19990917 Ver 1_Complete File_19990810

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 • •
- 21
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 31, 1999
Ashe County
DWQ Project # 990917
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
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 52 over
Buffalo Creek, as you described in your application dated August 10, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3107 and 3114. These Certifications
allow you to use National Permit Numbers 23 and 33 when the Corps of Engineers issues them. 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 send us a new application. 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 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. This
approval shall expire when the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as otherwise provided in the General
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,
Stevens
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files 990917.Itr
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
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.html
it
d??Fs?
yyy ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 10, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
'A
Regulatory Field Office 4
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120 Re"F Nr
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 11,116
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyei
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Ashe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 52 over Buffalo Creek on
SR 1133; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1133(2); State Project
No. 8.2710801; TIP No. B-2904.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCODT) requests
authorization from the.U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 23 to replace Bridge No. 52 over Buffalo Creek in Ashe County. The
NCDOT received authorization from the USACE to conduct foundation surveys,
Nationwide Permit (NWP) 6, in a permit dated August 31, 1998 (USACE Action Id
199821195).
The project was originally described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) signed by
the Federal Highway Administration on July 17, 1997. In this document, the project
involved replacing Bridge No. 52 over Buffalo Creek on SR 1133 on new alignment with
two 8-foot by 6-foot reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC) at the Buffalo Creek
crossing. A second stream would also have been culverted, and this crossing would have
required two 7-foot by 6-foot RCBC. This document has been attached to this letter.
At the time of the permit application for the NWP 6, the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) noted concern with the NCDOT's intentions of replacing the
existing bridge with two RCBC's on Buffalo Creek and its tributary. The NCDOT has
reinvestigated the project, and determined that the installation of the two RCBC's is not
practicable.
2
The NCDOT now plans to bridge both Buffalo Creek and its tributary. The
replacement of the existing bridge structure with a new bridge has been described in an
Addendum to CE approved by the FHWA on October 16, 1998. The addendum
document has been attached to this letter. The NCDOT must impact waters of the United
States in order to construct the project. Attached to this letter are permit drawings that
depict the proposed project.
The temporary detour will necessitate the use of temporary pipes in Buffalo Creek
(Site 2) and its tributary (Site 1). The NCDOT must construct a temporary on-site detour
to accommodate traffic. The temporary impact at Site 1 (Station 16+60-DET-) is 184
feet in length and 0.15 acre in surface water area. The temporary impact at Site 2
(Station No. 18+50-DET-) is 142 feet in length and 0.13 acre in surface water area. The
NCDOT commits to revegetating•`these two areas. The NCDOT does not intend to
mitigate for these two temporttry impacts. The NCDOT believes that this work can be
authorized under a Section 404 NWP' 23 as the work was described in the Addendum to
the CE.
The NCDOT will also need to utilize a temporary work pad at the proposed
bridge in order to construct the new bridge over Buffalo Creek. The temporary work pad
will result in 0.07 acre of impact to surface waters. The NCDOT believes that this work
can be authorized under a Section 404 NWP 33 for the project. The NCDOT will adhere
to the general conditions of the 401 Water Quality Certification; therefore, written
concurrence for this permit from the N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not
needed.
The NCDOT requests that the USACE issue two Section 404 permits: Section
404 NWP 23 for the bridge construction and the use of temporary pipes; and, a Section
404 NWP 33 for the construction of the temporary work pad in Buffalo Creek. The
NCDOT asks.that the NCWRC provide a letter of concurrence to the USACE concerning
this project. Application is also made for 401 Water Quality Certification from the
NCDWQ. Written concurrence of the 401 WQC is necessary with this project because
the temporary impacts to a stream at a site is greater than 150 feet.
r
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this
project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
V - c-, ??
[?. W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
D Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Cantrell. USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC, State Road
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Jimmy Goodnight, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. W.E. Hoke, P. E., Division 11 Engineer

Scale of Miles
0 S 10 20 30
L-M -M
L-M see
0 10 20 30 40 48
Sole of Kilometers
O,m Inch equals .ploo-awly 13 miles and appioumalely 21 kilumews.
s?
,Tk
(dean
! IP5
C
J
`
M D .a 10 94

314! a
?
RO s f
] ! 1 Glihon 1114 e as
''
t1y fa) a llfa 1203 1
N' Lill'

11f 1
f
rid ?? n e LI7Z ...
\

.7
Creston
1pQ 1.111 II71
?Mt. Pa?dY Cl,
O 1r
e i? ? l S '` `? ?s a SmiM1

Tree au
• 1211 .1 LL21
LUl

1121_
QY?"?
TOP 1 .1
1111
?; 1144 Cr (° _4i`
11i 1.112
L THE PEAK
LLU ?.
MM• 6vff°b wESi
Ch. JEFFF
T R
h
. Gr. Creek

4 LLH { Pop.
1
121
1
? Trow N -
1

SITE Ltl4.
.s

1144
.. r up

SCALE
/ ?W 1121
. 11 ; y,!
4
S-
:GladY
Halls A
)L
Ha
D! r I D _
I I
? r]
\ ?e
u241 ? \ ? ? 4
l I }? JEFFERSON
.e
MT. JEFFERSON
Ya
1111 ?
1>lu
11tY?;112'
1 iJ T •e 1131
O 1 _] ] a M1l1tS !LsS j 1J.LL
2s
p 0.3 1 Mil! J1!L n 12's
\ O1MIb r
I LL32 3 .a 46 1
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS 11l2 1 I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ASHE COUNTY
VONITY PROJECT: 0.049001T, B-2904
MAP REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
P 52 OVER BUFFALO CREEK
SHEET I OF S
O/zg/96
I
J ?s? I ? ? 1 I N I ?
Q II 1 _ a
LL.
w II ???, I I I
? II I
V) I I } o z
LLJ ?/ \ I I o °+
CL , I o J
xr I ; - w
C) wo a /? I I I I w
0
z
ui LLJ
a/ I 1 I I I ?; I

Ln a_
W
x .? a
U
-
N Q? .
M.
C F
E•'
c
-
rn :2
LLJ . c

\
/ / Qzs E? u ?.
A / - ?i F 0 W (y? W 4 Q

\ \ / ? o c. w ? sL F
\

\ I
J
I
x
z
J
\ U m
?Q / °
` \ a

< CD
r y
\
z

V) CL ?- LL
I

V)
• LLJ
wo
= F--
I
'I
\ b
_
N
J
?"
I
\ b
°
L
J
}
_ II ?-
o I r
< L
"' II
II 1
1 I \ Ma
wo a- C)

i =
??o cn
a °
CL 4 I I = F - N
N
_ O X

I\

Ln Q
J .
U ?

w

i
a

°? 2: Z
J

LLL
O

N Q M
I
Lo O
a
a w Ln M
w

a
w
I- _ N M
V)

a-
Q
cl?
N
u ?
>
W
J
W ?

