19980362 Ver 1_Complete File_19980421

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
1 • •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
May 4, 1998
Polk County
DWQ Project 980362
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. David Robinson
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh NC 2761-5201
Dear Mr. Robinson:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, for the
purpose of a bridge replacement on SR 1516 in Polk County, as you described in your application dated
April 21, 1998. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this impact is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. 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. 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 except as
modified below. 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 this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
N,etland 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) (6) and (7). 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 conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. 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.
Pree ,
n jard, r. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
980362.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
1
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. L G.
FRObi-
_?b Y1N W Il.i t f
lb R[F. NO. OR ROOM. DG.
C'
AQT ION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO M[ ?. PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORS DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL,
? NOTE AND SEE M[ ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT.
COMMENTS:

O - 61994
p

wOLCAWIT,

e.. SfAlto
JAMES B. HUNT. JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201
September 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
i IST
Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 17 on SR 1516
in Polk County over Pacolet River, B-3018
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets 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 10, 1994 at 9:30 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 733-7842.
JW/pl r
Attachment -rl -
fPd It Qom.
T)Vf 0`(Oh?
61)
,#, f - Z/rv
n

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 9-30-94
TIP PROJECT B-3018 DIVISION FOURTEEN
STATE PROJECT 8.2980401 COUNTY POLK
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1516(1) ROUTE SR 1516
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: REPLACE ?BRIDGE E OVER ? PA O COLETORIVER
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: RURAL LOCAL ROUTE
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 13.4 METERS; WIDTH 3.4 METERS
44 FEET 11.2 FEET
,,. $ 200,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .............................
+ $ 15,000
TIP RIGHT 0 9VAY COST ............................
TIP TOTAL COST ..................... $ 215,000
D
'2-0 2-0
6 I od ? d ?
s
SCAM
Owl
0
-4?%
•#*
00 .001* 40 $00
i
1
¦
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
6Q TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF $IGHWAILS
NIZ7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
POLK COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 17
ON SR 1516 OVER PACOLET RIVER
B - 3018
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2

DO I FEET (N. C.) 12' 30"
J
? ?. Polls ??
erdenit
?.' etery'
r X
Id f. :_ ?
xZ70-T r

i \
391 --cr?392
_
USGS Map
Landrum
7.5 Minute-Quadrangle
L

11 c
?fpP I / ?
1? 1 J x , I r\ ' /- \534 Oh
• ?? u i
A",
II. _` Fug
? '.r-?? ? _ • ? „ i J J ' n -I ,??,. .._ ? ?. 1 , i /III ?? A
- l
?b CIE
n J? .
467
1
?1 ? ? ?? ,J ? I . ` J • ? ? ??R ?? " ??, ?`'? Jam„ j?,
V? - ?. "? ?? i II•I 113], ((J(??? ?/ ??
???j\\? ( 11516 i lbl-T I !r\; /
,• ? ? ? ,?? 1? ? I ? - ?? x III/r
IS17
J? IV
Vhm y `? J J `, J i/ l? f T
`???'.ti

-1 ?
X
?L` ? ISol,
aoss, /?? \
r`
? AM StAre4
Y+?f `
ww+®?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGI IWAYS It. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI I, N.C. 27611-5201 SIC I IARY
April 7, 1995
-,rem1rn RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb QPR 1 7 1995
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor ENVIRONM
ENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1516, Polk County, Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over
Pacolet River, State Project 8.2980401, F. A. Project
BRZ-1516(1), B-3018
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Highway
Building on November 18, 1994.
The following people were in attendance:
Dean Sarvis Roadway Design
Ray M oore Structure Design
Eric Galamb Depart. of Environmental Management (DEM)
Danny Rogers Program Development
C. W. Brown Location and Surveys
Kenny McDowell Hydraulics
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Vilis Keglers Structure Design
John Williams Planning and Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that the waters are Class C. He requested
Normal Soil and Erosion Control Measures.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics stated that the new structure will be a
27-meter (90-foot) long bridge at an elevation approximately 0.3-meter
(1-foot) below that of the existing bridge.
The bridge is a truss and may be a historic structure warranting
protection.
No
April 7, 1995
.• Page 8
ALTERNATES FOR REPLACEMENT
Alternate 1 - Replace Bridge No. 17 on approximately the same location with
slight realignment of the approaches (see figure 2). Traffic
would be detoured along existing secondary roads during
construction.
Construction Estimate $300,000
Alternate 2 - (Avoidance Alternative in the event that Bridge No. 17 is
Historic). Replace Bridge No. 17 on new location to the east
(see figure 2). Traffic would be maintained along the
existing alignment during construction.
Construction Estimate $300,000
JW/wp

BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 4-05-95
TIP PROJECT B-3018 DIVISION 14
STATE PROJECT 8.2980401 COUNTY Polk
F. A. PROJECT BRZ-1516(1) ROUTE SR 1516
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
BRIDGE NO. 17
EXISTING LENGTH 13.4 METERS; WIDTH 3.4 METERS
STRUCTURE: 44 FEET 11.2 FEET
NEW BRIDGE
EXISTING LENGTH 27 METERS; WIDTH 6.6 METERS
STRUCTURE: 90 FEET 22 FEET
COSTS
TIP ESTIMATE
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................
TIP TOTAL COST ......................................
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................
RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................
TOTAL COST ......................................
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
$ 200,000
+ $ 15,000
$ 215,000
$ 300,000
+ $ 22,000
$ 322,000
Studied Detour Route
1136 11
Tryon ?1y 1190 1.7 1137 FP'.7
1136 ~' u 1 135
?. .
FAI
ti k528 h 4 •561
\ 4 ?• ?
U.
3 1556 155
6
1531
1545 2 532 1557
11896 COLUMUSs 6 .:? 1534 ,7
1 122 A'•'
POP. 727 ',1 r`L 4 1566
5. 1135'
.1
1137
V
BRIDGE NO. 17
44 1137
L n 55 C9i ??
reed

