you have any questions, please call Tom
Padgett, Archaeology Supervisor, at [phone], x 292.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Roy Shelton, P.E., FHWA
Steve Claggett, State Archaeologist
David Foster, P.E.
Tom Padgett
Federal Aid m ?>z? ts`? ??? TIP 3•?S County M-^4rrro•4
r?a
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
V-F-PLAGE 1?19-I0GE- ?Jo. (00 •N SQ.lri(05 "E42 LITTLE {ZIdLf-
On A u0,4 r 22 1-1'74, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transporation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no erects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential erect and listed on the reverse.
there are no e.. ects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential eFfect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register -listed proper-,//properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the a sect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
proiect's area of potential of-rect. The proper-,y/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Siened:
G?f b 2z
Rep t Live N CDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section ate
ae ? ,"? I 926?2
FHW for the Divis n Administrator, or tsther Federal agency .
Date

Representativ , SiiPO date

State Historic Preservation Officer / t7atz
(over)
Federal Aid R E?rzz ISIS ) TIP m
It) • !;?, aor-
County Mnr.IT(roNley_
Prone pies within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
?RIpGE ??• (00 CpEI
Prope.,ies within area of potential effect for which there is an e ect. Indicate property status (L NR
or DE) and describe erect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCD0T FHNVA ,'(,? SHPO /zL

4N N:? J ??J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources ?`??
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 16, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation J
'Y
FROM: David Brook //J ?G?? ??
Deputy State Hdstorl?Preservatlon Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological study for replacement of
Bridge 60 on SR 1565 over Little River,
Montgomery County, Federal Aid BRZ-
15650 ), State Project 8.2550201, 8-
3005, ER 97-7380
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1997, concerning the above project.
Your letter states site 31 MG 10 is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, but contends that "... since the portion of the site that might be affected
by the project is an area demonstrated to be highly disturbed, any effects to the
site would not be adverse." We do not believe this point has been clearly
demonstrated. In our letter of July 21, 1997, we stated that this action
constitutes an effect, although not necessarily an adverse effect. To avoid an
adverse effect we requested three conditions be met. Our opinion has not
changed, thus these conditions remain in effect.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Strcct • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 Q33

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 80X25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 14, 1997
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
P. O. Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Graf:
Subject: Archaeological Study, Bridge Replacement, Bridge No. 60 on SR 1565,
Montgomery County, B-3005, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1565 (1).
By letter of September 16, 1997, the State Historic Preservation Office reiterated their
recommendation that in order to avoid an adverse effect on archaeological site 31 MG 10,
the NCDOT should do the following:
• mark the site's boundaries prior to construction to insure that the archaeological
deposits at the site are avoided by the construction
• have an experienced archaeologist monitor the initial grading in the area of
potential effect. and
• notify and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office concerning any
changes in the project alignment or design.
We agree that these measures can be taken to avoid adversely impacting site 31 MG 10.
The other site discussed in the archaeological report (31 MG 1167) will not be affected by
the project.
Any questions regarding the archaeological sites should be directed to Mr. Tom
Padgett at [phone], ext. 292.
Sincerely
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: David B. Foster, P.E.
Thomas Padgett

w4h A 0
STATE.
JAMF.s B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
October 16, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI L N.C. 27611-5201
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
GARLAND B. GARRF.TT JR.
SECRETARY
Design-Plan Project
Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 60 on SR 1565 in
Montgomery County over Little River, B-3005
Attached for your review and comments is the scoping sheet for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
this sheet and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 14, 1995 at 9:45 a.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
JW/wp
Attachments
[A

0
?o 01
(N Mo ve ?
C 13 -ZS-(19)
.Vl oL?64-
114le I -, t 1 *1 1?e
AOVVV,4
fz0
RD]

N
a+ 1565 1564 2
W ? •
;)' t t
N Q;? 1005

1543
6 b

1118 1

LEAD 1 1576
r

b .

f:.S
2
0 -;
!
3
, ..:.•:.;:::
1543 1541 b
ki
1'.•. :::'` 2.2 1? A5 n
Pe
rs
•o 1005 r

:• ?
19 ?.
?
A 1115
?. o
Fps
_
G{?'
c„
TOWN CREEK
1541
IkIMAki it UND
1540
N ?
/ /
ner l 19 x'221 C ,n 1005 ?
/
E condo St.

, 1

1 1541
?tlt
1 Ether
,
' Exway
r iai FO Star S
3501 Or
rov Bu
;i MONTH 7 220\

J Cand
J
720,
aM
?71'iparu 5 a,
:l a
E
? S
?? v I v
Min
North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 60 ON SR 1565
OVER LITTLE RIVER
B-3005
kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
r a Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

1569
C
1543 !
? G.
rs6s

1.7
1568 >
1544 ;'.; .
O Onvil

'? 2

TIP PROJECT
DATE: 10-13-95
STATE PROJECT
F. A. PROJECT
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
B-3005
8.2550201
BRZ-1565(1
DIVISIO 8
N
COUNTY Montgomery
ROUTE SR 1565
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 3005 over Little River in
Montgomery County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 87 METERS; WIDTH 4.9 METERS
STRUCTURE: 286 FEET 16 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 700,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST + $ 30 WO
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 730,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route