Z WV)
=N
V)< Ln
I aJ

J cr
_J W
? I
= o I
(-41 V), c, ?b±l:
C7
z
O
o
Q ?Q
wa-
L.
Q O N
O0
a- z
Q? OY
0 7
Z a- O
O I L.
O
I
w ?z
N
O
Vi V)
L
U co
I
.
i
~O
Z
Q O
Y
UwU z V)
S O
SW
?0V)
I

c, Q WQ

NGm Z> O
ZQU
Q U
J =X Ln
QO UW r?
z
D-
f-- O
<X
z0
a_
a
?r
00-1
V) m
O V)
m a
N J
- U
D
LLJ
co
Y
W
W
U
z

F"
4
W cri
C7 rA
O 3 "s„ C? q U `7-z
z
' x 0 ?° O ? C\
C
O 0
,
.T
F L-,
z :D
Opcn U W w ? O
aF. '411
ti
,
MI
w , O .a 0
u xa
w

z ri)
0
_(-4J
. o
F
O
U U
z
?O
O Z
O
M
I?
?p
I
I ?
f

N z

I N `?"'
Q: ? c A W
?
I ' Q?00" `° my
I
LL)
o z
z?
4
Q9
W -+ .?xx
C) CT)
co / a F-OW wm
LLJ 0

z°
z
/
o 0 (A
E~ ?:
U
Q m
W p Q
N Q Go x
w
G C?
C. CL
W N
cv ? U a
0o I z
V) LLJ
0O? II
o 0 ? °
I I o
? _
?N I I I
I 00

i II
I 1

W

r
Q J I
0
ow I
c I a
C) Off 1 cl?
wCD 1 Lij
N
° a
1
° 1 00
CL 1 ? U-i
1 •? >
/ x a
1 w x
/ w W
/ F- W
0 co u
r / w o Ln
0
0aw /
a
CD /
Z /
f=
N /
x
W
0
0
0
0

c o

w
a
U U E'
W N_
O
x
00
Oo
(`.1
00

w
O
w
x
z
C
o 0
w?

V) <
< CL d' x ®
-j- U c z O

Opp U W ? ®
''
u
0 CD

A

i
W
1
F
O N O
00 G
U v
i
0 °_

Lc)

w
y .<
(Dn
C (-On
q Qjw

r c

O w 0
w > 0
r
U E
U
n 0 _
?-
0 w

C.7
o? 00
0->-
:2<
I
w3
p 0C? vi
p 0 (/ w
N0
OBI
c0?
O / `r>- r
nO ?
0
?OCi XQ
O= O
O Z p
z 2= LLJ
p V)
HOC/ `°° 0 w ° z
rv?Qcl?

J
? O
> -
J /

Q Q N <
()
Qa rrr V) L.LJ
U
LLJ

`/
rp W ?- LLJ _J
d m l-
/ ZZ pW>- ?QQ
O
O co Q J zQ?
=
Z Q0
?
iE
ao
p0
N wa- w w
x ?:2 i-- or
w
p rwar
n r > z
o a w
p
cj? L)
N O X U
- 11 W Q
Z
Zp.J?O?
W Q w r W
W
W
LLJ > O
rC) - pW :?
O W Q z J W
Z ? :1,j d W (a?
co
N
00

Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1133(2)
State Project 8.2710801
TIP # B-2904
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
A1311ROVED:
,_? V. 0z"-q1-
Date-( Franklin Vick, 11. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
-7-1-7-77 t
Date
holas Graf, 1'. E.
ision Administrator, FHWA
Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1133(2)
State Project 8.2710801
TIP # B-2904
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Jef i am
Pr Ject I'lannin ingineer
?kip-
Wayne Elliott S'f A,G
Bridge Projcct Planning Engineer, Unit Head 6 916
'
6??t V. PIRO
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1133(2)
State Project 8.2710801
TIP # B-2904
Bridge No. 52 is located in Ashe County on SR 1133 crossing over Buffalo
Creek. It is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
as a bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge
Replacement Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No
substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1, SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 on a new
alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the west of the existing bridge. Both
Buffalo Creek and a tributary will be crossed using separate culverts. A 2 @ 2.4 meter by
1.8 meter (8 foot by 6 foot) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) will cross Buffalo
Creek and a 2 a 2.1 meter by 1.8 meter (7 foot by 6 foot) RCBC will cross the tributary.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The proposed project will include two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes with a minimum
of 1.2 meter (4 foot) grassed shoulders. The total project length will be approximately
215 meters (700 feet). Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be
approximately 30 km/h (20 mph).
The estimated cost of the project is $ 532,500 including $ 350,000 in construction
costs and $ 182,500 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004
TIP is $ 270,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT 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 Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
Work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
Heavy equipment should be operated, when possible, from the bank rather than in
the stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term
erosion control.
NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations 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.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
The horizontal and vertical curves on the approaches to the new culverts may
require a design exception for design speed.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1133 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. Traffic volume is currently 150 vehicles per day (VPD) and
projected at 500 VPD for the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit. The road serves
mostly local residential traffic.
The existing bridge was completed in 1930. It is 22.3 meters (73 feet) long.
There are approximately 3 meters (10 feet) of vertical clearance between the bridge deck
and streambed. The deck is 3.7 meters (12 feet) wide with 3.3 meters (10.9 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 22.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 16 tons for single
vehicles and 20 toils for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The roadway has fair horizontal and vertical alignment with a design speed of
approximately 30 km/h (20 mph). Tile road is subject to statutory 55 mpli speed limit.
The bridge is located directly over the confluence of Buffalo Creek, which flows from the
west, and a small tributary, which flows from the south. The pavement width on the
approaches to the bridge is 5.5 meters (18 feet). Shoulders on the approaches to the
bridge are approximately 1.8 meters (6 feet) wide. The bridge is located approximately
15 meters (50 feet) south of the intersection of SR 1 133 and SR 1125. "There is a brick
church located to the northeast of the bridge with paved parking adjoining the edge of
pavement on SR 1133 and SR 1125. "There is a handicapped access ramp located on the
front of the church accessing the handicapped parking area between the church and the
existing bridge. There is a well located at the northwest corner of' tile church.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that one accident has been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are five school buses that each cross the bridge twice daily.
There are several utilities in the vicinity of the project. Blue Ridge EMC has a
single phase electrical service west of the existing bridge. Skyline Telephone has aeri;zl
service crossing Buffalo Creek and underground north of the existing bridge and along;
SR 1133 and SR 1125.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document. They are as follows:
Alternate 1 would replace the existing bridge on new location to the west with a
3 @ 2.8 meter by 1.8 meter (9 foot by 6 foot) RCBC, at approximately the same roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. This would require approximately 146 meters (480 feet) of channel
realignment upstream and some excavation of a hill west of the existing confluence to
accommodate the proposed culvert and realigned roadway.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) would replace the existing bridge on new location to
the west with two individual stream crossings. The main creek will require a 2 u 2.4
meter by 1.8 meter (8 foot by 6 foot) RCBC, and the tributary crossing will require a 2 @
2.1 meter by 1.8 meter (7 foot by 6 foot) RCBC. Traffic would be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission commented that a spanning
structure was preferred. In order to maintain traffic during construction and avoid the
church to the east, the new alignment must be located west of the existing roadway. Due
to the confluence of the two creeks, a spanning structure at this location would require
either one extremely long bridge, or two very short bridges. Such measures would be
cost prohibitive.
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
COMPONENT ALTERNATEI ALTERNATE2
Recommended)
New Structure/Structures $ 55,100 $ 105,200
Bridge Removal 5,300 5,300
Roadway & Approaches 119,100 113,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 55,500 76,400
Engineering & Contingencies 40,000 50,000

