19991301 Ver 1_Complete File_19991130

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA t`
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO'
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVIDMcCO
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 22, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
.991301
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Wilkes County, Replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1706 over Harris Creek
with a new structure on the existing alignment; TIP No. B-3079, State Project No.
8.276090 1, Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1730(3).
Dear Sir:
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion for the above-referenced project.
Using an off-site detour, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace Bridge No. 146 with a new structure on the existing alignment over
Harris Creek. The new structure will be a bridge along the same alignment at
approximately the same elevation. The new bridge will be approximately 21.3 meters'
(70.0 feet) long to accommodate 3.4-meter (11.0-foot) travel lanes with 0.6-meter (2-
foot) shoulders. Please note that in the attached Categorical Exclusion the original
design was to replace the bridge with a reinforced concrete box culvert. However, to
avoid extensive rock excavation, it became more practical to bridge the stream.
Bridge No. 146, constructed by NCDOT in 1961, carries SR 1730 over Harris
Creek in Wilkes County. It has one span that is 26 feet in length. The deck and bridge
railings for the superstructure are composed of timber. The substructure is composed of
timber. Both the bridge rail and. the substructure will be removed without dropping them
into the Waters of the U.S. There is no potential for components of the deck to be
dropped into Waters of the U.S. during construction.
It will be necessary to install interior and end bents for the new structure. One of
the interior bents will be installed in such a way that half of the 4-foot diameter column
may fall within the eastern waterline of Harris Creek. After the existing bridge is
removed, some bank excavation will be necessary to allow access to the underlying rock
in order to install the end bents: Any material falling into the creek during excavation .
will be removed.
Harris Creek is the only, jurisdictional surface water resource. that will be
impacted. The bridge replacement involves a maximum impact of 0.06 hectares (0.13
acres) to jurisdictional wetlands. Up to 24.4 meters (80.0 feet) of linear stream channel
or 0.03 hectares (0.08 acres) of jurisdictional surface waters.may be impacted. ` This
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration 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 aNationwide Permit in
accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874, 65916 (December 13, 1996).
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No..2734 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review. The NCDOT will adhere to the general conditions of the
401 Water Quality Certification; therefore, written authorization from the NC Division of
Water Quality is not required.
If you have any questions, please contact Elizabeth L. Lusk at [phone], extension
335.
Sincerely,
L
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
b Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachment .
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin W. Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. W.E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Engineer
Mr. Jay Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit Head

Wilkes County
SR 1730
Bridge No. 146
Over Harris Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ -1730 (3)
State Project 8.2760901
TIP No. B-3079

Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
r -
Approved:
D ao0
Nate H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manag r
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
L 113oh?
Date cholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
I
Wilkes County
SR 1730
Bridge No. 146
Over Harris Creek
_ Federal-Aid Project BRZ -1730 (3)
State Project 8.2760901
TIP No. B-3079
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
January 1998
Document Prepared
by
eiherill Associa(os, l"
APO/
??. •'10 SS1pN• :9
Norman Willey, PE SE AL .
Project Manager
36 55
'y'••FNGI NE?t•'
for the .?p?4N ....\?, ':'
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF 41FR 'PV)RTATION
7
Z
A. Bissett, Jr., PE Uni ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Rvv? G•6
By Brady, PE
Project Planning Engineer

I
Wilkes County
SR 1730
Bridge No. 146
Over Harris Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ -1730 (3)
State Project 8.2760901
TIP No. B-3079

Bridge No. 146 is located in Wilkes County on SR 1730 crossing Harris Creek. It
is programmed in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. This project is part of the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program
and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental
impacts are expected to result from this action.

