19991258 Ver 1_Complete File_19991116

e'' AAi? s ? .
r:t t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ;., ACTING SECRETARY
15 November 1999 r ~'
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund-
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Burke County, Bridge No. 52 on US 70 Bus. over Hunting Creek;
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-70B(1); State Project No. 8.1851401; TIP
No. B-3121.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on September 1997. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 52 over Hunting Creek on US 70 Bus., Burke County. The bridge
replacement involves replacing bridge no. 52 with a multi-barrel reinforced concrete box
culvert (RCBC) in the same location as the existing bridge. A temporary detour bridge
will be constructed adjacent to and north (downstream) of the existing bridge to maintain
traffic during construction. The project will begin approximately 161 meters (530ft) west
of the existing bridge and end approximately 143 meters (470 ft) east of the bridge. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
f
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of
this document is also being provided to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
for their review.
The DOT asks that the bridge replacement work be authorized under a
Nationwide Permit 23. The DOT is also requesting that the WRC provide comments to
the COE concerning permit requests.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.,
Sincerely,
G.
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. W.D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC, Western MT. Coordinator
Mr. Bob Brown, P.E., Design Services

r.•
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
US 70 BUSINESS OVER HUNTING CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 52)
BURKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-70B (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1851401
T.I.P. NO. B-3121 ,f' ?'
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
1•
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/o
D T
n. rranEain Vick, v.t., manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
10- c
DATE' Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
US 70 BUSINESS OVER HUNTING CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 52)
BURKE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-70B (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1851401
T.I.P. NO. B-3121
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
Montell W. Irvin, P.E.
Project Manager
1 CARO,,,••
pE E SS%p ••.;yq'
SEAL
197-55
%0ti?ti/??NE? J2?r
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
2
L. G Grimes, E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
C this D. Sharer, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement
US 70 Business over Hunting Creek
(Bridge No. 52)
Burke County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-70B (1)
State Project No. 8.1851401
T.I.P. No. B-3121
Bridge No. 52 in Burke County is listed in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1998-
2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project TIP No. B-3121. The purpose of this project is
to replace Bridge No. 52 due to its poor condition.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the
existing human and natural environment, it is concluded no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from the replacement of Bridge No. 52. Refer to Figures 1 through 4 for location and illustrations of
the project area and existing bridge location.
All measurements contained in this report are in System International metric units, approximate English
System equivalent units are indicated in parentheses next to the metric units.
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. To avoid or minimize environmental impacts associated with the replacement of
Bridge No. 52, all standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as
applicable.
2. The floodplain of Hunting Creek will not be used for a staging area during
construction.
3. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey office will be contacted prior to construction to
relocate geodetic survey marker #RV 627, located on Bridge No. 52.
4. All material, including temporary fill, used for the on-site detour will be removed after
completion of this project. Remediation measures associated with the DEHNR-
Division of Water Quality's requirements for temporary construction will be
implemented during design and construction of this project.
5. The replacement structure will be designed and constructed to allow passage of
indigenous fish under all flow conditions.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced with a multi-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) in the same
location as the existing bridge. A temporary detour bridge will be constructed adjacent to and north
(downstream) of the existing bridge to maintain traffic on US 70 Business over Hunting Creek during
construction. The project will begin approximately 161 meters (530 ft) west of the existing bridge and end
approximately 143 meters (470 ft) east of the bridge.
The City of Morganton Thoroughfare Plan recommends US 70 Business be widened to a multi-lane facility
in the future. When US 70 Business is widened, the grade of the roadway in the vicinity of Bridge No. 52
will be lowered approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft). This will increase the minimum vertical clearance under the
Norfolk-Southern Railroad bridge, located approximately 91 meters (300 ft) east of Bridge No. 52, to 5.0
meters (16.5 ft). Replacing the existing bridge with culverts will allow the existing vertical alignment of
US 70 Business to be maintained until the facility is widened in the future; plus the culverts can be easily
extended in the future to accommodate a multi-lane highway.
The estimated total cost of this project, based on current prices, is $1,285,000. This amount includes
$135,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $1,150,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1998-2004 TIP is $660,000 ($600,000 for construction and $60,000 for right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 52 over Hunting Creek is located on US 70 Business in the City of Morganton in Burke County,
North Carolina. It is located approximately 200 meters (650 ft) west of the US 70 Bypass. Refer to
Figure 1 for project location and Figures 2 through 4 for illustrations of the project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Bridge No. 52 is a three span bridge totaling 41 meters (135 ft) in length and has a clear roadway width of
10.9 meters (36 ft). The superstructure consists of a cast in-place concrete deck on reinforced concrete
girders, an asphalt wearing surface, and concrete rails. The substructure consists of end bents and interior
bents composed on reinforced concrete columns and caps on spread footings.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1947 and is in poor condition. According to the August 1996
NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 47.8 out of a possible 100.0 and is
structurally deficient. There are currently no restrictions on the bridge.
HUNTING CREEK
Bridge No. 52 crosses Hunting Creek approximately 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) upstream from the creeks
confluence with the Catawba River. At the bridge crossing, Hunting Creek has a drainage area of
approximately 56.2 square kilometers (21.7 square miles) consisting of mostly forested, rolling, terrain
mixed with commercial and residential development. The creek is approximately 14 meters (45 ft) wide at
the bridge, but narrows immediately upstream and downstream of the bridge; and has a depth of
approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft). Bridge No. 52 crosses Hunting Creek in a meander. The outside bend of
this meander is located approximately 12 meters (40 ft) upstream of the bridge. The meander has
2
increased the skew of the creek through the bridge opening and has caused erosion in the upstream and
downstream channel banks. The toe of the east end bent is in the stream bed. Large rip-rap has been
placed at the base of the east end bent to prevent further migration of the channel.
Burke County is a participant in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. In the project area, Hunting Creek is included in a detailed FEMA Flood
Insurance Study (FIS) and has a regulatory floodway. Refer to Figure 5 for a copy of the Flood Insurance
Rate Map showing the 100-year and 500-year floodplain boundaries and the regulatory floodway limits in
the vicinity of the bridge.
The FEMA FIS 100-year water surface elevation is 1.5 meters (5 ft) below the bottom of the existing
bridge. The upstream floodplain of Hunting Creek is bounded by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad
embankment on the east side of the creek and by the driveway embankment for an industrial development
on the west side. The elevations of both the railroad embankment and driveway are higher than the 100-
year floodplain elevation.
The FEMA Floodway limits within the project area are approximately 30.5 meters (100 ft) wide. This width
is constant south (upstream) of the project area, however, widens to approximately 91.5 meters (300 ft)
north (downstream) of the project area.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
US 70 Business is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and serves both local and through traffic. The section of US 70 Business between the US 70 Bypass and
SR 1443 is part of the City of Morganton loop system. US 70 Business is a two lane highway beginning at
the US 70 Bypass and extends westward through the project area. It currently has a pavement width of 6.6
meters (22.0 ft) bordered by variable width unpaved shoulders on each side. The speed limit in the vicinity
of the bridge is 60 kilometers per hour (35 mph).
The City of Morganton Thoroughfare Plan recommends US 70 Business be widened to a multi-lane facility.
Widening of US 70 Business is not included in the current NCDOT TIP.
The 1997 average daily traffic volume on US 70 Business over Bridge No. 52 is estimated to be 10,600
vehicles per day (vpd) which includes 8 percent TTST vehicles and 4 percent dual-tired (Dual) vehicles.
The projected 2017 design year average daily traffic volume over the bridge is 15,500 vpd.
Based on existing traffic volumes and roadway geometrics, US 70 Business operates at a level of service
(LOS) "F". As a two lane highway, US 70 Business will continue to operate at LOS "F" with conditions
worsening as traffic increases until the roadway is widened to a multilane highway.
GENERAL INFORMATION
According to school officials, Burke County school buses cross Bridge No. 52 twelve times a day.
Nineteen accidents were reported on US 70 Business between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1996 within 150
meters (500 ft) of each side of Bridge No. 52. Seventeen of these crashes occurred at the unsignalized
"Tee" intersection of US 70 Business and SR 1443 located approximately 107 meters (350 ft) west of the
existing bridge. Five of the nineteen crashes happened between July 1, 1993 and December 31, 1993;
seven occurred in 1994; four took place in 1995 and three occurred between January 1, 1996 and June
30, 1996. The majority of the crashes occurred during the day under dry road conditions.
There are utilities on Bridge No. 52 and along both sides of US 70 Business within the project area. These
utilities include aerial and underground telephone lines, aerial electric lines and an underground gas line.
There are seven PVC telephone conduits attached to the south side of the existing bridge. Utility impacts
for this project are expected to be medium.
According to the North Carolina Geodetic Survey office, one geodetic survey marker (#RV 627) is located