'b h' 1527
533
I
9.'1534 X525
I 15
1521 1565
P.<
1519 -
1
,. TRYO
6 ' pAcp ' 1501) `' •? 1517Rjt
/- POP. 1,79 1516

1,075
1 / _. -.1549
M : POLK COUN'T'Y
y '4 NORTH CAROLINA 1 so 1 a- ,

SPARTANBURG COUNTY,
SOUTH CAROLINA
1525 ..'157
1516
QD c
1519
\\ 1518
l
1519
1548
26
goo
L?rlEti r *00
r""P dg¢
ill 1, G^ r
Spring
w-
¦
? 9 a I
•
a ! North Carolina Department Of
e Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
POLK COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 17 ON SR 1516
OVER PACOLET RIVER
B-3018
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

??? STAT(` ••
IV'
98036?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AMPS K HUNT R. PO. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GO VI RNOR e ,a
April 13, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
Dear Sir:
E. NORRIs T(-)[-SON
SICREVARY
W A?? SE ?1'?N
Subject: Polk County, Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over Pacolet River on
SR 1516; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1516(1); State Project
No. 8.2980401; TIP No. B-3018.
along existing secondary roads, as depicted in Figure 1 of the programmatic CE.
Attached for your information is a copy of the programmatic categorical exclusion
(CE) action classification form and the natural resources technical report (NRTR), as well
as three addenda to the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 17 on SR 1516 over Pacolet River in Polk County. The existing single lane bridge
will be replaced on the same location with a modified skew designed to improve the north
approach. During bridge replacement, traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour
Based on the natural resources technical report prepared by the NCDOT, the
proposed bridge replacement will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit,
but proposes to proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued on 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 of the project.
9
.6-
It is anticipated that a 401 Water Quality Certification for a Categorical Exclusion
will apply to this project. A copy of the CE and natural resources technical report, as
well the three addenda to the NRTR, are being provided to the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their review.
The DOT requests a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for impacts to waters of
the United States from the proposed bridge replacement. The NCDOT asks that the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission provide comments to the COE for this
permit application. Application for 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is
also made.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd ax ) 733-7844, extension 314.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Asst. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Davis, WRC, Waynesville
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. D. Martin, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
I
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
&. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f)
TIP Project No. B-3018
State Project No. 8.2980401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1516(1)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 17 (a pony truss bridge
not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) on SR 1516 over the
Pacolet River in Polk County. The new structure will be a bridge 17 meters
(56 feet) long and 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide including two 2.7-meter (9-foot)
lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The new bridge will be at approximately
the same location but with a slightly modifed skew designed to improve the
north approach. Traffic will be detoured on secondary roads during
construction (see Figure 1).
The modified alignment to the north will extend approximately 76 meters
(250 feet) from the new bridge. To the south, the alignment will remain the
same with approach work extending 53 meters (175 feet) from the bridge.
Thirty meters (100 feet) on either end of the bridge will be paved before
transitioning back to gravel. The roadway will include two 2.7-meter (9-
foot) lanes and 2.2-meter (7-foot) grassed shoulders to accomodate guardrail.
The grassed shoulder will taper to 1.2 meters (4 feet) where guardrail is not
required. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be
approximately 30 km/h (20 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $297,000 including $275,000 in construction
costs, and $22,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-
2004 TIP is $375,000 including $375,000 in construction costs, and no right of
way costs.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 17 has a sufficiency rating of 23.3 out of 100. The structure is a
one lane bridge with 3.3 meters (11 feet) of bridge roadway width. This
does does not meet modem design standards which requires at minimum, a
two lane crossing. The bridge is posted at 8 tons for single vehicles and 15
tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers which is well below standards. For these
reasons, Bridge No. 17 needs to be replaced.
L
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
J. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
2
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable 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." An Army Corps of engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23 or General Regional Permit No. 31 will likely be applicable to this project.
Prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification must be obtained.
The following will be implemented where possible to minimize adverse impacts to
Waters of the United States:
• Strictly enforce Best Management Practices
• Clearing and grubbing activity will be minimized.
• Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams where possible.
• Reestablish vegetation on exposed areas with judicious herbicied and pesticide
management.
• Minimize "in-stream" activity
• Use responsibile litter control practices
The project area is surrounded by a property deemed eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in concurrence with
NCDOT has determined that the project will have a "Conditional No Adverse Effect" based
on the following commitments:
• Clearing and grubbing activities will be kept to the absolute minimum required for
construction.
• Right of Way will be kept to the absolute minimum required for road and shoulder
maintenance.
• Any vegetation (ie. shrubbery or landscaped areas) will be replaced in kind or as close as
possible.
• The new bridge rail will be two-bar annodized metal rail.
• A light colored aggregate will be rolled into the surface of the asphalt on the approaches
for the purpose of blending the color of the new asphalt surface to that of the dirt road.
In early coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC), NCDOT has asked NCWRC to comment on the proposed project. The NCWRC
responded that the Pacolet River is not managed as trout waters in the project area. However,
because Polk County is a "trout water county", the NCWRC will review the environmental
document during the 404 permit application.
4