1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Harris Creek is designated as Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Water by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) of the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) has a stream classification of C Tr. HQW for Harris Creek. Thus, the
following environmental commitments will be implemented:
• NCDOT will consult with NCWRC on the replacement of this structure.
• NCDOT's "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" will be strictly
adhered to during the design and construction of the project.
T NCDOT's "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements
Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters, October 2, 1992" will be
incorporated into the erosion and sedimentation control plans for the
project.
• In water construction and land disturbances within a 25-foot buffer zone
will not be allowed between October 1 and April 1 to avoid spawning
periods for the trout.
3
a
I
• Wet concrete will not be allowed to come in contact with the stream water.
• Heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than the stream
channel in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream.
• The culvert will be countersunk 0.3 meters (1 foot) or a bottomless conspan
type structure used.
• NCDOT will investigate the feasibility of providing a separate cattle underpass
as a part of this replacement to keep them out of the trout stream as requested by NCWRC.
• NCDOT will coordinate the design and construction availability date to minimize
impact to school bus traffic. NCDOT will consider the feasibility of including liquidated
damages in the contract provisions to be used as an incentive to complete the project within
the contract time.
1 II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 146 will be replaced with a new structure on the existing alignment.
Traffic will be maintained during construction on an off-site detour. A precast structure
will be used to limit the construction to a period of 60 to- 90 days during the summer
months and accommodate environmental concerns.
The new structure will be a reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) approximately
15.0 meters (50 feet) in length to accommodate two 3.3 meter (11-foot) travel lanes.
The total approach work will extend approximately 176.8 meters (580 feet). The
roadway approaches include two 3.3 meters (11-foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4-foot)
shoulders. The shoulder width will be widened an additional 1.0 meter (3.28 feet) where
guardrail is used. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be
approximately 100 km/h (60 mph) on the approaches..
The estimated cost of the project is $266,400 including $252,400 in construction
cost and $14,000 in right of way cost. The estimated cost of the project in the 1998-2004
TIP -is $230,000.00.
4
M
I
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1730 is classified as a Rural Local in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. The speed limit along this section of road is 90 km/h (55 mph). The road
primarily serves local traffic in the Absher area of Wilkes County. The study area is
primarily agricultural, with scattered farm residences.
The existing bridge was completed in 1961. It is 7.9 meters (26 feet) long and 5.8
meters (19 feet) in width providing for two travel lanes. It has an approximate 60° skew to
the creek.
According to the Bridge Maintenance Unit records the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 36.8 out of a possible 100. Presently, the bridge is posted for maximum weights
of 12.700 kilogram (14 tons) for single vehicles and 18,144 kilograms (20 tons) for tractor-
truck semi-trailers.
The horizontal alignment is tangent at both ends of the bridge. A 39.7 meter radius
(441) curve is located 122 meters (400 feet) west of the bridge. Shoulder widths on both
ends of the bridge are approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) wide.
The traffic volume is currently 350 vehicles per day (vpd) and projected to increase
to 600 vpd by the year 2020.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the bridge.
There are four (4) daily school bus crossings of the bridge, two (2) in the AM and
two (2) in the PM. The Wilkes County School Transportation Director indicated that due
to the number of bus riders in proximity to the project and the length of the proposed off-
site detour (25 km, 15.5 miles), Alternate 42 would impact school bus operation. He
recommends an on-site detour, if the construction period is during the school year.
There is no sign of fiber optic cable in the vicinity of the bridge. An aerial
telecommunication cable crosses the creek on the northeast side of the bridge. It then
becomes an underground utility line at, or adjacent to, the right of way limit on both
roadway approaches. According to Mr. Alan Blevins of the Blue Ridge Water Association
5