on Bridge No. 52 and will be impacted by this project.
Land north of the project area is generally undeveloped except for a landscaping company located on the
east side of Hunting Creek between Bridge No. 52 and the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and residential
development located east of the railroad. Land use south of the project area consists of a large industrial
development (Thorn Services International) west of Hunting Creek and a used auto dealership on the east
side of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A "Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project, however, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. Based on the heavy traffic volumes on US 70
Business, the "Do-Nothing" alternate was eliminated from further consideration.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge was also considered. This alternative was eliminated from further
consideration due the deteriorated condition of the bridge.
Based on the amount of traffic currently crossing the existing bridge and the lack of a suitable off-site
detour route, two-way traffic will be maintained on-site during construction. All alternatives involving an off-
site detour were eliminated from further consideration.
The preferred alternative (Alternate A) involves replacing the existing bridge "in-place" with a multi-barrel
reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). A temporary detour bridge will be constructed adjacent to and
north (downstream) of the existing bridge to maintain traffic on US 70 Business over Hunting Creek during
construction.
Replacing the existing bridge with a new bridge was considered for this project. This alternative was
eliminated from further consideration because it would either require replacement of the Norfolk-Southem
Railroad bridge as part of this project or would require another replacement of Bridge No. 52 when US 70
Business is widened. Replacing the existing bridge with culverts will allow the existing vertical alignment of
US 70 Business to be maintained until the facility is widened in the future; plus the culverts can be easily
extended in the future to accommodate a multi-lane highway.
4
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of Alternate A, based on current 1997 dollars, is shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A
Recommended
Structure (proposed) $436,000
Roadway Approaches $145,200
Structure Removal existin $29,200
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $234,600
Temporary Detour $145,000
Engineering and Contingencies $160,000
Fight-of-way and Utilities $135,000
Total $1,285,000
The estimated total cost of this project, based on current prices, is $1,285,000. This amount includes
$135,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $1,150,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1998-2004 TIP is $660,000 ($600,000 for construction and $60,000 for right-of-way).
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 52 will be replaced with a multi-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) in the same
location as the existing bridge. Wingwalls will be constructed on both the up and downstream sides of the
proposed culvert to prevent further migration of the creek meander at the roadway crossing. A temporary
detour bridge will be constructed adjacent to and on the downstream side of the existing bridge to maintain
traffic on US 70 Business over Hunting Creek during construction.
The widening of US 70 Business to a multi-lane roadway is included in the City of Morganton Thoroughfare
Plan. Replacing the existing bridge with a culvert will allow the existing vertical alignment of US 70
Business to be maintained until the facility is widened in the future; plus the culverts can be extended in
the future to accommodate a multi-lane highway. The grade of the roadway will be lowered approximately
1.0 meter (3 ft) as part of the future widening project to increase the vertical clearance under the Norfolk-
Southern Railroad bridge located approximately 91 meters (300 ft) east of Bridge No. 52. The vertical
clearance under the railroad bridge will be increased from 4.2 meters (14 ft) to 5.0 meters (16.5 ft) when
the roadway is widened.
Roadway approaches for this project will have two travel lanes totaling 7.2 meters (24 ft) in width and will
be bordered by 2.4 meter (8 ft) partially paved shoulders on each side. Refer to Figure 6 for the proposed
typical section. The project will begin approximately 161 meters (530 ft) west of the existing bridge and end
approximately 143 meters (470 ft) east of the bridge.
5
The size of the proposed culvert will be designed to maintain the existing FEMA floodway limits. No
modification of the existing floodway is anticipated for this project. This project will comply with local
floodplain regulations.
VII. TEMPORARY ON-SITE DETOUR
The shortest suitable off-site detour route is approximately 2.7 kilometers (4.4 miles) in length. This route
would utilize US 70 Bypass, NC 18 and US 70 Business and would traverse one-way streets in the
downtown district of the City of Morganton. Other potential off-detour routes were studied. However, due
to substandard roadway geometrics, major improvements would be required to accommodate the current
traffic traveling US 70 Business over Bridge No. 52. Based on the amount of traffic currently crossing the
existing bridge (10,600 vpd) and the lack of a suitable off-site detour route, two-way traffic will be
maintained on-site during construction.
A temporary detour bridge will be constructed adjacent to and north (downstream) of the existing bridge to
maintain traffic US 70 Business over Hunting Creek during construction. Temporary pipe culverts do not
provide enough capacity to accommodate a 5-year design storm without overtopping the roadway,
therefore, a temporary bridge is recommended.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of studying natural resources is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the
immediate area of potential project impact (study corridor). Specifically, the tasks performed for this study
include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study corridor including descriptions of
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts
resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic mapping
(Morganton North, NC and Morganton South, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory mapping, Natural Resources Conservation Service soils mapping (USDA Unpublished), and
recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200).
The site was visited on February 5, 1997. The entire study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. The study corridor is approximately 259 by 107 meters (850 by 350 ft); however,
impact calculations for Alternate A are based on a right-of-way width of approximately 24 meters (80 ft).
Actual impacts will be limited to construction limits and will be less than those shown for right-of-way.
Impact calculations for the temporary detour are based on a 12 meter (40 ft) easement width along the
temporary alignment. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Hunting Creek.
6
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well
as expected population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available
habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel
1992, Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) (DEM 1989, DEM 1993, DEM 1994). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges that extend into Burke County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Piedmont physiographic province. Topography is characterized by
broad, rolling ridges with narrow, nearly level floodplains along smaller streams. Elevations in the study
corridor range from approximately 315 meters (1040 ft) above sea level along the creek to
approximately 325 meters (1060 ft) along the railroad along the eastern edge of the study corridor (USGS
Morganton North, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by Toccoa sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Typic Udifluvents)
along Hunting Creek, Pacolet sandy clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes (Typic Kanhapludults) to the west,
and loamy Udorthents to the east. The Toccoa series consists of occasionally flooded, moderately well
drained and well drained soils found on floodplains. The Pacolet series consists of ell drained soils of
Piedmont uplands. Udorthents consist of well drained areas where natural soil has been altered by
excavation or covered by earthy fill material. These soils are all non-hydric; however, the Toccoa mapping
unit may contain minor inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee series (Typic Fluvaquents) within depressions.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 030831 of the Catawba River Basin (DEM 1989). This area
is part of USGS accounting unit 030501 of the Santee-Edisto Region. Bridge No. 52 crosses Hunting
Creek approximately 4.5 kilometers (2.8 mi) from its confluence with Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River.
The study corridor is located within the section of Hunting Creek that has been assigned Stream Index
Number 11-36-(0.7) by the DEHNR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
7
Stream Characteristics
Hunting Creek is a small drainage system originating in the South Mountains in southern Burke County.
The creek is approximately 14 meters (45 ft) wide at the existing bridge, but narrows immediately upstream
and downstream within the study corridor. Turbidity levels were very high, with visibility restricted to less
than 0.1 meters (0.3 ft). Current was moderate to swift over soft, sandy, substrate. Little or no rooted
aquatic vegetation is apparent in the creek channel, but some organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was
apparent. There are two interior bents located in the creek channel.
A small, intermittent drain enters Hunting Creek approximately 30 meters (100 0) upstream from the
bridge. This drain is approximately 1.2 to 1.8 meters wide (4 to 6 ft) at the top of the banks. On the day of
the site visit, swift flow was observed over a predominantly sandy substrate within a channel approximately
0.6 meters (2.0 ft) wide and less than 0.1 meters (0.3 ft) deep within the drain. The drain enters the
southeastern corner of the study corridor at the railway bed.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage classification of WS-IV
has been assigned to the section of Hunting Creek coursing through the study corridor (DEM 1993).
WS-IV waters are waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution
are required. WS-IV waters are suitable for all Class C uses, which include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human
body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. The intermittent tributary carries the same
rating as the receiving waters of Hunting Creek.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I, or WS II Waters occur within
1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. Hunting Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural
and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a National Wild and Scenic River.
There is one major permitted point source discharger upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989).
Synthron (NPDES #N00033120), which is located on Hunting Creek more than 6.4 kilometers (4.0 mi)
upstream from the study corridor, has a permitted flow of 250 MGD. No significant non-point discharges
were noted in the study corridor.
The Benthic M acroin vertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water quality at
fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). Species richness
and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There are no BMAN sampling