Total Construction $ 275,000 $ 350,000
Right of Way 182,500 182,500
Total Cost $ 457,500 $ 532,500
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 on a new
alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the west of the existing bridge. Both
Buffalo Creek and a tributary will be crossed using separate culverts. A 2 a 2.4 meter by
1.8 meter (8 foot by 6 foot) RCBC will cross Buffalo Creek and a 2 cr 2.1 meter by 1.8
meter (7 foot by 6 foot) RCBC will cross the tributary. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
The proposed project will include two 3.0 meter (10 foot) lanes with a minimum
of 1.2 meter (4 foot) grassed shoulders. The total project length will be approximately
215 meters (700 feet). Based on preliminary design work, the design speed should be
approximately 30 km/h (20 mph).
There is not an adequate off site detour available. Both Alternates I and 2 would
have roughly the same roadway alignment, and both would maintain traffic on the
existing bridge, replacing it with culverts. Alternate I would require approximately
146 meters (480 feet) of channel realignment upstream and some excavation of a hill west
of the existing confluence to accommodate the proposed culvert and realigned roadway.
Alternate 2 would eliminate the channel change and result in a better hydraulic design for
the two stream crossings. By implementing Alternate 2, the proposed culverts can be
accommodated with only minor modification of the existing stream channels at the inlet
and outlet ends of each culvert.
The Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) comments that Buffalo Creek is
Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and opposes any amount
of channel realignment.
The division engineer concurs with the Alternate 2 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. There will be no
relocatees as a result of this project. Right-ol=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 substantial 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 Ashe 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
The project area is primarily wooded and undeveloped with scattered agricultural
and residential land uses.
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether project
being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS responded
that the project will not impact prime or important farmland soils. The project will result
in a small conversion of land, but the area to be converted is wooded and void of
agricultural uses.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has indicated that "Bridge
No. 52 is the only property over fifty years of age located within the area of potential
effect." The bridge was evaluated as part of a re-evaluation study of metal truss bridges
in North Carolina and determined to be not eligible for the National Register. A copy of
the SHPO letters and bridge evaluation are included in the Attachments. SHPO
recommends no further historic architectural surveys be conducted.
The State Office of Archaeology (SOA) indicated that "it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places will be affected by the project construction." They therefore recommend
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Physiography and Soils
The project vicinity in Ashe County is located in the Mountain physiographic
region in northwestern North Carolina. The landscape is hilly to mountainous. The
elevational range in and near the project vicinity is from about 890 meters (2920 feet) at
Buffalo Creek to about 1006 meters (3300 feet) on nearby slopes and ridges; however,
there are nearby peaks over 1402 meters (4600 feet) in elevation.
Drainage patterns are dendritic in the project region. Floodplains arc narrow and
not well-developed. Small floodplains are infrequent along the major streams, and the
largest floodplains in the project region occur along the North Fork of the New River.
The soils of the project vicinity are in the Evard-Ashe Association. These are
well-drained and somewhat excessively well-drained soils of moderately steep to very
steep slopes at intermediate elevations. Subsoils are loamy.
Virtually all the soils of the project area are mapped as belonging to the Toxaway
loam series. This soil forms in recent loamy alluvium on 0-2% slopes, occurring along
the major streams in Ashe County. The individual units are long and narrow. They are
poorly drained and very poorly drained soils of floodplains that are dark gray and
medium to strongly acid. They have moderate permeability and surface runoff is slow to
ponded. The seasonal high water table is at or close to the surface, and they are subject to
frequent flooding. About 20% of the mapped unit consists of soils that are lighter in
color and better drained.
The Toxaway loam series is indicated as a hydric soil or one that has hydric soils
as a major component. The Soil Conservation Service Technical Guide (1991) notes that
the hydric soils of Ashe County "cannot be farmed under natural conditions without
removing woody vegetation or hydrology manipulation," and that "some map units ...
listed as hydric soils ... may not meet the definition of hydric soils and wetlands because
the hydrology has been altered through drainage or other manipulation." Except for a
couple very small wetter spots near the bridge, field investigation did not reveal an
appropriate hydrology for the Toxaway soil mapped in the project area. Further, it is
pointed out that all the structures in the project area (houses and church) do not appear to
be subject to flooding. In the project region, many of the bottoms were observed to be
ditched, and some of the ditches are actively maintained.
The lower slopes, small parts of which are on the edges of the project area, are
underlain by upland soils. Watauga loam occurs on the east side, and Edneyville loam
occurs on the west side. They are both well drained soils forming in residuum, the
Watauga over mica schist or mica gneiss and the Edneyville over gneiss or granite.
Water Resources
All of Ashe County is drained by the New River and its tributaries. The New
River flows northward through Virginia, joining the Kanawha River in West Virginia,
eventually reaching the Ohio River system. The New River Basin in North Carolina is a
small basin of only 1313 square kilometers (769 square miles). The project area is on
Buffalo Creek, a medium-sized tributary of the North Fork New River. The North Fork
joins the South Fork to make the New River approximately 42 kilometers (26 miles)
downstream of the project area. The South Fork has a gentler gradient than the North
Fork, and a portion of it, along with the New River, has been designated a National
Scenic River. Buffalo Creek joins the North Fork New River 9.6 kilometers (6.0 miles)
downstream of the project area. There is one large unnamed tributary of Buffalo Creek in
the project area, this tributary forming a confluence with Buffalo Creek on the southwest
side of the bridge within the study corridor.
The project vicinity is in the North Fork New River sub-basin (No. 050702). This
sub-basin has a drainage area of 493 square kilometers (289 square miles), about 37% of
the New River Basin in North Carolina. The only towns in the sub-basin are Crumpler,
Lansing, and portions of West Jefferson. The affected stream reach is Index No. 10-2-20
(NCDEFINR 1993).
The study corridor is aligned parallel to Buffalo Creek and the tributary and also
crosses Buffalo Creek below the confluence. Buffalo Creek flows from the northwest to
the project area, and then it makes a sharp turn to the north within the study corridor on
its way to its confluence with the North Fork New River. The North Fork New River
then flows northeastward. The tributary flows almost due north into the project area.
Drainage from the project area moves directly into either Buffalo Creek or the tributary.
There are some roadside ditches on the south side of the bridge that carry runoff to
Buffalo Creek. These two streams will receive all of the runoff from the roadway and
construction activity.
Stream Characteristics
Buffalo Creek is a moderate-size, mid-elevation, low-gradient mountain stream;
both Buffalo Creek and its tributary in the project area are approximately the same size.
Buffalo Creek and the tributary are entrenched streams and not associated with
significant wetlands in the project area, though they may be elsewhere. At the time of the
biologists' second site visit, the active streams were 6-9 meters (20-28 feet) in width, and
the average depths were approximately 15-20 centimeters (6-8 inches) with two deep
pools. One pool under the bridge was 1.5 meters (5.0 feet) deep. The channel width
varied from 9-11 meters (30-35 feet), except at the bridge at the stream confluence where
the width ranged up to 14 meters (45 feet). The streambanks are mostly nearly vertical
and from 0.6-1.4 meters (2.0-4.5 feet) in height. The substrates are mostly cobbles and