I
there are no public water or sewer lines in the vicinity of the project. The utility impact
rating for this project is low.
Pasture land exists on both the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. Cattle
use the bridge as an underpass to access pasture on opposite sides of the roadway. There
is NCWRC concern for cattle wading in the stream under the existing bridge. However,
the stream flows through open pasture on both the upstream and the downstream sides of
the bridge.
Research of public environmental records and on site inspection did not find any
evidence of the presence of hazardous/toxic materials in the immediate project area.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives, a "do-nothing" alternative and a rehabilitation alternative
were considered for the proposed improvement of Bridge No. 146 in Wilkes County.
Alternative A consists of: constructing an on-site detour on the southwest
(downstream) side of the existing bridge, removing the bridge and replacing it with a
culvert, while traffic is maintained on the temporary detour. The temporary detour will
then be removed and the natural area restored upon completion of the new structure and
approaches. The design speed for the replacement structure and approaches is 100 km/h
(60 mph). The design speed of the temporary detour is 60 km/h (37 mph).
An on-site detour on the northeast side (upstream) is not feasible since Harris Creek
is parallel to the west approach. The temporary detour on the southwest side (downstream)
impacts a low elevation seep which is potential habitat for the bog turtle (Clemmys
muhlenbergii). The low elevation seep, located adjacent to the roadway approach
southwest of the bridge, is likely utilized by a known population located in the same
drainage area less than 1.6 km (1.0 mile) away.
Alternative B (Recommended) consists of closing this section of SR 1730 during
construction and maintaining traffic via an off-site detour, to allow an existing location
replacement. The off-site detour will be along SR 1737, SR 1002 and SR 1736 for a
distance of approximately 25 km (15.5 miles) (See Figure 1). The design speed for this
6
M
I
alternative is 100 km/h (60 mph). This alternative also impacts the low elevation seep to
a lesser degree by eliminating the on-site detour. Design consideration will be given to
minimize the impacts within the 24.4 meter (80 foot) wide project corridor. This
alternative is recommended to minimize the impacts to the trout stream and bog turtle
habitat.
Since this detour is of an excessive length and will impact school bus operation, a
precast culvert or conspan type structure is recommended to allow a construction period of
60 to 90 days during the summer months. Ideally, the project should be constructed
between June 15 and August 15, while school is not in session. This will also avoid the
trout stream moratorium of October 1 to April 1.
The "do-nothing" alternative is not feasible. This will require the closing of the
road as the existing bridge deteriorates to the point where it is unsafe at any posted weight
limits.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor
economically justifiable.
The NCDOT Eleventh Highway Division Engineer has reviewed the alternatives
and concurs in the recommended improvement.
V. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
No design exceptions are anticipated bn this project.
2
A
Z
7
M
I
1
VI. ESTIMATED COST
ITEM Alternate A
COST Alternate B
(Recommended)
COST
New Structure (Culvert) $97,100 $100,000
Bridge Removal $9,600 $9,600
Approach Roadway $110,300 $82,800
Temporary Detour $120,000 0
Engineering & Contingencies $63,000 $60,000
Total Construction $400,000 $252,400
Right of Way $21,800 $14,000
I Total Cost I $421,800 I $266,400
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 146 will be replaced with a new structure (culvert) on the existing
alignment over Harris Creek. Traffic will be maintained on an off-site detour
approximately 25 km (15.5 miles) long, utilizing portions of SR 1737, 1002 and SR 1736.
Due to the detour length and its impact on school bus operation, a precast culvert or
conspan type structure will be constructed within 60 to 90 days during the summer (ideally
June 15 to August 15).
2 The new culvert will be approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in length to
accommodate two 3.3 meter (11-foot) lanes. It will be constructed at approximately the
same elevation as the existing bridge, and the bottom counter sunk 0.3 meter (1-foot) below
the surface of the bottom of the stream channel. A precast conspan type structure would
span the stream and eliminate any impact to the trout stream. The footings should be
integral to the structure to eliminate the use of wet concrete in proximity to the stream.
Approach work will extend approximately 176.8 meters (580 feet) or approximately
8

I
54.8 meters (180 feet) from the west end of the bridge and approximately 122 meters (400
feet) from the east end of the bridge. It includes two 3.3 meters (I 1-foot) lanes with 2.2
meters (7-foot) shoulders tapering to 1.2 meters (4 feet) where guardrail is not required.
Based on preliminary design work the design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60
mph).
A precast triple barrel 2.4 meter (8-foot) x 2.1 meter (7-foot) RCBC or precast
conspan type structure is recommended in order to minimize impacts to the trout stream,
school bus operation and bog turtle habitat by eliminating the need for an on-site detour.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in a rural area of Wilkes County, approximately
6 kilometers (4 miles) southeast of Stone Mountain, North Carolina (Figure 1).
Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Traphill quadrangle map (1968); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil map of
Wilkes County (1984); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Map (Traphill 1994); USFWS list of protected and candidate species
(1998); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats (1996); NCDOT aerial photography of the project area (1:1200); North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data; and North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) proposed critical habitat information. Research using these
resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
X.
4L
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on
February 5, 1997. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using
a variety of observation techniques including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and
burrows).
i Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the full 24.4 meter
9