stations in the Hunting Creek drainage (DEM 1994).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Impacts can be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as practicable, during construction and by
avoiding the use of floodplains and wetlands as staging areas.
8
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed improvements.
The proposed replacement structure will allow for continuation of present flow within Hunting Creek,
thereby protecting stream integrity. The project right-of-way and temporary detour easement both avoid
the small, intermittent, tributary located upstream from the existing bridge; no impacts are anticipated to
this intermittent tributary as a result of this project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor; hardwood forest and
maintained/disturbed. The hardwood forest community represents the present state of recovery from past
forestry operations. The maintained/disturbed community results from some level of on-going disturbance.
These plant communities are described below.
Hardwoods
The hardwood community varies somewhat in species composition depending on landscape position, soil,
moisture, and exposure. Canopy trees include tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), willow (Salix sp.), river birch (Betula nigra), hickory (Carya
sp.), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). Subcanopy trees include eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and occasional white oak (Quercus albs) or southern red
oak (Q. falcata). Shrubs are infrequent and include Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), multifora rose
(Rosa multiflora), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and various vines including crossvine (Bignonia capreolata),
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and grape (Vitis sp.). Herbs were sparse at during the time of the
field visit and included wild garlic (Allium canadense), chickweed (Stellaria media), Nepal microstegium
(Microstegium vinale), and black raspberry (Rubus occidentalis).
Maintained/Disturbed
This community is the result of regular mowing, trimming, spraying or other form of management.
Maintained lawns and horticultural species are found in this community along with annual and perennial
herbs. Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), southern red oak, and seedling of other trees have become
established in less frequently maintained areas. Herbs include blackberry (Rubus sp.), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), common plantain (Plantago
lanceolata), evening primrose (0enothera biennis), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), asters (Aster spp.),
wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and various grasses including foxtail
(Setaria sp.), purple-top (Tridens flavus), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the right-of way for the proposed roadway and temporary detour. Construction is not
expected to result in significant adverse impacts to plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(Hectares)
Plant Community Estimated Impact
Alternate A Temp. Detour
Hardwood Forest 0.02 (0.06) 0.06 (0.16)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.47(l.16) 0.07 (0.17)
Total 0.49(l.22) 0.13 (0.33)
Note: Acres shown in parentheses.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of in-place bridge replacement are restricted to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. A majority of these potential
impacts (0.47 hectares (1.16 ac)) occurs in maintained/disturbed areas; the remaining 0.02 hectares
(0.06 ac) occurs in an ecotonal area of hardwood forest less than 9 meters (30 ft) in width. The temporary
on-site detour impacts are limited to maintained/disturbed and ecotonal hardwood forest (less than 12
meters (40 ft) in width) areas adjacent to the existing roadway. These are short-term impacts.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of hardwoods or maintained/disturbed communities. Birds observed
within or adjacent to the corridor include typical ecotonal and open area species including northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis),
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
and eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe). Other birds with similar habitat requirements, such as mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) are expected within the study corridor.
Evidence of Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) was observed on site. An unidentified species of shrew was also briefly observed. Due to
the season ! in which the field work was conducted, no terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were
documented within the study corridor.
Aquatic
Limited dip-netting within the study corridor did not yield any fish or aquatic macroinvertebrates. Fish
expected to inhabit the study corridor include species such as white sucker (Catostomus commerson?),
margined madtom (Noturus insignis), and tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi) (Menhinick 1991,
Rohde et al. 1994). There are no anadromous fish within this system. Stream bank surveys did not yield
any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel presence at the bridge site.
10
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any salamanders in the stream. The stream provides
suitable habitat for a few semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as northern watersnake (Nerodia
sipedon) and green frog (Rana clamitans).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations. Potential down-
stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by culverting the system to maintain regular flow and
stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, as practicable, during construction.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Hunting Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The waters of
Hunting Creek within the study corridor exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH). The small drain entering Hunting Creek approximately 30
meters (100 ft) upstream from the bridge exhibits intermittent characteristics.
Bridge replacement with multiple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert may impact a minor amount of
open waters of Hunting Creek; however, normal flow will be restored upon project completion.
Approximately 0.04 hectares (0.11 ac) of open waters of Hunting Creek occur within the right-of-way for
Alternate A. Actual impacts will be limited to the footprint of the culvert and will be less than the right-of-
way impacts noted above. Approximately 0.02 hectares (0.05 ac) of open waters of Hunting Creek occur
within the temporary detour easement; however, actual impacts will be within the construction limits of the
detour and are expected to be less than the easement width. These impacts will be temporary. The small
drain upstream from the bridge will not be affected by the project.
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the
presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or
near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on the three
parameter approach, limited jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor. One small palustrine,
emergent wetland (PEM), less than 0.02 hectares (0.05 ac) in size, was identified within the study corridor
adjacent to US 70 Business southwest of the railway. The soils in this area exhibit hydric characteristics
(i.e., gleying, oxidation features) and surface saturation possibly due to drainage from the railway bed.
However, this wetland has been avoided by the project right-of-way and temporary detour easement.
Therefore, no jurisdictional wetland impacts are anticipated as a result of this project for either Alternate A
or the temporary detour.
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)) has been issued by the COE for
CEs due to expected minimal impact. DEM has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP
#23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DEM. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
Burke County is one of twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout waters. The COE has
implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide and general permits that authorize the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into North Carolina designated trout waters. Generally, projects
involving trout stream infringement, including all waters upstream to and above their headwaters, can be
processed under either General Bridge Permit 031 or Individual Permit. Projects in trout waters require
review by the DEHNR, Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Neither Hunting Creek nor the receiving
waters of Lake Rhodhiss and the Catawba River are designated by the DEHNR, WRC as Public Mountain
Trout Waters.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
practicable, is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal
protected species are listed for Burke County (May 2, 1997 FWS list):
Common Name
Peregrine falcon
Spreading avens
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Mountain golden heather
Small-whorled pogonia
Heller's blazing star
Scientific Name Status
Falco peregrinus E
Geum radiatus E
Hexastylis naniflora T
Hudsonia montana T
Isotria medeoloides T
Liatris helled T
Peregrine Falcon - The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized falcon, reaching a length between 41 and 51
centimeters (16 to 20 in), or slightly larger than an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Adults have
bluish-gray backs and wings, barring on the pale underparts, and a black nape and crown with a wide
black wedge extending below the eye. Immature peregrine falcons are dark brown above with a heavily
streaked breast, and a dark bar or wedge is present below the eye (NGS 1987). Peregrine falcons feed on
medium-sized birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and pigeons, which they strike in midair. Peregrine
falcons migrate in the fall, but over-wintering birds may be present along the North Carolina coast (Hamel
1992).
12
Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North Carolina, but have been
reintroduced to western North Carolina through a hacking program (captive-reared and released).
Peregrine falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas where a mixture of forests and extensive fields,
marshes, or water is present (Hamel 1992). NHP records do not indicate that peregrine falcon has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect peregrine falcons due to the
absence of suitable nesting habitat (remote cliffs) within the study corridor. Since NHP records do
not indicate that peregrine falcons have been recorded as nesting in the project vicinity, there are
no impacts anticipated to nesting or foraging habitats. NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens - Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb to 50 centimeters (20 in)
tall. A basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves is produced from a horizontal rhizome. These
leaves are long stalked and terminated by a large kidney-shaped lobe; tiny leaflets are usually present
below the terminal lobe (Kral 1983). Small, sessile, serrated leaves are found on the flowering stem.
Lanceolate sepals and relatively long petal lengths of 1.3 to 2.0 centimeters (0.5 to 0.8 in) help differentiate
spreading avens from related species (Massey et al. 1983). Bright yellow, five-petaled flowers
approximately 6 to 8 centimeters (2.4 to 3.1 in) across are produced from June to August; these are
followed between July and October by hairy achenes with a persistent, straight style approximately 1
centimeters (0.2 in) long (Massey et al 1983). Vegetative parts may emerge in May and persist through
October.
Spreading avens usually occurs at elevations greater than 1524 meters (5000 ft) in mountain grass balls