gravels. There are several long smooth riffle areas and some small shoals of fine gravel
and minor amounts of sand. There is a large sand and gravel bar under the bridge.
Current speed was swift, and the waters were slightly turbid following a recent rain. (On
the biologists' first site visit, the turbidity was clear.) At the stream confluence, there are
some piles of organic debris, as well as some roadside trash. Buffalo Creek and the
tributary are virtually indistinguishable in their characteristics, except that the tributary is
slightly narrower and has more small pools. The floodplains are narrow and occupied
mostly by pasture. However, just downstream of the bridge, there is a steep slope and
cliff-like area on the east side of Buffalo Creek. A narrow riparian fringe of small trees
or thickets lines most of the streambanks, less so in the pasture. There is no vegetation
under the bridge.
The effect of the project area being located relatively high in the watershed is
dramatized by the stream turbidity. During the second site visit, while the waters in the
project area were only slightly turbid, downstream toward NC 194/88, the waters were
highly turbid. This reflects the more intensive land uses below the project area and the
larger catchment.
Best Usage Classification
Buffalo Creek and its tributaries are classified as Class "C Tr +" streams
(NCDEFINR 1993). 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. The "+" symbol in the classification "identifies waters that are subject to a
special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC 2B.0216, the Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) rule, in order to protect downstream waters designated as ORW"
(NCDEHNR 1993). All unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams
to which they are tributary. T'he North Fork of the New River, the receiving stream, has
received the same classification. The "Tr" designation signifies trout waters. Trout
waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked
trout.
Most of the streams in the project region are class "C," and most have a "+"
designation. Many of the streams are also "Tr." The ORW waters are those of the New
River itself.
Water Quality
There are many water quality monitoring stations within the sub-basin.
Historically, it appears that only six sites were routinely sampled in the sub-basin, but at
least 13 new sites were added in 1989 and 1990 (NCDEHNR 1991). This was apparently
done because of the increasing importance of the waters in the sub-basin for outdoor
recreation. Chemical and/or biological classifications [from stations for chemical and
physical (AMS or ambient monitoring system) and/or benthic macro invertebrate
(BMAN) samplings] are available for one site in the study corridor and several other sites
within the Buffalo Creek watershed or relevant sites downstream.
Studies in 1993 suggest that several stream reaches in the region could qualify for
HQW designation; but studies from previous years indicated insufficient water quality
(Good ratings) to merit this designation. A resurvey during wetter summer periods was
recommended to firmly establish the water quality (lower flows in 1993 could have
reduced nonpoint impacts).
Information on general water quality status in the region is presented to give an
indication of the overall water quality in the region. High water quality is indicated
throughout the sub-basin. Of samples collected in the period 1983-1993, 37% were rated
Excellent and 33% were rated Good. The 1993 data were even better; 67% of the sites
sampled received Excellent bioclassifications, 19% were Good, 6% were Fair, and only
8% were Poor. This is due to the low level of industrial development and to the sparse
population. Fish tissue data for a variety of contaminants are all below EPA and FDA
limits. Water quality is better in Ashe County than in the Watauga portion of the
drainage. There are few unique chemical characteristics of the waters of the New River
Basin, but the waters do have slightly higher total nitrogen concentration and higher
maximum PH values than other mountain streams.
There is only one discharger in the sub-basin with a permitted discharge greater
than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Sprague Electric is permitted at 1.6 MGD and discharges into
the North Fork New River about 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) downstream of the mouth of
Buffalo Creek.
There are no support ratings in the most recently completed assessment of the
New River Basin. Previous support ratings are available for a number of sites in the
sub-basin. These ratings in the BMAN or chemical data give indication of how the best
usage classifications that have been designated for streams are being supported. Most
stations are supporting their designating uses. Only a few stations are rated Support
Threatened or Not Supporting. None of these are in the project vicinity. Major sources
of use impacts for streams that are not fully supporting their designated uses are
non-point sources associated with agriculture. Agriculture is the primary land use other
than forestry. Point sources are implicated in a few cases, such as sites on Little Buffalo
Creek receiving discharges from the West.Iefferson WWTP and from storm drains and
broken sewer mains under the town. Little Buffalo Creek recovers sufficiently before
joining Buffalo Creek to prevent any downstream degradation on Buffalo Creek. The
West Jefferson WWTP currently monitors effluent toxicity as a permit requirement, and
the instream waste concentration is 44.92%.
Much of the New River Basin was intensively clearcut in the early 1900s. A lot
of the basin was put into cultivation. Accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation
followed these past land uses. Nonpoint source inputs are the largest pollution sources.
However, better erosion control and reduction in pesticide use may be improving the
habitat for smallmouth bass.
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 derived 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 must be employed consistently.
The following table summarizes potential water resource impacts. Surface waters
and of Buffalo Creek and the tributary will receive runoff from construction and may be
subject to realignment, depending on the alternate selected. These are the only water
resources that will be impacted. (Patches of wetland communities within the stream
channel are included within the surface waters category because they are so small.) The
stream alignment for Alternate 1 appears to necessarily include some segments outside of
the study corridor.
Water resources potential impacts.
Alf, I ALL 2
Stream crossing ca 15 meters (48 feet) ca 15 meters (48 feet)
(width of active stream) (one stream) (two streams)
Channel area in ca 0.06 hectares ca 0.06 hectares
corridor (0.14 acre) (0.14 acre)
Channel realignment 146 meters (480 feet) None
There should be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though much of the
project area lies in a narrow floodplain, sites do not meet the definition of jurisdictional
wetlands. There could be potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Streams can be crossed effectively, and with minimal impact, with application of
appropriate construction techniques and bridge and culvert designs. Construction of this
project has the potential to modify the flow of Buffalo Creek because of realignments that
may be constructed. Careful design will usually avoid the necessity of any stream
relocation, but because of the stream confluence and possible need for roadway
realignment, some stream relocation may be necessary. Such relocation should be kept to
a minimum. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect the streams, and all
instream activities should be scheduled during low flow periods. When the old bridge is
removed, similar precautions will be necessary to reduce potential impacts.
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream temperatures and
modified species composition in affected stream reaches. Removal of streamside forest
affects sediment flux, chemical and biological transformations, food availability, habitat
10
structure, and dissolved oxygen availability. Sediment deposition will adversely affect
aquatic organisms.
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-1 (water supplies in
natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped watersheds).
The project does not lie within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of such resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities and Land Types
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. The original upland vegetation of most of the
project area is difficult to characterize without further investigation off-site. It appears
that slopes and ridges outside of (or just at the edge of) the study corridor are Montane
Oak--Hickory Forest. The lower slopes have elements of both Acidic Cove Forest and