I
(80.0 foot) wide right of way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width
of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual
construction impacts should be less, but without specific replacement structure design
information (culvert, pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was assumed for the impact
calculations.
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study
area," "project area," and "project corridor" denote the specific area being directly
impacted by each alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 kilometer (1.0
mile) radius of the project area.
Topography and Soils
The proposed project site lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic
Province. The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with
moderate to steeply sloping banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is
approximately 427 meters (1400 feet) above mean sea level.
According to the soil map for Wilkes County (SCS, 1984), the project area is
dominated by Tate- Cullowhee complex which is found along drainageways and contains
hydric inclusions of poorly drained soils. Tate fine sandy loam is a well drained soil in
small draws and coves, and on benches and foot slopes of mountains; Cullowhee fine
sandy loam is a frequently flooded soil. There is an area of Rion-Ashlar complex north of
the bridge. This mapping unit is described as stony on 15 to 35 % slopes. None of the soils
mapped within the project area are listed as hydric. These soil types were confirmed in the
field by taking soil borings. There was an area of hydric soil in the southwest quadrant
which was not mapped on the soil survey. This soil and associated vegetation is described
in Low Elevation Seep, page 13.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of
associated plants and animal. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in
each community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant
10

I
communities is based on a system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weekly, 1990).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and
animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common
name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968).
Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations, evaluation of
habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation (Conant, 1958; Farrand, 1993;
Robbins et al., 1966; and Whitaker, 1980).
Terrestrial Communities
I
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-
dominated and mesic mixed hardwood forest communities. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas are discussed in each community description. Many
species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment but
may not be mentioned separately in each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the cow pasture
in the northeast and southwest quadrants, the agricultural field in the southeast quadrant,
and the road shoulders (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and
regularly maintained areas including fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white
clover (Trifolium repens), wild onion (Allium cernuum), dandelion (Taraxacum o?cinale),
and panic grass (Panicum spp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable
of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although only an American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and Northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos) were observed in the field in these areas, species such as Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), American robin (Turdus migratorius); and rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
11

I
This community is found in the northwest quadrant. The canopy layer is dominated
by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus), Virginia pine
(P. virginiana), red oak (Quercus rubra), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The
y understory includes ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) red maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer is sparse and
includes scattered American holly (Ilex opaca), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The herbaceous layer is also sparse and includes
+ Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
On the day of the site visit, a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), an American crow,
and tracks of Virginia opossum were observed in the field. Other species which may reside
or forage in these areas include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), broad-winged
hawk (Buteo platypterus), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), white-breasted nuthatch
(Sitta carolinensis), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia), Eastern phoebe (Sayornis
phoebe), American toad (Bufo americanus), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina
carolina), Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes).
There are some small drainage areas and some standing water present in this quadrant.
Soils in these drainage areas consist of a dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2) wet loam. A two inch
diameter PVC pipe with no cap was observed sticking up approximately 1.0 meter (3.0
feet) out of the ground. This may be a monitoring well; however, the pipe was unlabeled.
Low Elevation Seep
Located in the southwestern quadrant is a seepage area. This area ranges from 1.0
to 5.0 meters (3.0 to 16.0 feet) wide and is approximately 55.0 meters (180.0 feet) long
adjacent to the road shoulder. Vegetation in this area includes common privet (Ligustrum
vulgare), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), red maple, rush (Juncus spp.), seedbox (Ludwigia
spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), and aster (Aster spp.). Species which may reside or forage in
these areas include two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Soils in this area consist of a black (10 YR 2/1) sandy loam. There were saturated
soils, some standing water, and water-stained leaves present in this area.
On the day of the site visit, Resource scientists spoke with Mr. David Sawyer of the
12
W
NCWRC. Mr. Sawyer was concerned that this seepage area may be potential habitat for
the bog turtle, however; this species has not been recorded within the project area.
On June 2, 1997, a follow up site visit was conducted by Mr. Dennis Herman of the
NC Museum of Natural Science. Although no individuals of this species were located on
} site, he concluded that it is suitable.habitat and likely used by a known population recently
located in the some drainage basin less than one mile away.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Harris Creek.
Within the project area, the creek is approximately 4.0 meters (13.0 feet) wide. On the day
of the field investigation the water was slightly turbid and the flow was moderately fast.
The depth of the creek ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 meters (0.3 to 1.0 foot) with a deeper pool
which is approximately 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) deep. The substrate consists of sand with
some cobbles and boulders which form riffle areas. This creek is regularly crossed by cows
passing between the pastures on the northeast and southwest quadrants of the study area.
This activity causes regular disturbance of the stream bottom as well as nutrient additions
from excrement within the project area. Vegetation along the river banks includes tulip
poplar, ironwood, red maple, and mountain laurel.
Species such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Northern water snake
(Natrix sipedon sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), spring salamander (Gyrinophilus
porphyriticus), and blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus) may also
reside or forage within this aquatic community or along the waters edge.
Macro invertebrates such as larvae of the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly
(Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera), would be expected to be found within the snag
?. habitats and within the riffle areas in the creek. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the
AL - channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes (segmented
worms). On the day of the site visit, mayfly larvae were collected by dipnetting in the creek
within the project area.
According to Joseph Mickey, District 7 Biologist for the NCWRC, Harris Creek is
designated as public mountain trout waters. Harris Creek was sampled by the NCWRC for
fish in 1979. Species collected included wild brown trout (Salmo trutta), rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), creek chub (Semotilus
13