Because Polk County is a "trout water county" the following commitment will be
implemented:
• 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.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 275,000
Right of Way $ 22,000
Total $ 297,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 100 vehicles per day (VPD), Year 2020 - 300 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes
Shoulders - 2.1 meters (7 feet) wide grassed shoulder to accomodate guardrail
- shoulder will taper to 1.2 meters (4 feet) where guardrail is not
required
Design Speed: approximately 30 km/h (20 mph) because of curve on south end of bridge
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division 14 Engineer originally recommended realigning the bridge upstream (to
the east) of the existing bridge to improve the alignment. However, since that time, it has
been discovered that the property surrounding the bridge is an historic site eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the bridge must be replaced on
approximately the same location with only slight adjustment to the skew of the bridge. The
division has agreed with this proposal.
5
Summary of Comments from Formal Public Hearing
A formal public hearing was held in August 1997 to obtain public comment on the proposed
project. More than 60 Polk County residents were in attendance. The following is a
summary of the comments received at the meeting as well as the response from NCDOT:
Comment: Rehabilitate and keep the existing bridge.
Response: This is not feasible to do since one of the abutments is cracked and un-
repairable. Additionally, the structural integrity of the truss itself is rapidly
diminishing.
Comment: If a new bridge must be built it should be a one lane bridge.
Response: North Carolina Department of Transportation Policy does not allow for the
new construction single lane bridges.
Comment: If a new bridge is to be built, the rails should accommodate for equestrian
usage and should be rustic if possible .
Response: The rails on the new bridge will be 2-bar anodized metal rail.
Note: There were two other rail designs for consideration; a one bar metal rail and a
"parapet" design. Each type received some support from those in attendance
but the two bar metal rail had the most support.
Comment: The new bridge should be as short as possible and one span if possible.
Response: The new bridge will be 56 feet long with only one span.
Comment: (from County Commissioners) Do not modify River Road by paving,
widening, or improving the alignment.
Response: NCDOT has agreed that River Road will not be modified unless it is at the
request of the county commissioners.
Comment: Prefer not to pave the approaches but if it is necessary, is there a way to blend
it in with the existing dirt road (not so much contrast)
Response: The pavement design will incorporate a light colored aggregate which will be
rolled into the surface of the asphalt to create a much lighter look to the
pavement.
Comment: Because the bridge is at an angle to the road, "wings" at each end of the bridge
should be built to provide a visual barrier which would guide horses safely
onto the bridge.
Response: Guardrail will be incorporated on the approaches.
Comment: Speed limits should be posted on the road and bridge to improve safety.
Response: A recommendation will be made to the NCDOT Division Office to post the
speed limit.
6

E. Threshold Criteria
if any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
D X
(4) if the project involves wetlands, is the amount of ?
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? El x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? El x
7

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? -
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? 1-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? 1-1 X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? -
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? F-1 X
8
f P
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 17 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan ?
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? F] X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1X*i
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X*
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl FX
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
9
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
* This project will require a small amount of right of way from a property determined
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The SHPO in concurrence with the
FHWA and NCDOT have determined that the project will have "No Adverse Effect" on the
the adjacent property conditional upon the implementation of the commitments included in
the attached Memorandum of Agreement and also appearing in the Environmental
Commitments Section of this document.
**This project has had considerable public controversy. A number of the residents in
the community wanted to see the existing pony truss bridge preserved. The NCDOT Bridge
Maintenance Unit determined that preservation is not possible due to the fact that the
abutment of the bridge is cracked in a way that is unrepairable. Additionally, the structural
integrity of the truss itself is significantly diminished due to many years of service and in
recent years bearing significantly larger loads than the bridge was originally designed to
carry. A public meeting was held in August of 1997 to discuss with the residents and other
interested parties the issues surrounding this project. A brief summary of the meeting is
contained in Section D of this document (Special Project Information). In the end, agreement
was reached between NCDOT, the residents, and the Polk County Commissioners regarding
the design of the replacement bridge and approaches.
10
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No
B-3018
State Project No. 8.2980401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1516(1)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 17 (a pony truss bridge
not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) on SR 1516 over the
Pacolet River in Polk County. The new structure will be a bridge 17 meters
(56 feet) long and 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide including two 2.7-meter (9-foot)
lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The new bridge will be at approximately
the same location but with a slightly modifed skew designed to improve the
north approach. Traffic will be detoured on secondary roads during
construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
_2
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
_?-2-9k 14 ,,Q_ 0/ 7?
Date Project tanning Unit Head
Date Pr ject Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date i% vi* n Administrator
r federal Highway Administration
SEAL
t 022552
41,
NORTH CAROLINA -DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENTS
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT
STATE PROJECT
T. I. P. NO.
DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 17 (a pony truss bridge
not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places) on SR 1516 over the
Pacolet River in Polk County. The new structure will be a bridge 17 meters
(56 feet) long and 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide including two 2.7-meter (9-foot)
lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The new bridge will be at approximately
the same location but with a modifed skew designed to improve the north
approach (see Figure 2). Traffic will be detoured on secondary roads during
construction (see Figure 1).
Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of the
existing highway facility on essentially
the same alignment?
2. Is the project on new location?
Is the historic site adjacent to the
existing highway?
4. Does the project require the removal or
alteration of historic buildings,
structures, or objects?
5. Does the project disturb or remove
archaeological resources which are
important to preserve in place rather
than to recover for archaeological
research?
YES NO
X ?
1-1 X
X F-1
12

6. a. Is the impact on the Section 4(f) ?
site considered minor (i.e. no effect, X
no adverse effect)?
b. If the project is determined to have
"no adverse effect" on the historic ? X
site, does the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation object to the
determination of "no adverse effect"?
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the ?
assessment of impacts and the proposed X
mitigation?
8. Does the project require the preparation
of an EIS? ? X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not
to be feasible and prudent:
I . Do nothing Yes No
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? ? X

or (b) correct existing safety hazards? X

or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X

and (d) create a cost or impact of ? X
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the hi hwa without using the
adjacent historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes

in standards, use of retaining walls,
X ?
etc., or traffic management measures
been evaluated?
13
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
It is not possible to replace the
bridge without using the adjacent
historic site.
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering,
transportation, maintenance, or
safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new ?
ocation without using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii) substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
MINIMIZATION OF HARM
Yes No
1. The project includes all possible planning ?
to minimize harm necessary to preserve the X
historic integrity of the site.
14
2. Measures to minimize harm have been ?
agreed to, in accordance with 36 CFR X
Part 800, by the FHWA, the SHPO,
and as appropriate,the ACHP.
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are
described as follows:
• Clearing and grubbing activities will be kept to the absolute minimum required for
construction.
• Right of Way will be kept to the absolute minimum required for road and shoulder
maintenance.
• Any vegetation (ie. shrubbery or landscaped areas) will'be replaced in kind or as
close as possible.
• The new bridge rail will be two-bar annodized metal rail.
• A light colored aggregate will be rolled into the surface of the asphalt on the
approaches for the purpose of blending the color of the new asphalt surface to that of
the dirt road.
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
NOT APPLICABLE
15
COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer see attachment
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation see attachment
c. Property owner see attachment
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies not applicable
e. US Coast Guard not applicable
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUMMARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to
this project. There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize
harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
3-2-78 ?' V
Date Rat Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT
3/ VE57
Date Div io dministrator, FHWA
16
VP
? ?k ? 9 e

` 1 Mil, /G
-, I
M ?M1 \
North Carolina Department Of
F Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
POLK COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 17
ON SR 1516 OVER PACOLET RIVER
B-3018
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
t 1 Figure 1
0 miles 0.25 miles 0.5
?,,. SiATr o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 27, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 17, Federal Aid Project BRZ-15160 ),
TIP B-3018, and Bridge No. 19, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1517(1), TIP B-3019, over Pacolet
River, Polk County, ER 95-9284
Dear Mr. Graf:
?cej tv
Fa
Aix ° , 1995
2C DIVISIC,4 OF
?F HIGHWAYS
N?RONIVIE?%
Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Kenneth Robinson concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Mr.
Robinson has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation
since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
, ?C?" v t,-CJ Y
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: '41. F. Vick
T. Padgett
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
T4; R .
N
STATE OF NORTH C,ROU N,-\
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. Noms ToLsoN
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 16, 1998
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Graf:
RE: Finding of No Adverse Effect, Replace Bridge No. 17 on SR 1516 over Pacolet River, Polk
County, TIP No. B-3018, State Project No. 8.2980401, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1516(1)
The above-referenced project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's regulations for compliance codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Enclosed is the summary
documentation for the finding of no adverse effect required for Council review.
After consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, it was determined
that Alternate 1 of the subject project would have no adverse effect on the River House, a property
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has prepared the accompanying summary documentation for submittal to the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.5(d). Please review this
documentation and forward it to the Advisory Council for their acceptance.
If you have any questions concerning the accompanying information, please contact Barbara
Church, Historic Architectural Resources Section, at [phone] extension 295.
Sincer
. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachments
cc: Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Manager
0
02-03-H 011:43 FM
Fedeaal Ald * ?Rz• ts1? 1 TIP # 6. Ott, County Po&,,
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
INT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description ASSESS
REPt.At.? Oa-tOSrtc a. I"r .N Islb OVER P?,6e1.&r R1vFK.
On Prof^&" in 1.10k& rcprwcntadves of the
? North Carolina Department of TrampornWon (NCDOT)
-? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic preutvation Office (SHpo)
Other
reviewed the subject project.and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
arcs of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there arc no eti;'ects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's ascavfpotential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/proper ice. within the
project'* am of potential effect. The property-properties and the C&Ct(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The propetry/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
Repres t , NCDOT. Historic Architectural Resources Section ,rn
the DivisiotllAdtninistrator, or other Federal Agency
-100 Wtv
Representative, Hp0
State Historic Preservation nm
Date
F01102
pomArle Fox Note 7671
?, FraM
oo/OMpt. Co.
?,o 0 plgno
Q pmt M 196-41- H-10 J
cer
(over)
02-03-H 0::40 FM F02 02
Federal Aid 0 6aik- Iii I ` TIP # b• I'V14, County Pe? K
Prepuce within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if propetry is
National Register-fisted (M) or detetmiped eligible (DE).
Properties within aria of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
R,,,E4L 4W, r. (M) -• 14++t>,'T,.t44L 1Jo A?cv?vrc,K•v? feet- tea. At.?. 1
hJo okwr-4Lsr, gepr, 1-. 1:o& ALr. 2,, .
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
?.LT. W'" l?Avt~ tJa 14ovE(t« e+?EcrS WIT14 TkC ?Ll.•W„?Cr C*Na1r1e&jr,
NO" AfrROACA 'r, WOFTM WD #'F T4C h4-40K
i
?) t?l Cos1S.?+6rNn.N N?t•t{ S1tPc A$JO PaAPEIL( A. C4,5., 'p VeYE"Ip
(•b?ID4aAPtn) F FLAN
Initialed: NCDOT FHWA SHPO l ??
FINDING OF NO ADVERSE EFFECT
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ADVISORY' COUNCIL
ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Replacement of Bridge No. i
on SR 1516 over Green River
Polk County, North Carolina
TIP No. B-3018, State Project No. 8.2980401
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1516(1) .
Brief description of the undertaking:
The new bridge will be approximately 17 meters (56 feet) in length and 6.6 meters
(22 feet) in width including two 3.0-meter (IMoot) lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets.
Approaches will extend approximately 45 meters (150 feet) to the north and 70 meters
(230 feet) to the south with a maximum of 30 meters (100 feet) to be paved in either
direction. The roadway will include two 3.0-meter (10-foot) lanes and 2.2-meter (7-foot)
grassed shoulders to accommodate guardrail. The grassed shoulders will taper to
1.2 meters (4-feet) where guardrail is not required.
2. Description of the efforts to identify historic properties:
Please see the attached Phase II Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report prepared
by NCDOT and letters from NCDOT to Federal Highway Administration dated
October 30, 1995, and October 2, 1996.
Description of the affected historic property:
Please see the above-referenced survey report.
4. Description of the undertaking's effects on the historic property:
Please see the attached Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects, dated December 19,
1996.
5. Summary of the views of SHPO and any interested parties:
Please see the attached letters dated November 30, 1995, and November 21, 1996; and also
see the above-referenced concurrence form.
II.o
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Poet Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. #609
Washington, DC 20004
1