Rich Cove Forest. The presence of significant amounts of tuliptree may indicate major
past disturbances. In the floodplain, the transition was probably to Montane Alluvial
Forest, but very little of this community remains. Most of the floodplain and lower slope
on the west side has been converted to pasture or other developed lands.
For purposes of discussion and quantification, nine communities and land types
are recognized in the study corridor. These are divided into three groups: Natural
Communities, Maintained Communities, and Developed Land Types. These
communities and land types are described below. "File undeveloped types with the
greatest coverage in the study area, and which could potentially receive the heaviest
impacts from project construction, are Pasture and Stream. A significant part of the study
corridor consists of developed land types, i.e., parking lot and roadway.
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each species
are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing importance and
abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant, common (frequent),
uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare species are sometimes
described as being present only. Each stratum in a vegetated community is usually
treated separately. Sometimes, only a general statement about relative importance is
given, e.g., important or not important.
Natural Communities
Upland Forest. This is a maturing second-growth forest on the west-racing
slope. Its composition combines elements of several natural community types.
CANOPY: Abundant - northern red oak, tuliptree; Common - chestnut oak,
scarlet oak, basswood, sugar maple, sweet birch; Occasional - Fraser's magnolia,
cucumber tree; Rare - yellow birch. SUBCANOPY: Occasional - flowering dogwood,
ironwood; Rare - serviceberry. SMALL TRANSGRESSIVES: chestnut sprouts,
mockernut hickory, sassafras, white oak. SHRUBS AND VINES: Common - rosebay
rhododendron, witch-hazel, buffalo nut, common greenbrier; Occasional - hydrangea,
flame azalea, highbush blueberry, wild raisin.
HERBS: Abundant - sedges; Frequent - New York fern, dwarf crested iris,
trillium, hog peanut, goldenrod; Infrequent - Christmas fern, Solomon's seal, bluet,
yellow violet, cancer-root; Rare - lady fern, silvery lady fern, interrupted fern, wild yam,
speckled wood-lily, hellebore, meadow parsnip, loosestrife, rattlesnake-root, galax.
A rock face in this community near the creek has its own plant assemblage.
Rosebay rhododendron, mountain laurel, and hydrangea are common shrubs. Sedges,
dwarf crested iris, and asters are common herbs. Other herbs present include hay-scented
fern, rock polypody, Christmas fern, goldenrod, violet, and partridge berry. Rock tripe
lichen is present on the rock.
Montane Alluvial Forest. Some remnant elements of this community type
appear to be present on the lower ground below the slope on the east side of the corridor.
The zone is so small that it is clearly influenced by the upland vegetation above, and it
also has a strong disturbance history.
CANOPY: Common - black cherry, red maple, sycamore, black locust, sweet
birch, yellow birch, basswood, tuliptree, northern red oak; uncommon - ash.
SUBCANOPY: Common - ironwood, hawthorn. SMALL TRANSGRESSIVES: Rare -
yellow buckeye, northern red oak. SHRUBS AND VINES: Common - hydrangea,
witch-hazel, dutchman's pipe, common greenbrier; Uncommon - multiflora rosa,
blackberry, grape; Rare - alder, dewberry, raspberry, elderberry, Virginia creeper.
HERBS: Abundant - jewelweed, angelica; Frequent - witchgrass, dwarf crested iris,
stinging nettle, cutleaf coneflower, smartweed, bedstraw, Joe-pye weed, common blue
violet, golden ragwort, goldenrod; Present - wild rye, yarrow, richweed, wintergreen,
virgin's bower, carrion flower, wild yam, wingstem, other composites and umbels.
Riparian Fringe. This community has differing composition, depending on its
location, whether in the open pasture, semi-wooded pasture, or along the roadside. In the
open pasture, vegetation is sparse, but alders are present in spots. Outside the pasture
fence, a thicket-like zone is developed; this zone includes some small trees from the
adjacent semi-wooded pasture in the area across from the parking lot. These trees are
mostly sugar maple, yellow buckeye, and sycamore.
The shrubs and herbs are dense outside the pasture. Alder is most abundant, but
multiflora rose and hydrangea are frequent. Blackberry and grape arc present. The herbs
include abundant cutleaf coneflower, golden ragwort, and goldenrod. Other herbs present
are horsetail, canary grass, other grasses, dock, Carolina tassel-rue, meadow rue, bluet,
and stonecrop.
Stream. Vegetation within the stream channel is sparse, but there are some
patches of vegetation on sand and cobble shoals at streamside in a few spots that are only
a few square meters each in size. These patches are dominated by true forget-me-not, but
sedges, including twisted sedge, are common to abundant. A goldenrod is common.
Other herbs present include sensitive fern, jewelweed, tearthumb, dock, common
plantain, English plantain, pale Indian-plantain, obedient plant, and another unidentified
composite (probably a goldenrod). The shrub ninebark is present in spots. A
filamentous green alga is present in some of the still pools at streamside. Sonic
streamside rocks are covered with a thalloid liverwort and several mosses.
Maintained Communities
Pasture. The open pasture consists of closely-cropped grasses, primarily
bluegrass and fescue. A few isolated trees of white pine, sugar maple, and sycamore
occur. There is one small stand of black locust across the creek from the parking lot.
There are frequent multiflora roses and an occasional yellow buckeye sapling. Under a
12
power line, the roses appear to have been killed. Other frequent herbaceous taxa are
goldenrod, dandelion, and English plantain. Occasional and rare herbs include sweet
vernal grass, ground ivy, common blue violet, bulbous buttercup, coltsfoot, and some
other grasses and forbs. There are a few small patches of rush in the lower areas, but still
high above creek level. The pasture becomes semi-wooded in the northwest sector of the
project area, with the tree species listed above and those of the riparian fringe.
Maintained Roadside. There are minor differences in the roadside vegetation in
the study corridor, but a composite description will be given. The vegetation is virtually
entirely herbaceous, with only an occasional woody stem of multiflora rose, blackberry,
Virginia creeper, or coralberry. HERBS: Dominant - fescue; Abundant - bluegrass;
Common - soapwort, hog peanut, golden ragwort; Uncommon - orchard grass, wild
geranium, cutleaf coneflower, wintercress, dock, speedwell, aster, common blue violet,
cinquefoil, virgin's bower, red clover, white clover, loosestrife, goldenrod, common
plantain, and English plantain; Rare - sedge, witchgrass, snakeroot, Queen Anne's lace,
woodsorrel, mouse-ear chickweed, dandelion, other unidentified composites; Rare - rush
in roadside ditch, sericea.
Lawn. Part of the area around the church is maintained as a lawn. A single
76 centimeters (30 inches) dbh beech shades a large part of this lawn near the creek bank.
Bluegrass, red fescue, and cinquefoil are the most abundant. Common plants are bluet,
stonecrop, white clover, pussytoes, another fescue, and mosses.
Developed Land Types
Parking Lot and Structure. The study corridor includes a large part of the
church parking lot and the northwest corner of the church. A sugar maple, 84 centimeters
(33 inches) dbh, graces the parking lot near the northwest creek bank.
Roadway. This category includes the paved and unpaved portions of the roadway
except for the section on the bridge.
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.
There is low diversity of habitat types in the project area. The habitat types of
greatest extent in the project vicinity are forests, mostly intact and contiguous; but, within
the project area, open pasture and developed land types cover the greatest area. There is a
notable absence of large thickets and early successional areas. The most important
habitat types in the study corridor are the Stream, the Riparian Fringe, and Upland and
Alluvial Forest, though only the edge of the forest is included. The ecotonal zones of
these communities are important habitats, and the semi-wooded portions of the pasture
are a significant intermediate habitat type. The presence of cattle and proximity to roads
are factors that influence habitat quality for some organisms.
Overall, animal diversity is expected to be low to moderate. The mix of habitat
types and ecotonal areas is beneficial for many species, but the small size of some of the
habitat units is detrimental for others. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be
generally good for birds of forests and open habitats, but avian fauna were not found to
13
be abundant. No ponds were noted in the project vicinity, therefore, the distinct array of
reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments is not expected in the
project area. However, the large streams and riparian system provides excellent habitat
for a number of animals. The relatively low human development of the vicinity should
allow the presence of some species that are generally intolerant of human intrusion and
that require larger expanses of habitat.
Lists of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available and
the human population density and development, are given below. Without direct
observation or documentation that certain animal species occur in an area, the safest
prediction that can be made is that the most common species for a particular region will
be those found in a project area if appropriate habitat is available. Hence, the following
lists may not be particularly informative, and the same suite of taxa might be constructed
for other regions with minor exceptions.
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 in a number of terrestrial habitats. The specific habitat groups are as follows:
more open areas, consisting of open pasture and maintained roadside areas; intermediate
habitats, consisting of semi-wooded pasture and riparian thickets and most ecotones;
forests; and aquatic habitats of the streams.
Amphibians. Those generally ubiquitous amphibians that should be expected in
the project area are American toad, Fowler's toad, upland chorus frog, and spring peeper.
The eastern newt, the slimy salamander, and the redback salamander are expected in the
moister forest habitats. Seal salamanders and red salamanders may be present at the
edges of the streams and in seepages, and some other Desmognathus species may also be
present. Gray treefrogs should be common in the forested areas. Ambystomid
salamanders are not expected because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the
area.
Reptiles. Among the ubiquitous reptiles, those occurring here probably include
eastern fence lizard, the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, and
copperhead. The eastern hognose snake, might be expected in sonic of the more open
areas in the sandy loams of the floodplain. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences
include eastern garter snake, and eastern milk snake. 'T'ypical reptiles expected in the
forested habitats are eastern box turtle, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake.
Timber rattlesnakes may possibly occur in the vicinity on wooded slopes.
Birds. The avifauna of an area are more easily observed. OPEN: American
kestrel, turkey vulture, field sparrow, brown-headed cowbird, mourning dove, eastern
meadowlark, eastern bluebird, American robin. INTERMEDIATE: least flycatcher,
wood peewee, eastern kingbird, gray catbird, northern mockingbird, common
yellowthroat, American goldfinch, indigo bunting, chipping sparrow, swamp sparrow,
song sparrow, white-throated sparrow. FORESTS: broad-winged hawk, ruffed grouse,
barred owl, pileated woodpecker, whip-poor-will, hairy woodpecker, various wood
warblers including ovenbird and northern parula, wood thrush, white-breasted nuthatch,
tufted titmouse, summer tanager, eastern phoebe, solitary vireo, warbling vireo, red-eyed
vireo, northern oriole. UBIQUITOUS: red-tailed hawk, eastern screech owl, American
crow, northern cardinal, Carolina wren, ruby-throated hummingbird, yellow-billed
cuckoo, blue jay, rufous-sided towhee, downy woodpecker, common flicker,
ruby-crowned kinglet, Carolina chickadee.
14
Green-backed heron and belted kingfisher may utilize the stream. Killdeer were
noted in the vicinity, but not in the project area.
Mammals. OPEN AND INTERMEDIATE: southeastern shrew, long-tailed
weasel, meadow vole, groundhog. OPEN, INTERMEDIATE, and FORESTS: northern
short-tailed shrew, masked shrew, hairy-tailed mole, star-nosed mole, gray fox, red fox,
white-footed mouse, meadow jumping mouse, pine vole, eastern cottontail, spotted
skunk. INTERMEDIATE AND FORESTS: opossum, eastern chipmunk, golden mouse,
deer mouse. FORESTS: smoky shrew, rock shrew, raccoons, southern flying squirrel,
red squirrel, gray squirrel.
Several kinds of bats, such as little brown myotis, eastern pipistrelle, and red bat
might be expected foraging over the streams and semi-open forests. Mink should be
common in the riparian areas along the streams. Beaver were observed downstream.
White-tailed deer, a typically mid-successional species, were not observed in the project
area as judged by the lack of tracks and browse evidence, but they are likely present in
the vicinity.
Butterflies and skippers were common. At least two species were observed in the
project area.
Aquatic Life
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle may be present in the
vicinity. Northern water snake and queen snake are the most likely water snakes of the
area.
Only one aquatic amphibian was observed, a juvenile salamander, but the streams
and adjacent habitat could support two-lined salamander, northern dusky salamander,
bullfrog, green frog, and pickerel frog.
There are 20 native fish and several introduced fish known in the North Carolina
portion of the New River Basin, with four endemic to the upper New River and four
others native to the state only in the New River Basin. The project area on Buffalo Creck
is well upstream of the North Fork New River, and should not be influenced by the
ichthyofauna of the river. Sonic fish were observed during the study, and identifications
were made. Brook trout, botli juveniles and adults, were observed to be common. Other
taxa present or likely to be present in a stream such as Buffalo Creek include rainbow
trout, creek chub, white sucker, mottled sculpin, redbreast sunfish, darters, and rosyside
dace.
No molluscs were observed; snails should be expected, but habitat appears to be
marginal for mussels. Some crustaceans, such as stream crayfish and copepods were
abundant in the streams. Aquatic insects appeared to be abundant; those noted included
caddis fly larvae, stone fly nymphs, midge larvae, and water penny.
Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
'T'errestrial Systems
The undeveloped types with the greatest coverage in the study area, and which
could potentially receive the heaviest impacts from project construction, are Pasture [0.08
hectares (0.19 acres)] and Stream [0.07 hectares (0.17)].
15
The roadside community most likely will be completely destroyed. Much of the
riparian fringe community will also be destroyed, particularly with Alternate 1. Only the
edges of the forest communities will be affected, thus reducing in small part the total
available forest habitat in the project area. A portion of the edge of a large pasture will be
taken, but this is not important habitat. Mature terrestrial communities should not be
impacted seriously. The most serious potential impacts will accrue to the stream
ecosystem, again particularly under Alternate 1. Both alternates will use roughly the
same alignment, but Alternate 1 will require significant stream realignment. Otherwise,
the two alternates will affect approximately the same total area and community types.
The data in the following table suggest only the potential direct impacts on land
and community types due to construction. It is likely that the actual impacts to biotic
communities will be less than those indicated in the table, because the calculations are
based on study corridor limits, all of which will not be utilized in construction.
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on the
alternate selected and how much of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction.
There will be little net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and
scavengers that utilize open areas such as roadsides and pastures. There could be a small
reduction in the available habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats,
the amount lost depending on the alternate selected. Some of the communities will
re-establish themselves 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 existing roadway already disrupts natural stream corridor movement, so bridge
replacement may not introduce a significantly new factor, except during the construction
phases of the project.
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.
Area estimates of community and land types located in study corridor.
hectares (acres)
Upland Forest 0.03 (0.07)
Montane Alluvial Forest <0.01 (<0.02)
Riparian Fringe <0.01 (<0.02)
Stream channel 0.07 (0.17)
Pasture 0.08 (0.19)
Maintained Roadside 0.03 (0.07)
Lawn <0.01 (<0.02)
Parking lot and structure 0.05 (0.13)
Roadway 0.03 (0.08)
TOTAL 0.32 (0.77)
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It appears
that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing roadway boundary,
except for stream realignment in Alternate 1.
16
Aquatic Systems
Removal of the old bridge and construction of the new culverts are potential
sources of serious stream modifications, and utmost care will have to be taken during