I
spp.), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), and bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus).
This creek is stocked with brown trout, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis).
According to Fish (1968), there are no fisheries' data available for Harris Creek.
Harris Creek is a tributary to the Middle Prong Roaring River which has reported catches
of redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) and trout
(Salmo spp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic
community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the
construction activity occurs. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
Terrestrial Communities
The mesic mixed hardwood forest, the low-elevation seep, and the man-dominated
communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. Removal of plants
and other construction related activities will result in the displacement and mortality of
faunal species in residence. Although there will be no direct impacts to the mesic mixed
hardwood forest, animals displaced from the impacted communities may concentrate into
this smaller area. (See Table 1) This may cause degradation of remaining habitat and
increased mortality due to disease, predation, and starvation. Individual mortalities are
likely to occur to terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing
WL activities.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Often, project construction does not require
the entire right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Alternate B will
result in the least amount of impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic communities, as traffic
will be detoured off site. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
14
W
I

communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES ACRES
Bridge No. 146 Man- Mesic Mixed Low Aquatic Combin
Replacement Dominated Hardwood elevation Community ed
Impacts Community Forest see Total
Alternate A 0.48(l.18) 0(0) 0.04 (0.10) 0.03 (0.08) 0.55
(1.36)
Temporary 0.18 (0.45) 0(0) 0.02 (0.04) <0.01 (0.01)
0.20
0.50
Alternate B 0.48(l.18) 0(0) 0.04 (0.10) 0.03 (0.08) 0.55
(1.36)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 24.4 meter (80 foot) right of way limits.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above,
calculations were based on the worst-case scenario.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Harris Creek. Alternate B will result
in the least amount of disturbance of stream bottom 24.4 meters (80 feet) linear or 0.03 hectare (0.08
acres) as traffic will be detoured off site rather than constructing a temporary detour. This represents
worst-case conditions; actual disturbance area will likely be less. In addition, impacts to the adjacent _
low elevation seep and man-dominated communities can have a direct impact on aquatic
communities.
L Activities such as the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach
15

I
work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in
dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins,
such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways. The combination of these
factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of
invertebrates which inhabit these areas.
Potential adverse effects to surface waters will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters as well as strict adherence
to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and "Guidelines for Construction of Highway
Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina, October 2, 1997" during the
life of the project.
Since pasture is present on both sides of the roadway and cattle use the existing bridge as an
underpass, the feasibility of separating the cattle underpass from the stream will be investigated
during the design of this project. NCWRC has obtained a commitment from the property owner to
fence cattle from the riparian zone along Harris Creek. This will allow the stream to recover from
past livestock damage.
Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Harris Creek flows south through the proposed project area with a width of 4.0 meters (13.0
feet). This section of the creek has a classification of C Tr HQW from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Class C indicates freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and
wildlife. The designation of Tr indicates freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation and
survival of stocked trout. The designation of HQW indicates High Quality Waters which are waters
rated as excellent based on biological and physical/chemical characteristics through Division
monitoring or special studies. The Classification Index number for this portion of the creek is 12-46-
2-5-1.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
Wilkes County indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood elevations have been
16