FEB 1 8 1998

Mr. Nicholas L. Graf _3 2 =. 1998 =
Division Administrator - •r. Q
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bam Avenue, Suite 410 ?;tFJ
"?,
Raleigh, NC 27601 A
irV,F10
REF: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 17 at Pacolet River
Polk County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf
On February 6,1998, the Council received your determination, supported by the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation O [icer (SHPO), that the referenced undertaking will have no adverse effect
upon the River House, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Pursuant to Section 800.5(dx2) of the Council's regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36
CFR Part 800), we do not object to your determination. Therefore, you are not required to take any
fitrther steps to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act other than to
ensure the project is implemented as proposed and consistent with the conditions that have been
reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Raymond V. Wallace
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Planning and Review
FHNA - NC ONL&ON
RECD FEB 2019Qp
my AOY6?i
ASST. Dv AGANN
sr RUARY
FIN IA,f"r IN ASST.
RLTY M 1 JkTV I
RAT
TC a S CP 8P
PaPCat:
SECf? r4•
PL .A PL•9
PM Pu
DN TR
Or-S 3.r=
^-' A-2
A•3 A•!
A•S F
FL£ I SH
,
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 10, 1994
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 17 on SR
1516 over the Pacolet River, Polk County, North
Carolina, TIP No. B-3018.
This memorandum responds to your request for our
concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
project, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete
roadway bridge. We anticipate that a spanning structure
will be required for the site, given the size of the
existing bridge. The Pacolet River is not managed as trout
waters in the project area. Construction impacts on other
fisheries and wildlife resources will depend on the extent
of disturbance in the stream bed and surrounding floodplain
areas. Environmental documentation for this project should
include description of any wetlands on the project site and
surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be
affected by construction.
Because Polk County is a trout water county", the
NCWRC anticipates review of the environmental document for
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
B-3018 Memo Page 2 November 10, 1994
this project when a 404 permit application is submitted to
the Corps of Engineers.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
be avoided. If wetland areas are identified during project
planning, alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts on these
areas should be examined during project design.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Janice Nicholls, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
17 March 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit HeAd
Project Planning
FROM: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 17 on
SR 1516 and Bridge No. 19 on SR 1517 over
the North Pacolet River in Polk County,
TIP No. B-3018 and B-3019: State Project
No. 8.2980401 and 8.2980501; Federal Aid
No. BRZ-1516(1) and BRZ-1517(1).
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
vEi l e IS,,, an d.1,,BZAR1j9
?r?