or in grassy clearings in heath balds as well as in crevices of granitic rock; it cannot tolerate shading or
crowding (Kral 1983). Spreading avens is found in a few northwestern counties of North Carolina, and in
nearby counties of Tennessee. NHP records do not indicate that spreading avens has been documented
within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect spreading avens due to the
absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 315 meters (1040 ft)) study
corridor. NO EFFECT
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf - The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-smelling, rhizomatous perennial
herb with long-stalked leaves and flowers. Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark green
above and paler below; the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green reticulate mottles. The
leaves grow to about 6 centimeters (2.4 in) long and form a dense, spreading rosette. The flowers, which
appear in April and May, are solitary, flask-shaped, fleshy and firm, and have three triangular lobes. This
species differs from related species by having smaller flowers with calyx tubes that narrow distally rather
than broaden (Kral 1983).
Dwarf-flowering heartleaf is found in acidic sandy loam on north-facing wooded slopes of ravines in the
Piedmont of North and South Carolina. This species typically occurs in oak-hickory-pine forest where
hydrologic conditions range from moist to relatively dry, but also may be present in adjacent pastured
woodland. This species typically is found in moist duff at the bases of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmia
latifolia) (Kral 1983). In North Carolina, dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from a few southwestern
13
Piedmont counties (Amoroso and Weakley 1995). NHP records do not indicate that dwarf-flowering
heartleaf has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect dwarf-flowering heartleaf due
to the absence of suitable habitat (north-facing wooded ravine slopes) within the study corridor.
NO EFFECT
Mountain Golden Heather - Mountain golden heather is a low spreading, freely branched shrub to about
40 centimeters (16 in) tall. The leaves are mostly evergreen, crowded, and needle shaped, to about 0.8
centimeters (0.3 in) long. Flowers are small, solitary, pale yellow, 5-petaled, and have numerous stamens.
Sepals are 0.6 to 0.7 centimeters (0.2 to 0.3 in) long and petals may be slightly longer to twice as long as
the sepals. Flowers are produced at the end of the branches from May through July, with fruiting occurring
from July through September. Mountain golden heather can be distinguished from similar species by sepal
length and shape, and leaf size (Massey et al. 1983).
A North Carolina endemic, mountain golden heather has only been found in a few counties on high peaks
and ridges where it inhabits quartzitic ledges and cliffs in heath bald clearings. Mountain golden heather
typically is found in depressions or rock cracks where a shallow, acidic, sandy or stony soil is present and
the plant receives full sun (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain golden heather is reported to occur at elevations
between approximately 850 and 1200 meters. NHP records do not indicate that mountain golden heather
has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect mountain golden heather due
to the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 315 meters (1040 ft))
study corridor. NO EFFECT
Small Whorled Pogonia - The small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 25
centimeters (10 in) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips
are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish
green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be present.
Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 1.7 centimeters (0.7 in), surrounded by 3
narrow sepals up to 2.5 centimeters (1 in) in length. Flower production, which occurs from May to July, is
followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 1.7 to 3.0 centimeters (0.7 to 1.2 in) in length
(Massey et al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to 10 years between blooming
periods (Newcomb 1977).
The small whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia, but is very
local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont
and Sandhills (Amoroso and Weakley 1995). Small whorled pogonia is found in open, dry deciduous or
mixed pine-deciduous forest, or along stream banks. Examples of areas reported to provide suitable
conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small whorled pogonia has been
found include oldfields, pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent
canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). Despite its potential
occurrence in various open habitats, in the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina this species is
14
usually found in association with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993). NHP records do not indicate
that small whorled pogonia has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect small whorled pogonia. The
hardwood forest present within the project right-of-way and temporary detour fight-of-way consists
of closed canopy rather than the open conditions ascribed to small whorled pogonia in deciduous
forest habitats. Roadsides, which could potentially provide the requisite open conditions adjacent
to the deciduous forest in the project area, are vegetated by roadside grasses which are kept in a
closely manicured state and as such, do not provide suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia. In
addition, no white pine (a typical associate of small whorled pogonia) is present within the study
corridor. NO EFFECT
Heller's Blazing Star (Liatris helleri) - T. Heller's blazing star is an erect herbaceous perennial with
glabrous stems that reaches heights of 10 to 50 centimeters (4 to 20 in). The leaves are simple, linear to
lanceolate, alternate, and arranged spirally along the stem. Leaf size is variable, with a gradual decrease
in size up the stem. The inflorescence consists of compact heads arranged in a raceme-like fashion along
the stem. The heads typically contain seven to ten tubular florets which may be purple to lavender in color.
Heller's blazing star is distinguished from related species by shorter height and relatively short pappus
(modified calyx lobes) half or less the length of the corolla tube. Flowers are produced from July to
September, with fruiting occurring from August to October (Massey et al. 1983).
Heller's blazing star has been found on rocky summits at high elevations in the mountains of western North
Carolina. This species typically is found in full sun growing in shallow, acidic soils on or around granitic
outcrops, ledges, and cliff faces (Kral 1983, Massey et al. 1983). Heller's blazing star is reported to occur
at elevations between approximately 1070 and 1900 meters. NHP records do not indicate that Heller's
blazing star has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Heller's blazing star due to
the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 315 meters (1040 ft)) study
corridor. NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The May 2, 1997 FWS list also includes a category of species designated
as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. NHP files do not document any FSC within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study
corridor. The presence of potential habitat within the study corridor has been evaluated for the following
FSC species listed for Burke County:
Common Name
Allegheny woodrat
Brook floater
Edmund's snaketail dragonfly
Pygmy snaketail dragonfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Butternut
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Neotoma magister No
Alasmidonta varicosa No
Ophiogomphus edmundo No
Ophiogomphus howei No
Speyeria diana No
Juglans cinerea No
15
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Yes
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana No
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula No
A liverwort Chiloscyphus appalachanus
(=Lophocolea appalaciana) No
A liverwort Plagiochila caduciloba No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii No
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
NHP records indicate that no state-listed E, T, or SC species have been documented within 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
National Forest Lands
The study corridor is not located within established National Forest boundaries. No National Forest Lands
will be affected by this project.
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or
permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. Pursuant to Section
106, comments were requested from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and were
received on March 3, 1997 (see Appendix).
Based on comments received from the SHPO, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by this project.
Therefore, no archaeological investigations will be conducted for this project.
There are no structures of historic or architectural importance located within the area of potential effect of
this project.
16
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 52 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment if current NCDOT standards and specifications are implemented. The project should have an
overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor bridge conditions.
This project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No Significant change in
land use is expected to result from replacement of Bridge No. 52.
The size of the proposed culvert and the grade of US 70 Business will be designed so that the existing
FEMA Floodway limits are maintained.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. There will be no relocatees as a result of this
project.
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands, therefore it is
exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local
significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
One geodetic survey marker will be impacted by this project.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected as a result of this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral' project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a
project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it
shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for air quality, no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project, however this increase will be
only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic
volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise
levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway noise setforth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion due to its limited scope and lack of
significant environmental consequences. Based on the assessment of the existing human and natural
environment, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effect will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 52.
17
XI. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cooper, J. E., S. S. Robinson, and J. B. Funderburg (eds.). 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants
and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. pp. 56-142.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-
87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 31 pp + amendments through 7-1-95.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Document:
Catawba River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 234 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical
Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated Guide to
the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia.
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
18
National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.