determined.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom
substrates of rivers and streams. The DWQ uses benthos data as a tool to monitor water quality as
benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. The DWQ also uses the
North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to determine general water
quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the
structure and health of its fish community. According to Ms. Nancy Guthrie, the DWQ does not
have any benthic macroinvertebrate data or NCIBI data for Harris Creek within the project area. Ms.
Guthrie also indicated that there was no data available for any nearby locations that would give
reliable information about the water quality at this site.
The Wilkes County Watershed Map (1994) indicates that the project area is not within a
Critical Area. There are no water resources classified as water supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles) of the project area.
A review of point-source dischargers located within the project vicinity was conducted.
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit.
There are no point-source dischargers within the project vicinity.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project area, Harris Creek is regularly crossed by cows passing
between the pastures on the northeast and southwest quadrants of the study area. This activity causes
regular disturbance of the stream bottom as well as nutrient additions from excrement. In addition,
stormwater runoff from SR 1730 may cause water quality degradation.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
. Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures or a
culvert in the creek channel. Construction of the bridge and approach work will increase sediment
loads, and additional sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen levels.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters. The following are
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
17
s

• strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the project
strict adherence to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" and "Guidelines for
Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North
Carolina, October 2, 1997 the protection of surface waters during the life of the project"
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in streams
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loadings
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along streams
Special Topics
Jurisdictional Issues: Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States"
as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACOE).
A small wetland area (low elevation seep) located within the southwest quadrant will be
impacted by the subject project. The area of impact is approximately 0.04 hectares (0.10 acres). No
other wetlands were found as Harris Creek has well defined banks within the bridge replacement
corridor.
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using
methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished
without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the
jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 24.4 meters (80 feet) of linear stream channel or 0.03 hectare
(0.08 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 146.
18

I
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USACOE, 1344),
a permit will be required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States"
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this project
will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.5 (A) 23. This permit authorizes
any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed,
in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit
decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACOE and DWQ.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the NCDENR, will also be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a
federal permit is required.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This
may require test boring in the streams or wetlands. This can be accomplished under General 401
Certification No. 3027/Nationwide 404 Permit No. 6.
The project is located in Wilkes County, one of the designated "trout counties" in western
North Carolina. Harris Creek is designated as Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters
by NCWRC and has a DWQ stream classification of C Tr. HQW. Therefore, consultation will be
maintained with NCWRC during the design and construction of this project.
Mitigation
Since this project is likely to be covered by Nationwide Permit 23 and wetland impacts
should be less than one acre, mitigation should not be required by the USACOE. Mitigation for
impacts to surface waters of less than 45.7 (150 feet) is generally not required by the USACOE. A
final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE and DWQ.
L
19

I
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due either
to natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Wilkes County and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not list any federally protected
species for Wilkes County as of the November 4, 1997 listing. One species, the bog turtle (clemmys
muhlenbergi), is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance.
Clemmys muhlenbergi (Bog turtle)
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 in.)
In length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bridge orange or yellow
blotch on each side of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog
turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
?. disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In June
or July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss of loose soil. The eggs hatch in
about 55 days.
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This
is due to its similarity of appearance to another rare species that is listed for protection. T
S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this
species is not required.
20
M
I
This species is not currently protected under Section 7 or 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended.
Habitat is found within the project corridor. Thus, the alternative with the least impact to the
low elevation seep is recommended to eliminate the impacts due to a temporary on-site detour. Also,
the construction limits will be minimized, to the extent possible to further reduce impacts within the
24.4 meter (80 feet) corridors.
' Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. Some
of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 2 includes listed
FSC species for Wilkes County and their state classifications.

21
71
I
7
A
TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
WILKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dendroica cerulea SR Yes
(Cerulean warbler

Speyeria diana SR Yes
(Diana fritillary butterfly)

Juglans cinerea . NL Yes
(Butternut)

Orthotrichum keeverae E No
Keever's bristle-moss
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and
conservation action is recommended).
NL Denotes Nof listed (species for which there is no state designation).
A search of the NCNHP database no showed occurrences of any Federal Species of Concern

within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present for the bog turtle (threatened due to similarity of appearance) and for three
Federal Species of Concern; cerulean warbler, Diana fritillary butterfly, and butternut. According
to the NCNHP database, there have been no reported occurrences of any Federal Species of Concern.
No individuals were observed at the time of the site visit.
22
M
I
IX. CULTURAL EFFECTS
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 35 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
can be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated April 17, 1997, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of the
SHPO form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 14, 1997, stated there are no known
archaeological sites in the project area and therefore, SHPO recommended that no archaeological
.l investigation be conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse affect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocate-es are expected
with implementation of the proposed alternatives.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected
to adversely effect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
23