these activities. Impacts on fishes should be low, if construction is done carefully to
reduce sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are
introduced. Culverts that are installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition
of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will (1) increase stream temperature and
irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen demand,
(2) cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food chain dynamics of
the stream, (3) increase the amount of sediment reaching the stream in the surface runoff
by reducing the filtering function, and (4) change the habitat structure in the stream by
reducing the amount of insert debris and number of debris dams. These effects will
negatively alter the stream characteristics for many aquatic organisms. Buffalo Creek and
the tributary could be substantially modified by removal of substantial sections of the
riparian fringe community that now stabilizes the banks and provides for the functions
listed above. Effort should be expended to minimize the extent of vegetation removal.
Sediment deposition and stream substrate alteration will have negative effects on
sessile benthic organisms and on breeding sites. Sediment adversely affects organismal
physiology, behavior, and reproduction. Sediment deposition will adversely affect
periphyton communities and thus affect stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates depend. Sediment runoff is the
greatest potential threat to off-site aquatic systems. Because SR 1 133 is located on nearly
level land adjacent to the streams, the potential for severe impacts to this stream from
sediment influx does not appear to be substantial.
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. Any
impacts to aquatic systems off-site and in the project vicinity could be serious, if
construction is not done carefully to reduce sediment runoff.
Tlie most substantial impact to stream ecosystems will result from any
realignment that may be necessary. Alternate 1 will apparently require some extensive
stream realignment outside of, and within, the study corridor.
SPECIAL TOPICS
.Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking and by
alteration of 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
17
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 328.3 (b) based on best judgement
of required criteria.
Surface waters (and included wetland patches) of the riverine system in stream
channels are the only jurisdictional waters present in the project area, to which
construction will be limited. It is determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are
associated with this project. None of the alluvial 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.
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters, except for
potential takings in a study corridor. Until the particular design requirements are known
for the terrain in question, it appears that it will be impossible to completely avoid
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
jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by construction. A Section 404
Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)] should authorize 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."
A 401 General 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.
Other permits or authorizations may be necessary. Because the project area lies in
a trout county, discretionary authority by the COE requires that the NCDOT must seek
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to
the COE authorizing the project under one or more nationwide permits (pursuant to 33
CFR 330.8). As discussed earlier, designated trout waters occur in the impact zone of the
project; all the streams in the vicinity support wild trout populations. Nationwide Permit
No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23) (31)] should authorize the project following review and
concurrence by the NCWRC.
Mitigation
The project is likely to cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters.
The only other alternative that may be feasible for crossing Buffalo Creek at this point is
construction of a new bridge, which might result in reduced impacts. Impacts can be
minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. Until recently, compensatory mitigation has
generally not been required where Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized,
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the COE. However, a 1997 revision of permit conditions for Nationwide
Permit No. 23 by the COE specifies that mitigation for impacts to wetlands exceeding 0.4
hectares (1.0 acre) will be required, and mitigation for impacts to surface waters may also
be required. Final determination regarding mitigation to waters of the U.S. lies with the
18
COE and the NCDEHNR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Depending on impact
acreage, waters of the U.S. may also need to be delineated prior to permit application
submission. Final discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all structures and
roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate kinds of
drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize impacts. Appropriate erosion
control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges, and
soil stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil
will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands. Likewise, borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands. When the old
bridge is removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters from
pollution discharges.
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 1, 1997, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these classifications for Ashe
County.
The spreading avens, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, is found on high elevation
rocky summits and balds. It has been reported from eight mountain counties. Flowering
is from June to August and fruiting from July to September. No plants of this genus were
located in the study area, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat
for the spreading avens do not exist in the vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Roan Mountain bluet, a vascular plant in the Rubiaceae, is also found on high
elevation rocky summits or on grassy balds in five mountain counties. This plant flowers
in late spring and early summer and fruits in late summer. There were no bluets found
during the field study, and the elevational requirements that produce suitable habitat for
the Roan Mountain bluet are not present in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Typical habitats for Heller's blazing star, a vascular plant in the Asteraceae, are
high elevation rocky summits, ledges, and cliffs. The plant has been reported from six
mountain counties. The plant flowers in late summer and fruits in early fall. No plants of
the genus were found during the study, and the elevational requirements that produce
suitable habitat for this species do not exist in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
The Virginia spiraca, a vascular plant in the Rosaceae, has been found on
riverbanks in six mountain counties. This plant flowers in early summer and fruits in late
summer. The streambank and floodplain in the project area were carefully searched.
This easy to identify plant was not found in the study area, nor were any other spiraeas
located. Habitat in the project area appears to be marginal for this species. Natural
Heritage Program files were not searched, but available information did not indicate the
existence of any populations in the project vicinity.
Biological Conclusion: No effect.
19
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in)
in length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow
blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog
turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western
Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In
June or July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs
hatch in about 55 days.
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
(T S/A). This is due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed
for protection. T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion for this species is not required. Suitable habitat for this species does not occur
in the project area.
Federally protected species in Ashe County
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT.
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Roan Mt. bluet Houstonia montana E
Heller's blazing star Eiatris helleri T
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana T
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbereii T(S/A)
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); T = Threatened, likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future; T(S/A) ='T'hreatened
due to similarity of Appearance
20