Replacement of Bridges No. 17 and 19
on SR 1516 and SR 1517 over the
North Pacolet River in Polk County
TIP No. B-3018 and B-3019
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1516(1) and BRZ-1517(1)
State Project No. 8.2980401 and 8.2980501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3018 and B-3019
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
17 MARCH 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................3
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator ................3
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................3
2.1 Water Resources ...............................4
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification............ 4
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................6
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 6
2.2 Soils and Topography ..........................6
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ...................... .7
3.1.1 Alluvial Forest ..................... .7
3.1.2 Maintained Communities .............. .8
3.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest .......... . 8
3.2 Aquatic Communities .......................... .9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............... 10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ..............................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters ..................11
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ..... 11
4.1.3 Mitigation...... ..................12
4.1.3.1 Avoidance .................12
4.1.3.2 Minimization ..............12
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation... 13
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...................13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......... 13
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ............ 14
5.0 References .........................................15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. North Pacolet River Characteristics
Associated with Projects B-3018 and B-3019..... 4
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ..... 10
Table 3. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected
Species for Polk County .......................15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map (Project Location) ................ 2
Figure 2. Water Resources Associated with Projects
B-3018 and B-3019 .............................5
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of two Categorical
Exclusions (CE's).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed projects call for replacement of the
existing structures (Bridges No. 17 and 19) on SR 1516 and
1517 over the North Pacolet River (Figure 1). Details
describing each project are cited below.
B-3018 Bridge replacement in approximately the same location
at approximately the same elevation. The new bridge
will be constructed at a slightly different skew to
align it with the existing roadway. A 30.0 m (100.0
ft) approach will be paved on either side of the
bridge.
B-3019 Currently two alternatives are being considered for
bridge replacement:
(1) Bridge,replacement in approximately the same
location. Traffic would be detoured along
secondary roads during construction.
(2) Bridge replacement on new location
immediately to the east of the existing
structure. Traffic would be maintained on
existing bridge during construction. Note:
Vertical realignment of SR 1516 is proposed for
either alternative.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The B-3018 and B-3019 study areas are located within the
North Pacolet River floodplain approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi)
south of the township of Columbus in Polk County. Both
bridges are oriented along a north-south axis across the
Pacolet River, which flows from west to east. The study
N
?
I?I
?
I?I
•I $40 I $ I$
I
I
I
P
Le dodr
FIGURE 1.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTDIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
POLK COUNTY -REPLACE BRIDGES
NO. 17 k 19 ON SR 1516 & SR
1517 OVER N. PACOLET RIVER.
B-3018 AND B-3019
0 km 1.6 km .3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2
r
r
r
r
Y?;
3
areas of both projects are composed primarily with
maintained/pasture communities. Project elevations range
between 76.2 and 91.5 m (250.0 and 300.0 ft). A thin
riparian zone is located along the North Pacolet River
throughout both projects.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Landrum) and NCDOT aerial photomosaics of
each project area (1:1200). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Polk County, 1992). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on 27 and 28 February 1995 by
NCDOT Biologist Lane Sauls to evaluate natural resources.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more of the following observation techniques:
active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars) and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds. scat, tracks and burrows). Organisms captured
during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS degree Natural Resources- Ecosystem
Assessment, North Carolina State University
Employment: Worked in biological field since 1992.
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations; wetland
delineations; and NEPA investigations.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. The availability of water and soils
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
4
2.1 Water Resources
Projects B-3018 and B-3019 are located within the North
Pacolet River sub-basin of the Broad River Basin. The North
Pacolet River originates in western Polk County just south of
Saluda and flows eastward approximately 11.2 km (7.0 mi)
before turning southward into South Carolina. Once in South
Carolina, the Pacolet River converges with the Broad River
southeast of Spartanburg. The proposed projects (B-3018 and
B-3019) are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of each other and
approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) northwest of the intersection
of the North Pacolet River with the South Carolina border
(Figure 2).
The North Pacolet River had fast to medium flow rates
and stained water at both project sites as a result of
precipitation received the week prior to the site visit.
Water color varied drastically between the two sites. At the
B-3018 site water color was grayish black. At the B-3019
site, approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) downstream, water colors
were mud-stained. Additional information regarding water
resources is found in Table 1.
TABLE 1. NORTH PACOLET RIVER CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED
,WITH PROJECTS B-3018 and B-3019
Characteristics Project Project
(N. Pacolet River) B-3018 B-3019
Substrate C/P/Sa/Si C/P/Sa/Si
Current fast medium
Stream Gradient flat flat
Channel Width 7.6 m (25.0 ft) 10.7 m (35.0 ft)
Channel Depth >0.9 m (3.0 ft) 0.9 m (3.0 ft)
Water Color grayish/black stained
Aquatic Vegetation none none
NOTES: Approximate dimensions were averaged along 30.5 m
(100.0 ft) upstream and downstream at each crossing;
Substrate: C= Cobblestone, P=Pebble, Sa=Sand,
Si=Silt.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). North
Pacolet River is designated as "Class C". This
classification denotes waters suitable for secondary uses
such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the study area for the project.
FIGURE 2. WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECTS
B-3018 AND B-3019
G
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. BMAN information is available within the B-3019
project limits. A survey taken 8/83 revealed a BMAN rating
of "GOOD" for the North Pacolet River at this location.
However, no recent surveys have been conducted in any portion
of the North Pacolet River.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. The NPDES lists one
discharger, Polk County Schools-Tryon High, as a domestic
class discharge approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) upstream of
Project B-3018.
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location
with a road closure during construction is almost always
preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on new location
usually results in more severe impacts. Impacts expected
with the B-3018 and B-3019 projects include: increased
sedimentation; scouring of the stream bed; soil compaction
and loss of shading due to vegetation removal. Increased
sedimentation from lateral flows is expected.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area, NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the.project.
2.2 Soils and Topography
Mixed alluvial soils dominate the study area. These
soils consist of areas of unconsolidated alluvium recently
deposited by streams. They are found on narrow terraces
adjacent to the stream and are subject to frequent overflow.
Soil colors are light brown.
Polk County lies in the Mountain Physiographic Province.
The geology of the project site exhibits intrusive rocks
consisting of metamorphosed granitic rocks (foliated to
weakly foliated) and locally migmatitic, orginating in the
Late Proterozoic to Middle Paleozoic Eras. The topography
consists of steep side slopes leading to narrow valleys
containing drainage patterns of a dendritic subtype.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife communities that occur on the project
site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these
communities as a result of the proposed actions.
All species are cited with their common names
accompanied by their scientific names. Subsequent references
to the same species will include common names only. Faunal
species observed during the site visit are noted with an
asterisk (*).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study areas: (1) Alluvial Forest, (2)
Maintained Communities and (3) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the
entire range of the three terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is found along floodplain ridges,
terraces and active levees adjacent to the North Pacolet
River channel. Its hydrology is palustrine with intermittent
flooding during wet periods. Alluvial forests are believed
to form a stable climax forest, having a stable, un-even aged
canopy composed primarily of bottomland hardwood trees.
The canopy is dominated by various bottomland trees such
as sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sugarberry (Celtis laevipata),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and river birch (Betula
ni ra). Understory vegetation includes red maple (Acer
rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus carolinana) and various saplings
of canopy trees mentioned above. vine and herbaceous species
present at the project site are poison-ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica),
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia and S. bona-nox) and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include
species associated with ecosystems that are temporarily
flooded during periods of heavy precipitation. A few of the
species that may be found in this community include spotted
salamander (Ambvstoma maculatum), marbled salamander
(Ambvstoma opacum), two-lined salamander (Euryicea
bislineata), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus prophyriticus)
and spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) which forage on small
S
insects and worms. The gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
belted kingfisher (Cervle alcvon), American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), black bear (Ursus
americanus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
also may be observed in this community. Dominant predators
of this community include the barred owl (Stria varia) and
red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), which prey on small
rodents, birds, reptiles and amphibians.
3.1.2 Maintained Communities
Maintained communities are dominated by saplings, vines
and small herbs that are regularly controlled by mowing.
These communities are commonly found along roadsides, fallow
fields and other frequently disturbed areas. Floral species
found along the proposed project sites include pine and
hardwood seedlings, privet (LiAustrum sinense), hazel-nut
(Corylus americana), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium spp.), aster
(Aster spp.), fescue (Festuca spp.), barnyard grass
(Echinochloa crusizalli), blackberry (Rubus spp.), wild onion
(Allium spp.), poison ivy, beggar's ticks (Bidens spp.),
Christmas fern, greenbrier, clover (Trifolium spp.), river
oats (Chasmanthium latifolia), wild grape (Vitis spp.) and
Japanese honeysuckle. Species such as soft rush (Juncus
spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), panic weed (Microstigeum virmineum)
and giant cane (Arundinaria RiAantea) are found along small
drainages and roadside ditches.
Pasturelands are also considered as a maintained
community. These areas are dominated mainly by fescue but
are known to also contain rye grass (Lolium spp.), clover,