O
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, MA. 490 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Draft Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Orchidaceae (Orchid Family): Isotria Rafinesque (Whorled Pogonia, Five-leaves,
Fiveleaf Orchid). P. 491 in: Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia, Working Draft of 22 October
1993.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19

a
a
BIURKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
4 inville Idge
Its Co..
Ho.k/s?n lal
ford Mtn
JabftR
\ \lole n

INZ
Tuttle Edu<.
St. Forest 1
All
`L pvaldese Cou?lle
%;:KAtpme--- /0 14 O Long Vi
Bnd•(wate'r.'?? \ Icar
4 5 . I -m]®
9 onnell 7
Morganton t8 prin Hi eb
B R E F„rk
r 64 4 Pleasw grove
South MoJnto.n.
L - 1 Stofe Port
SCALE: Not-to-Scale

P, f( North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3121
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 52 ON US 70 BUS. OVER
HUNTING CREEK
BURKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
Bridge No. 52
FIGURE 3
ON US 70 BUS. AT SR 1443 LOOKING EAST AT BRIDGE #52
ON US 70 BUS. AT US 70 BYPASS LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #52
(East End of Bridge #52 is 61 meters (200 ft) beyond Southern Railroad bridge)
I
FIGURE 4
ON US 70 BUS. LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #52
UIN UJ /U UUJ. LUUNINU LAO I HI CiKIUUt FU
(Southern Railroad bridge is 61 meters (200 ft) beyond east end of Bridge #52)
ZONE
APPROXIMATE SCALE x ;f
600 0 600 FEET t? :' . = E 1
RM40 {E??.
-?
r,,?,f'PS P ? - t
1
ZONE X f
ZONE AE
ZONE X r? f4 ,
f?.
y
ZONE X
f
UNION
STkfEl