- -.- -
stur`ftf: 7
S +' H
IZ1 West Jeffua
•
.
N
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ASHE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 339 ON SR 1320
OVER ROARING FORK CREEK
B-2907
0 kilometers' 1.6 kilometers 3.2
fa ? Figure I
0 miles I miles 2

NORTH APPROACH LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3

k;
i

3 t
ATTACHMENTS

.9? .w ST r2' 0?1
i?C,r J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 8, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re:. Bridge 52 on SR 1 133 over Buffalo Creek, Ashe
County, B-2904, Federal Bridge 52 on SR 1133
over Buffalo Creek, Ashe County, B-2904,
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1133(2), State Project
8.2710801, ER 96-9131
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
July 16, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prior to the scoping meeting to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
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, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807 ??U
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: 41FI. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett
i? f_• ??? sil
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 25, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Metal Truss Bridge Evaluations, ER 96-9147
Ashe #52, B-2904
Cabarrus #85, Division Project
Cleveland #122, B-2945
Macon #54, B-2845
Nash #4, B-2312
Surry #148, B-3049
Wilkes #7, B-3084
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of June 12, 1996, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluations for the above projects.
For purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following bridges are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under the criteria cited:
Cabarrus #85. Bridge #85, a Pratt Pony truss bridge, is eligible under
Criterion C because it was built by the prolific Atlantic Bridge Company of
Charlotte and is the only truss of its type surviving in the southern Piedmont.
Nash #4. Bridge #4, which consists of two Pratt Through truss spans, is
eligible under Criterion C because it was built by the prolific Roanoke Iron &
Bridge Works of Virginia, is a locally rare type, and contains unusual
technological features.
The following bridges were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Ashe #52, Surry #148, and Wilkes #7. These bridges are examples of the
relatively common Pratt Pony truss bridge, and lack special historical
significance.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 2S07 (33
v icholas L: Graf
June 25, 1996, Page 2
Cleveland #122. Bridge #122 is an example of the relatively common,
though locally rare, Warren Pony truss bridge, and lacks special historical
significance.
Macon #54. Bridge #54 was included in the state study list at the conclusion
of the survey of historic architectural resources in Macon County. It is an
example of the relatively common, though locally rare, Pratt through truss,
and does not meet the threshold for eligibility under Criterion C. Any
historical significance associated with the bridge was compromised by the
relocation of the truss in 1959.
The report in general 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,
V avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
L! Church

a NVildhfe Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
July 12, 1996
?'Ztiw ?? chi (,c_
Review of scoping sheets for replacement of Bridge 952 on SR 1 133 over Buffalo
Creek, Ashe County, TIP 413-2904.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
scoping sheets for the subject project.
Buffalo Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at the
project site. We have the following comments regarding this project:
1) We prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure to maintain
fish passage and minimize work in the stream.
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and
causing a fish kill.
3) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank: rather than in the stream channel in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into the stream.
4) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these continents, please contact me at 704/652-
4257.

,..R .
Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ 1133(2)
State Project 8.2701801
TIP # B-2904
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAITON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Dat%,William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Enviro g-ntal Branch
Date cholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
. P
Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ 1133(2)
State Project 8.2701801
TIP # B-2904
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1998
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
) U-vj?96. L. I 10110liaM5,?2rs'.
Date Jo L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
..."%% CAROB 04
......
? ?OFESS/D: 9
SEAL •.
= 022552 _
o'
•• ra
/0-i s 9$ wlcL y h e f-71,-o-#-
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head

Date Lubin Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Ashe County
Bridge No. 52 on SR 1133
Over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ 1133(2)
State Project 8.2701801
TIP # B-2904
1. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved on July 14, 1997.
The document recommended replacement of Bridge No. 352 with a new bridge on new
alignment approximately 15 meters (50 feet) to the west of the existing bridge. Both
Buffalo Creek and a tributary would have been crossed using separate culverts. Traffic
would have been maintained on the existing alignment during construction.
II. DISCUSSION
Since the time of the original planning document, further hydraulic analysis has
indicated that the webs of the proposed culvert may present potential problems by
catching debris that would otherwise pass through. In addition, the proposed grade would
need to be raised above the existing grade on the north end to accommodate the culverts.
This requires raising the grade on an extremely sharp curve on Central Buffalo Road (SR
1133) creating a potential hazard.
In re-evaluation, NCDOT considered an alignment immediately on the west side
of the existing structure using a phase constructed cored slab bridge instead of a culvert.
Several problems arise from this possibility. This would require two drilling operations
and two diversion channels in sensitive trout waters. For these reasons, the alternate was
considered costly from the standpoint of economics, construction time, and
environmental impacts. Therefore, no further consideration was given.
There is no feasible offsite detour available. An onsite detour was not considered
in the original document because it would have been costly compared with replacement
on new location. However, this is the only remaining feasible alternate.
Bridge No. 352 will therefore be replaced on the existing location with a new
bridge approximately 36 meters (120 feet) long at approximately the same elevation.
There will be 13 meters (42 feet) of approach work on the northern side tying at the
intersection with SR 1125. Work on the southern approach will total 63 meters (205
feet). The design speed for the project will be 30 km/h (20 mph). A design exception
will be required due to design speed.
Traffic will be maintained on a temporary onsite detour (see Figure 2) utilizing a
corrugated steel pipe in both the tributary and the main stream.
The cost of replacing Bridge No. 352 on the existing location while maintaining
traffic on an onsite detour is $832,000 with $650,000 in construction costs and $182,000
in Right of Way Costs.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Environmental Impacts will be virtually the same as described in the
Categorical Exclusion because the alignment of the temporary onsite detour will be the
same as the permanent realignment proposed in the original document. The difference
being that the impacts will be temporary instead of permanent.
IV. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITTMENTS
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 (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream water.
This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
Heavy equipment will be operated, where possible, from the bank rather than the
stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of the completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term
erosion control.
NCDOT will conduct foundation investigations 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.
,. k
------- ----
_ `Cielta,
sturg'lls
A S H
Lansing St
wanensvlNe i I
\ 6 endue
r.?" ? sal •
- ?' lee dtewll `?
00-'
.goaa,• ?•
I '
COQ 1 93 ` POP.1,333
- - 1194 1132 1
220 1271 Z . 1190 Smethport \.?f.
Tres ,' 1220 . Mt. Paddy 1131 61
Top' N Ch. ..? ;?
r 125 33 1 133 •Vxx
P s+ --- w!
8uf to
1 125 1 MAN.
h. ` WEST - - -? - 2
?c JEFFERSON 4!' /
? - 1138 P P.1,017 I u 1 f <:??,
den FF BRIDGE N0.52 ?J I '
n I I , x.
77
1 133 - - A-1
-' '
T? asavor .11
.100 reek . N ..
1138 ? - _ •'
1-6 1225 r {' i
Valley Home 9 t lap f? , ?\ Fay f?;;ll
Ch. J .
N 1248 ) \
i
RIDGE 1138 44. 22. 145
\
Toliver 1 141 -7 61
1258
"•
/ a .5 n 2 ?p5 1 143 ;94 2 l I A7
t 1 142 1245 2 2 X'
,n 1233 1138
11CU n 2 1143 6\
laE 'i
N C 1 \•' 114=-
1246
1 TN. Q ' -SIN
1 1253 1248
r,
1208 Baldwin x;272 ?.?... .
Woodford ELK 209 1 ? North Carolina Department Of
1224.9 6 2 1200 Transportation
`.>c'> :?• q 5 '?.,??.,, Planning & Environmental Branch
a
}I `A N ASIIE COUNTY
?r 194 1 „ 4 J of r
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.52 ON SR 1133
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
• 1112's'°
* B-2904
Q \ 221
1 113 1211 1112 of 0 kilometers 1.6 Idlometers 3.2
1100 t
11 11 7 Figure I
0 miles I miles 2