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) and other graminoides.
This landscape provides habitat for the existence of
many faunal species related to open settings. Species such
as the northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), American
goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis), mourning dove (Zenaidura
macroura) and Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis) are
found throughout this community. The eastern cottontail
(Svlvilagus floridanus), killdeer* (Charadrius vociferus) and
woodchuck (Marmota monax) may also find foraging
opportunities and shelter in this community. Major predators
include the red-tailed hawk ( uteo Jamaicensis), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) and black racer (Coluber constrictor).
3.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine/hardwood forest is the third biotic
community associated with the proposed projects. Before
clearing/urbanization, this was the dominant forest.
Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), Virginia pine (P.
virainiana), tulip poplar, sweetgum (Liauidambar
stvraciflua), white oak (Ouercus alba) and northern red oak
(Q_ ru a) dominate the canopy portions of this forest.
Species found throughout the understory include black cherry
(Prunus serotina), ironwood. American beech (FaAus
jzrandifolia), hickory (Carva spp.), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and American
holly (Ilex opaca). Shrub, vine and herbaceous layers
contain blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra), rosebay (Rhododendron spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia), wisteria (wisteria spp.), Japanese honeysuckle,
wild grape (Vitis spp.), greenbrier, poison-ivy, grapefern
(Botrychium spp.), clubmoss (Lvcopodium spp.) and Christmas
fern respectively.
r
The mixed pine/hardwood forest offers habitat for a
variety of fauna. Species that may inhabit such areas
include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), slimy
salamander (Plethodon Rlutinosus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) and ground skink (Scincella lateralis). These
species forage on small plants and insects such as crickets,
grasshoppers, beetles and harvestmen, respectively. The
black racer (Coluber constrictor) and copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix) serve a predatory roles by feeding on numerous
small reptiles, birds, mammals and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides
habitat for species such as the southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomvs volans), gray squirrel, pine warbler (Dendroica
inus), tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor), golden-crowned
kinglet* (Regulus satrapa), ruby-crowned kinglet* (Regulus
calendula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern flicker (Colaptes
auratus) and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, small mountain river, will
be impacted by the proposed project. Physical and chemical
characteristics of the water body dictate faunal composition
of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent
to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic
communities and vice versa.
Since water levels were slightly above normal due to
recent precipitation, no fish, invertebrates nor fresh water
mussel shells were encountered. However, prey species likely
to be present in the North Pacolet River include golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), central stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), highback chub (Hvbopsis hypsinotus),
fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare) and spottail shiner
(Notropis hudsonius). These fish feed on algae,
invertebrates and juvenile fish. They also provide forage
items themselves for predator species like brown trout (Salmo
trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus mykiss), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described (habitat reduction,
faunal displacement, etc.). Any construction-related
activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources
reflect the relative abundance of each community present in
the study area. Project construction will result in clearing
and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way
widths of 24.0 m (80.0 ft) for both projects. Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right of
way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 2. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community B-3018 B-3019
Alluvial Forest <0.1 (0.1) <0.1 (<0.1)
Maintained Community 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest <0.1 (<0.1) <0.1 (0.1)
Total Impacts <0.2 (0.4) <0.2 (0.4)
NOTES: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Permanent impacts to terrestrial communities will occur
in the form of habitat reduction. Since the project area is
already fragmented, relatively minor impacts will occur to
species that live along the edges and open areas. However,
ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. Mobile species will be permanently displaced and
increased predation may occur as a result of habitat
reduction.
Both permanent and temporary impacts will occur to
aquatic communities from increased sedimentation, increased
light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers
benthic organisms inhibiting them to feed and obtain oxygen.
Increased light penetration from removal of stream side
vegetation increases water temperatures. Warmer water
contains less oxygen thus, reducing aquatic life that depends
on high oxygen concentrations.
11
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of
the United States, and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to determine jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric,soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
either project as a result of construction. However, impacts
will occur to surface waters.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the COE. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5
(A) 23 will authorize impacts to natural resources (surface
waters) concerned with each project. This permit authorizes:
(1) activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in part,
by another federal agency or department, and;
(2) that agency or department has determined pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation that
the activity, work or discharge is categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because it
is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the the human environment,
and;
(3) the office of the chief on engineers has been
furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with the determination.
12
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC
2745) is also required for any activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
State permits are administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Polk County is listed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) as a county containing Mountain
Trout Waters (MTW). No discharge activities will be
authorized by the Nationwide Permits within designated MTW
counties without a letter of approval from the WRC and
written concurrence from the Wilmington District Engineer.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of. wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes." Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters will
result from project construction.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
The following methods are suggested to minimize adverse
impacts to Waters of the United States:
13
1. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMP'S)
to control sedimentation during project
construction.
2. Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized.
3. Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams.
4. Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
with judicious pesticide and herbicide management.
5. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
6. Use responsible litter control practices.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation r
Compensttory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOE) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
ammended) requires that any action, likely to adversely
impact a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as ammended. As of November 17, 1994, the FWS lists
one federally-protected species for Polk County: white
irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum).
14
Sisvrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) Endangered
Plant Family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: October 28, 1991
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Polk, Rutherford.
The white irisette is a perennial herb with
dichotomously branching stems. The basal leaves are bluish
green in color and are 1/3 to 1/2 the overall height of the
plant. White flowers are borne at the ends of winged stems
and the fruit is a round, pale to medium brown capsule
containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds.
The white irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of
North Carolina. This plant is found in sunny clearings and
along the edges of upland woods where a thin canopy is
present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed
the deep litter layer that is usually present. It occurs on
rich, basic soils that are probably weathered from
amphibolite. It is dependent on a form of disturbance to
maintain the open quality of its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat for white irisette exists only along
the roadsides of the proposed project. A plant-by-plant
survey will need to be conducted at both project sites in
spring 1995 (Late May thru July) while the plant is in
flower.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are thirteen federal candidate (C2) species listed
for Polk County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject of any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms which are
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exists to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under th State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
1;
TABLE 3. FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR POLK COUNTY
Scientific Common Name NC Suitable
Name S tatus Habitat
Neotoma floridana
magister Eastern woodrat SC N
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler - N
Pituophis m.
melanoleucus Northern pine snake SC N
PvrQus wyandot Southern grizzled
skipper - N
Psoralea macrophylla Bigleaf scurf-pea E Y*
Hexastvlis rhombiformis French Broad heartleaf - N
Juglans cinerea Butternut - Y
Marshallia grandiflora Large-flowered
Barbara's buttons - N*
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap - N
Nestronia umbellula Nestronia - N*
Platvhvpnidium prinRlei Pringle's eurhynchium
Saxifraga caroliniana Gray's saxifrage - N
Senecio millefolium Divided-leaf ragwort T N
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Polk County in the
past twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof. Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Fresh Water Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The
Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1980. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
16
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to Waters of the Broad River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virgina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
.,. AAtt o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
)AMEs B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201
27 April 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
FROM: Lane Sauls. Environmental Biologist `g --,.?
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: John Wiiiia;ns. Project Manager
SUBJECT: Addendum to Natural Resources Technical
Report for Proposed Replacement of Bridge
No. 17 on SR 1516 over the North Pacolet
River in Polk County. TIP No. B-3013:
State Project No. 3.2930401: Federal Aid
No. BRZ-1516(1).
REFERENCE: Sauls' Natural Resources Technical Report
completed March 17. 1995.
The following addendum addresses impacts associated with
a newly proposed alternate for replacement of Bridge No. 17
on SR 1516 in Polk County. Previously, the alternative was
defined as bridge replacement in approximately -the same
location at approximately the same elevation with a slightly
different skew to align it with the existing roadway.
The new alternative (Alt. 2) proposes to replace the
existing bridge with a new bridge approximately 9.2 m (30.0
ft) west of -the existing structure. The roadway also will be
shifted to the west to align it with the new bridge.
Anticipated impacts to biotic communities as a result of this
alternate are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. IMPACTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES AS A RESULT
OF ALTERNATE 2.
Community Impact
Alluvial Forest <0.1 (0.1)
Maintained Community 0.1 (0.2)
TOTAL <0.2 (0.3)
Note: Impacts are cited in hectares (acres).