U ZONE X Vi-of
RM42 Q
ZONE A
Bridge No. 52 R 4 . O
u _ ZONE X ?
1036
RM43
ZONE X
1037 1038 /
LEGEND
100L FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED
BY 100
P7 BY -YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A I One Faad e4 - de-.-.--d.
ZONE AE b.e Awd ekxr.ow
ZONE AN food dwm d 1 q 1 fen wwMiy w. d
pwW-W. Wx flood ekw-% dl-11 -d
ZONE AO flood dq h( d I a J 6- t-fly d-a M-
on N(.fk deph(de-ew--d.
f(- ren d ?Ilovl 4n ?'^L .eb(+-, A.
d- --d.
ZONE A99 b be pawned Iww K*-wm Food by fednd
Mad p.a.ec+wF,yu wde.(wwwnolM
bne a/ex- - dele.m-md.
ZONE V C-"Mad-d,.e6(ey h+ud I-en t.
.
- be.e Fwd ek-rug. &--'d
ZONE VE Cne-d Foodw h.rbcee huwd t.-numl:
W. Food ek-,- d(--w -d.
FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Aw d 500-We Food. ren d Ioo-yer Mad
-d. we.ete deed„ d ku d- 1 6a r -A
drnA.( ren k,( d-n I (None
w ao g File Mad: rd rw
r.leo,d by kxees Iw.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Awn de--w-ed w be while Soo, Mod
pl-.
1039
RM44 .' . 1040
J?
ZONE X
ZONE AE
V 1041
ZONE X ?
,Y
A
I ' M,,
W i
J ? - -I
Cy ?
I.
t
'ZONE X
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370035 0005 B
EFFECTIVE DATE:
FEBRUARY 19, 1987
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
B-3121
CITY OF MORGANTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 5

z
O
'LL!
V /
N
p
` U
O
C-)
I.i
?I
w
z
z
Lu Z)
cV >
O
O U
m Y
Z
z m
O
W
m
J 0
C Z
O
w C?
O U'
#
c
E E N Q
N M a
E
vo
N o0
E? 1
v
.. N..O O?1
c
N
E= a o
(D O
nj N
I,
i
c41
?
(D C!
M N
r
E ? oI
N 4 V
EZ
V' O
N 00
? O y
d d
N ^ D_
Q7 7 N y
C O ?
y N O O'
c9 C m
y O (CC N
p U ?
y
y 3
O y
U
d 7
co
U 'O O a
9 C N -
d w N co
y ? ? C
C w m
.0.. y ?
y a
o E n
d y N
O a?
F- a Z N w

#
Z
? z Z
00
J
Q
W
H
0-1
L Q
CL 0-1
E O
O _ z (0
a CL O
L > > Z Z O
E O O Q J E II
-?e (D Lo M -J C3
U-) O Lr o O (D o E
(D r ?- O m w •-- co 0
Z
O
t? F-
rn ti U W
Q
Q N Lt ~
U) w
I- W 0 z
J W
O
0 Q ¢ U = Q F'
W W Q J Q (Dj
CL W o Q w U W
U) F- z -i
W
(D _U' U) O Q D W
Fn D w h~- z Z X 0..
o U o o L ?u
1..1?
l.l.!
D
X
QO
2 co
f? LLw
1NN
0
gZ
w0
ww
U
W ?
E3
O Li
Z
0w
o?
J
w w
co w
Q
co
J
D
2i
co
LU
w
M
0
Ll.
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, o
Health and Natural Resources 4 o
Division of Water Quality
James B Hunt, G c eta
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Cindy Sharer, P.E., NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality C' L'-6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 10, 1997, in which you requested preliminary comments
concerning nine bridge replacement projects. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following generic environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge
replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. It
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the strewn.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aftirmaiive Action Employer 501% recyclad/l0% pot comumer paper
Ms. Cindy Sharer Memo
February 26, 1997
' Page 2
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A
NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(2)).
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.

cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2150.DOC
t`
rn
N
a
cis
a
cr-
Z
W
0

o m
o m
o m
o m
` ro
m
c c g c' c c
s

.?
p V
CD
O d
0 0_

C
O m
3 U
U
C
d L
a O L C
co Q L
'"
CD h° t° Q
E
E CL
CL
o (D
CL
C3 z Cl. za CL
m e z

o c

E^ N

E v N

E-o
C:

E
_

CL
L)
' (o
Z- E (D
Z Z 3 Z 3

3 a

a
Z

N

ci
O

O a

C3
O
m m m Q co
3
Q
L L Z Z
d
> U
m O
m O
U C
d CJ
LL LL LL
E o
W
N H F= Z U N Z
O w U U
co
0 U
E (O ^•
o
Z
C\l _

n

n °

m

Q

x
N

n

Z
C?

Z
a v ?O II II

0 - -

c

N a
c m

E

3 m
n
E

Y
O p
0
U ca
:E ? u

? co
2
? u7 m

Y
N

)

U c
O
Y

Y

a
O
U
E
U >
' O
- 7
V
U O
m O
z 2 ) o
v E U
E E 0 m C
M
0 J
c (D
4-- O
IZ
(D
b
cn O
t
z "'
o O
U > >
_

U
N ?
c
0
(D
(D
M n ro ro N

a` m CL
¢ CL
¢ CL
¢ CL
rr CL
¢ CIL
cc

c
o

N
0
o v
C
co
n
o
v
n m
c
a N ? ID m cD
O Z 2 Ct ¢ p
? N
D
d
z
r
C2
N
C3

Z
I
N O
S
?
N
oo
a N N N C _
M M
- m m m m In co m
F-
rn
N
a
N
to
RS
CL
Q
Z
W
0
o m
C • o m
c •
o
oa o
oa
t C
N L C
N

ro N ro N
ro
a ??
7 ?
Z 3 z 3
v
ro
o
m

m
`
u
.
F... U
U
o

m _
?
? 11
n -
C
N m
o
b
ro
?
2
V
C
Y ro
°' Z 3
U Q c
?
C ro d

(n >
O
co
U

Ca
d
a) n
m
cl: cc
N
d

O
N C
> NN
U co
U
Z N Z
N

ul
n
O
Cl) fV

Q?

N cD
N
(7 N
(7
m m
??Or o^TCu?
rr+Mt ?V
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook &"-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XII, Bridge #52 on US 70 over
Hunting Creek, Burke County, B-3121, ER 97-
8509
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Hunting Creek Railroad Bridge. This bridge was listed in the National Register of
Historic Places on November 9, 1987, and is located south of Bridge #52.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Morganton Historic Properties Commission
non-7 D K)
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WELDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