2
Anticipated impacts to water resources. waters of the
U.S. and. rare and protected species as a result of this new
alternative will not change from what was described in the
referenced Natural Resources Technical Report.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit
aMi-Randalul-w-rurrfer, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3018
1 •

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS
Govu voR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
27 June 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Project Planning
LJ
FROM: Logan Williams Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species surveys for white irisette
(Sis_vrinchium dichotomum) at proposed bridge
replacements in Polk County; TIP No.'s B-
2604, B-2605, B-3017, B-3018, B-3019.
ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager
Surveys for white irisette were conducted on 23 June
1995 by Logan Williams and Chris Murray. The white irisette
is a perennial herb with dichotomously branching stems. The
basal leaves are bluish green in color and are 1/3 to 1/2 the
overall height of the plant. White flowers are borne at the
ends of winged stems and the fruit is a round, pale to medium
brown capsule containing three to six round or elliptical
black seeds.
The white irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of
North Carolina. This plant is found in sunny clearings and
along the edges of upland woods where a thin canopy is
present. These open areas often are where runoff has removed
the deep litter layer that is usually present. It occurs on
rich, basic soils that are probably weathered from
amphibolite. It is dependent on a form of disturbance to
maintain the open quality of its habitat.
Suitable habitat for this species was found along the
road shoulder, in ditches and in runoff areas in the vicinity
of each of the projects investigated. White irisette was not
found after a plant by plant survey of the project area .
Therefore, no effects to this species will result from the
proposed construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal C. Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Files: B-2604, B-2605, B-3017, B-3018, B-3019
-10
. A

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH.N.C 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
09 July 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
?R
From: Lindsey Riddick, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Protected Species surveys for dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) at proposed
bridge replacements in Polk County; Tip No.'s
B-2604, B-2605, B-3018, B-3019
Reference: 1) Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR)
prepared by Lane Sauls, Environmental
Biologist Environmental Unit, dated
January 1995.
2) Memorandum of Protected Species survey
prepared by Logan Williams, Environmental
Biologist Environmental Unit, dated 27
June 1995.
Attention: John Williams, Project Manager
As of 01 April 1996, two species, dwarf-flowered heartleaf
and White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum), have been added to
the Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected species for Polk
County since the referenced NRTR. The white irisette issue was
addressed in the referenced memorandum by Logan Williams dated June
1995. The project recieved a biological conclusion of no effect
for white irisette. This memorandum summarizes the biological
conclusion for dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid march - mid May
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin
petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds
15 cm in height. The leaves are dark. green in color, evergreen,
and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles.
O-Z
iI
v
Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs
and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and
creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest
and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Surveys for dwarf-flowered heartleaf were conducted on 10
June 1996 by Lindsey Riddick and Tim Savidge. Other species of
the genus Hexastylis were, found to be present in one project area,
B-3018. However, these specimens were observed outside of the
project right-of-way and were not H. naniflora. No specimens of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf were observed during a plant by plant
survey of the project areas. In addition, the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species does not
indicate any population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the project
vicinities. Thus, no effects to this species will result from the
construction of this project.
cc: V. Charles Bruton Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal C. Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
files: B-2604, B-2605, B-3018, B-3019