t' d
Subject: Notification of start of study and request for project input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina), TIP Numbers B-2150, B-2848, B-2927, B-3000,
B-3118, B-3121, B-3189, B-3205, B-3206.
This is the response of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to your letter of February 10,
1997, requesting input for the subject bridge replacement projects. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential impacts the proposed projects could
have on federally listed species and on Federal species of concern and the potential impacts to
stream and wetland ecosystems within the area.
The Service concurs with the decision to prepare categorical exclusion documents for bridge
replacement projects B-2150, B-2927, B-3000, B-3118, B-3121, B-3189, B-3205, B-3206,
provided the following measures are implemented to minimize impacts to aquatic resources:
(1) riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever possible, especially large trees; (2) if any
riparian areas are disturbed, they should be revegetated with native species as soon as possible
after construction in order to minimize runoff and lessen the impacts associated with "bare
banks" (decrease in nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes, sediment filtration, etc.);
(3) stringent erosion control measures should be implemented during all construction activities in
order to minimize downstream effects; and (4) construction should be accomplished so that wet
concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the stream. These measures will reduce
the likelihood of aquatic impacts associated with the bridge construction.
The Service does not agree that bridge replacement project B-2848 should be categorically
excluded from further environmental study due to the fact that the endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is known to occur in the North Toe River in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation should work
closely with the Service to incorporate sufficient measures and monitoring, in addition to those
already mentioned, to avoid impacts to this endangered mussel. Otherwise, if it is determined
that the proposed project may affect the Appalachian elktoe, formal consultation, as directed by
the Act, would have to be initiated with our office.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate possible
impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern:
Virginia spirea (Spirea.virginiana) (Threatened) - This plant species is found
along streams on sandbars and stream banks.
Olive darter (Percina squantata) (Federal species of concern) - This small fish is
found in deep swift rapids and runs near boulders.
Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) (Federal species of concern) - This
amphibian inhabits clear-flowing water areas with large flat rocks.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact area should be
addressed in any environmental document prepared for this project. Please note that the legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard to
federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the
Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal species of concern are not
legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response in order to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) any proposed temporary bridges or structures associated
with the bridge replacements; (2) any special measures proposed to minimize sedimentation
during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to minimize impacts to fish
and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you keep us
informed as to the progress of these projects. In any future correspondence concerning this
matter, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-077.
Sincerely,
f
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
March 5, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Platining and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
* lv??
6:101- '0
Q'
MAR 1 A ?ggl
?? . IC tom,'
ENVt i t0
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XII (WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), NCDOT TIP
NUMBERS B-2150, B-2848, B-3118, AND B-3205, FRENCH BROAD RIVER TRIBUTARIES
AND NORTH TOE RIVER, BUNCOMBE, MADISON, MITCHELL, AND YANCEY
COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the scoping notice for the proposed bridge replacement projects in western
North Carolina. Approvals under Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required for the following
bridges:
• B-2150, NC 212, Bridge 432 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
• B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge # 143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge 4165 over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3205, NC 209, Bridge 430 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Attached are typical conditions that TVA attaches to Section 26a approvals for bridges.
The other bridges do not cross tributaries of the Tennessee River and would not require Section
26a approval:
• B-2927, US 19-23-74 Bridge # 123 over Southern Railroad, Buncombe County
• B-3000, SR 1407 Bridge 9304 over Mill Creek, McDowell County
• B-3121, US 70 Business Bridge #52 over Hunting Creek, Burke County
• B-3189, SR 1643 Bridge #272 over Southern Railroad, Haywood County
• B-3206, US 221 Business/NC 226 Bridges #81, 492, and 975 over Catawba River and
overflows.
An1,4 o re+ kv c r yxw
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
March 5, 1997
Following completion of the environmental review, please send a copy of the Categorical Exclusion
documentation, along with a Section 26a application, to the following addresses:
• For TIP Project Number B-2848 (North Toe River), please send the application to TVA Upper
Holston Reservoir Land Management Office, 4105 Fort Henry Drive, Suite 218, Kingsport,
Tennessee 37663; telephone [phone].
For TIP Project Numbers B-2150, B-31 18 and B-3205, please send the application to TVA
Cherokee-Douglas Land Management Office, 2611 West Andrew Johnson Highway,
Morristown, Tennessee 37814-3295; telephone [phone].
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. Lon ey, Manage
Environmental Management
Enclosure
Appendix F
WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS
For all off-reservoir requests, a condition should be placed in any general permit or letter of no jurisdiction to
inform the applicant of the need to comply with local floodplain regulations that may be in effect. The condition
should read:
You should contact your local government official(s) to ensure that this facility complies with all applicable
local floodplain regulations.
The following conditions should be used for all bridge and culvert approvals:
Best Management and Best Engineering Practices will be used to prevent the introduction of soil or any
other pollutants into surface or groundwaters, including but not limited to the following:
a. Installing cofferdams and/or silt control structures between construction areas and the streams prior
to any soil-disturbing demolition/construction activity, and clarifying all water that is trapped or
accumulates behind these devices to meet water quality criteria before it is returned to the stream.
Cofferdams must be used wherever construction activity is at or below water elevation.
b. Removing demolition products and construction by-products from the site for recycling, if practicable,
or proper disposal outside of a 100-year floodplain.
C. Minimizing removal of vegetation.
d. Keeping equipment out of streams (i.e., performing work 'in the dry').
e. Keeping equipment off stream banks to the degree practicable.
f. Using erosion control structures around any material stockpile areas.
g. Removing, redistributing, and stabilizing (with vegetation) all sediment which accumulates behind
cofferdams and silt control structures.
h. Using vegetation (versus shot rock or riprap) wherever practicable and sustainable, to stabilize
streambanks and floodplain areas. These areas will be stabilized as soon as practicable, using,
either an appropriate seed mixture that includes an annual (quick cover) as well as 1 or 2 perennial
legumes and 1 or 2 perennial grasses, or equivalent sod. In certain periods of the year, this will
require initial planting of a quick cover annual only, to be followed by subsequent establishment of
the perennials. Seed and soil will be protected as appropriate with erosion control netting and/or
mulch, and provided adequate moisture. Streambank and floodplain areas will also be permanently
stabilized with native woody plants, to include trees wherever practicable and sustainable and
consistent with other regulatory agency specifications.
i. Applying clean/shaken riprap or shot rock (where needed at wateribank interface) over a water
permeable/scil impermeable fabric or geotextile and in such a manner as to avoid stream
sedimentation or disturbance.
j. Avoiding spilling concrete, or other substances or materials; into the streams.
k. Designing/constructing any instream piers in such a manner as to discourage aver scouring or
sediment deposition.
1. Bank, shoreline. and floodplain stabilization will be permanently maintained in order to prevent
erosion, protect water quality, and preserve aquatic habitat.
m. Culverts are constructed in phases, and adequate streambank protection measures are employed,
such that the diverted streamf low is handled without creating streambank or streambed
erosion/sedimentation and without preventing fish passage.
32
Appendix F
2. Concrete box culverts and pipe culverts (and their extensions) must create/maintain velocities and flow
patters which offer refuge for fish and other aquatic life, and allow passage of indigenous fish species,
under all flow conditions. Culvert floor slabs and pipe bottoms must be buried at least one foot below
streambed elevation, and filled with naturally-occurring streambed materials. If geologic conditions do not
allow burying the floor, it must be otherwise designed to allow passage of indigenous fish species under all
flow conditions.
3. All natural stream values (including equivalent energy dissipation, elevations, and velocities; riparian
vegetation; riffle/pool sequencing; habitat suitable for fish and other aquatic life) must be provided at all
stream modification sites. This must be accomplished using a combination of rock and bioengineering,
and is not accomplished using solid, homogeneous riprap from bank to bank.
33
r
C.
- 711
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
April 23, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XII (WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), NCDOT TIP
NUMBERS B-2150, B-28487 B-2927, B-3000, B-3118, B-3189, AND B-3205, FRENCH
BROAD RIVER TRIBUTARIES AND NORTH TOE RIVER, BUNCOMBE, HAYWOOD,
MADISON, MCDOWELL, MITCHELL, AND YANCEY COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
As a follow-up to my letter of March 5, 1997, on the proposed bridge replacement projects in
western North Carolina, I wish to transmit the following additional information obtained through a
search of TVA's heritage database. No information was available for bridges not listed.
Information is listed by bridge and represents species that may be in appropriate habitats in the
vicinity of the bridge listed.
• B-2150, NC 212, Bridge 432 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens State Threatened (ST)
river carpsucker Carpiodes carpio State Special Concern (SPCO)
banded sculpin Cottus carolinae ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus SPCO
American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix ST
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus SPCO
logperch Percina caprodes ST
longhead darter Percina macrocephala SPCO
dusky darter Percina sciera State Endangered (SE)
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
paddlefish Polyodon spatula SE
=? OR 2 R 1997
l ?.
Plants
clinton lily Clintonia borealis SPCO
mapleleaf alumroot Heuchera longitlora SPCO
var. aceroides
Virginia waterleaf Hydrophyllum virginianum ST
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
April 23, 1997
ce
• B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge #143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Federal Endangered
(FE)
sharphead darter Etheostoma acuticeps ST
wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola SPCO
striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus ST
stonecat Noturus flavus SE
tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca State in Need of
Management (NMGT)
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
Plants
Virginia Spiraea
Terrestrial Animals
common hellbender
Spiraea virginiana Federal Threatened
(FT)
Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis SPCO
• B-2927, US 19-23-74, Bridge #123 over Southern Railway, Buncombe County
Aquatic Animals
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
longhead darter Percina macrocephala SPCO
paddlefish Polyodon spathula SE
Plants
ginseng Panax quinquefolius ST
Terrestrial Animals
biack vuiture Coragyps atratus SPCO
• B-3000, SR 1407, Bridge 4304 over Mill Creek and Southern Railroad, McDowell County
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian disc Anguispira mordax State-Listed, Status Undetermined,
Uncertain, or Poorly Known (STUN)
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus Watch List (WATC)
Carolina seep scud Stygobromus carolinensis ST
Terrestrial Animals
Diana Speyeria diana SPCO
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 3
April 23, 1997
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge 4165 over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County
Aquatic Animals
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
paddlefish Polyodon spathula SE
Wetlands In the Construction Location:
PSS1A (pa!ustrine/scrub-shrub,broad-leaved deciduous/ temporarily flooded)
• B-3189, SR 1643, Bridge 4272 over Southern Railroad, Haywood County
No Sensitive resources or wetlands records for the vicinity of this project.
B-3205, NC 209, Bridge 430 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens ST
banded sculpin Cottus carolinae ST
barrens topminnow Fundu/us julisia ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus SPCO
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus SPCO
logperch Percina caprodes ST
dusky darter Percina sclera SE
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
YJn M. . Lon4Ma , En
vironmental Management
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
. ( WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
lI P.O. Box 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 2, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
AWAY V
Z e
C??HIGHt?, .?? 1
1; ONI:
This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1997, subject, "Notification of
Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group XII (Western
North Carolina." The bridge replacement projects are located in various Western North
Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
wy
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Roger Milstead
River System Operations
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
May 2, 1997
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
. All of the bridges, except for those in Burke and McDowell Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District.
These bridges are located within counties which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), it
appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved. (Detail
study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and [generally) a
floodway defined). A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm

32 NC 212 Madison Shelton Laurel Ck. Approx 9/82
143 SR 1304 Mitchell/Yancey North Toe River Approx 9/88
123 US 19-23 Buncombe None (So. RR) None 5/96
304 SR 1407 McDowell Mill Ck./So. RR Approx 2/97
164 SR 1674 Buncombe Beaver Dam Ck. Detail 5/96
52 US 70 Bus. Burke Hunting Ck. Detail 2/87
272 SR 1643 Haywood None (So. RR) None 1/82
30 NC 209 Madison Spring Cl,.. Detail*** 9/82
81/92 US 221 McDowell Catawba River Detail *** * 7/88
* Map is City of Morganton FIRM.
** Map is Town of Canton FIRM.
*** Detailed study limit is downstream side of road.
**** No floodway computed.
May 2, 1997
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
Reference is made the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
"Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways", copies of which have been provided previously to your office. The project
should be designed to meet the requ;raments of the N. !P, administered by FEMA, and
be in compliance with all local ordinances. The engineering point of contact for the
NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who may be reached at [phone].
Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments
should be referred to the local building official.
All of the affected counties, except for Burke and McDowell Counties, are within
the planning jurisdiction of the USACE, Nashville District, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or development involving the flood
plains. The Nashville District does not currently have projects that would be affected by
the proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may be contacted at [phone] for further
information and comments from the Nashville District. Flood plain concerns are
normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process. A 26a permit is
required for all construction or development involving streams or flood plains in the
Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at [phone] should be
contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting process.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Asheville Field Office, Regulatory Branch
(Individual POC's are listed following the comments.
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
May 2, 1997
Page 3 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)J as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please he reminded that, prior to utilization of nation-wide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation should provide a letter of notification to the Asheville Regulatory Field
Office and the appropriate North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission office with
reference to impacts to mountain trout water habitat. The mountain trout designation
carries discretionary authority for the utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any
jurisdictional impacts associated with temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams,
or other dewatering structures should be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion
documentation in order to be authorized by Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If
such information is not contained within the Categorical Exclusion documentation, then
other DA permits may be required prior to construction activities.
Where possible, the bridges should be replaced with bridges, and impacts to the
channel and wetlands should be avoided and/or minimized. Although these projects
may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the project planning report should
contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not have
more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment.
Accordingly, we offer the following comments and recommendations to be addressed in
the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 2, 1997
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address pctential impacts to anadreimous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
David Baker at [phone] for Buncombe, Haywood, Madison,
Mitchell, and Yancey Counties
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Burke and McDowell Counties
Federal Aid r MZtir? • !Lh-70 01) TIP m 1-?• °712t County13ur-V-E
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
F?ast?te? over.
Brief Project Description RF_v?tAcr_ y7aivri? i,lo• ti2 oN LI?t c1S70
14N4T4,1( GC-EEV_ t OPOM 6,ao"P -/-it)
On &F'F4. t-t 1,1111 , representatives of the
? Norh Carolina Dcpa :mint of Transportaticn (NCDOT)
Fcdcral Higli vay Administration (FHNvA)
? Norm Carolina State Historic Preservation Oliicc (SHPO)
Other
re•:imcd the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultauon
Other
All par-tics present agreed
there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's arca of pocc:inal cr;ccts.
? there are no prooeries less than fifty- years old which are conside:c- to meet Criterion
Ccnsidcration G w1chin the project's area of potcntiai cticc:s.
? thcrc arc propcrics over fifty years old (list attached) lvithin the proicct's arca of potential c-ccts,
but based on the historical information availcble and the phcccerac;,s of cac;i oreocr y, properties
idcn6ficd as 8ri?r, 52 arc con_idc:cd noc clisible
fir National R.--lister and no fur-her evaluaiEon of them is nc:css? -:.
thc.c are no National Register-listed propc.mcs within the prcicc:'s arca of peienci:l c-`icc:s.
Siencd:
Reprise/.t4fv6; NCDOT
FH%v, ; fg(r the Division(r, dministrator, or ocher Fcdcral Aecncy
- y ...r- ?.u .mow v
Representative, HPO
State Historic Prescrvation Officer
lra survey report is prepared, a final copy of this Conn and the attnched list will he includes!.
Dace
Date
Datc