There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refugees
of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). Since the bridges will be replaced at the existing location, the Farmland Protection
Policy Act does not apply.
The project is an air quality "Neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (If Applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Wilkes County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects
on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality will
not be adverse.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2d.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and
for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of
Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground storage tanks or
hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Wilkes County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 3. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not considered to be significant.
24

I
All borrow and solid waste sites will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Solid waste will
be disposed of in strict adherence to the NC Division of Highways "Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures". The Contractor will observe and comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed
into any existing land disposal sites that is in violation of state or local rules and regulations. Waste
and debris will be disposed of in areas that are outside the right-of-way and provided by the
Contractor. The Contractor will be responsible for obtaining borrow sites, delineating wetlands in
borrow sites, and obtaining written concurrence on delineated wetlands in borrow sites from the
Corps of Engineers. Borrow material will not be stockpiled or disposed of adjacent to or in areas
where they may runoff with stormwater into streams and impoundments. Where it is absolutely
necessary to store materials adjacent to streams, they will be stored above the mean highwater mark
in such a manner that they would not runoff with stormwater. Disposal of waste and debris will not
be allowed in areas under the Corps of Engineers regulating jurisdiction. In the event that COE
jurisdictional areas cannot be avoided, the Department will be responsible for mitigation.
The Contractor will maintain the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the construction
phase and until the completion of all seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures
specified, in a manner that will effectively control erosion and siltation into areas under the Corps
of Engineers regulatory jurisdiction, streams and impoundments.
. On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.

25
M

H
AIR BELLOWS GAP 1
t-- . ------- • RICH MTN,
ELEv. 3500
/ ?
MO? Thurmond ChafFwm \c.
.
BLUE
RRIIDD GC Game land a I _
i PAR
ICWAY
l
m / RECREATIONAL\
AREA
I
\
/ I

I \ ?.
D OUGHTON STONE MrH.
? ?e
y PARK \c? ''(

BRIDGE NO. 146
1730 1736

? 1737 `r
Q+ \ - Z
.A1 ?- B• 4 AA?4r .3 1737 0
1752.
I
\ L` 1735
. ""-
7but% I I
1786
'
?j?,
,

..
a/

6 \ •w 1737 / 1737
?;

? 1 ' t'

784 •
a1
1751

r"'? S
-?ESf a?? ??73u

\
1 I.3 V r
\ . T

??
1749
1749
C .
1
l
-,
'?? ( 1735

\ ?

1742 6
t
1 9 t 7848

:2
t002
1
\ \ • . 1.9 178
17x3. 1]52
/
••T•
l
?. "G? ; ? ,..
T?Ii
9 1 N 0

1
ti
.002 1 939
'T W-d" 5 1941 •\ (•. 2 4 749 2
p
$ y, 1936
?

30 1746 I 6 1002 207 i? 9_35 A
1730 r . 1736 ' t 748 '. 1943 :.

1747 m l 6 'IF_-;
9 d. '
7
'

1762 3-3-.4 - \ .2 :- 9
.
• . ,946 g
1947 4 9..,{\, 1939 193
i'q
m
/ .
?
/1788 I \
?
n? ?Tr 0 •
' I
' m `939 :? (206

-

\ ? •? ?
°
?I•
;

'S

10? 1. a
\(tgt8
O

-
C?? 5
9 .9 J
935 \
4
? 2009

Ial -:
p \
1715
A>?Y 17.5
` 1946
19.5
1:24/ I]
7' S5 .6 r°3°I
? PWER 1951 1. 9a ,O
2--• 195C

. ? Ions
r 1 3 .. / i 744 1, • \'. 2007
9 / 934
' 5
/ ( l
(Y, .l f "J / 2t .'\2085: .2 .6 1999 ';•?•
2006 (.9
2 C 2010
' ? ? \ '.\ 2004 1999 1i /' 193
NCDOT HIGHWAY MAP SCALE 1" = 2 MILES
C
?II111111111111111111111111111 _
111111111111111111111111111111 ??_ _ ?' ? ? _`
Roanng Ga
•I(%'Doughlon
6 -?"-
1 lil 'Tlaphlll Thutmono \\
\\\\
I Grady Austin
Mo?1? Gpp
Malls M111
6 W I L K E 5 Fikl?.
• WdOar 6 Mays 6/?
L?. 6 Roanng• J.n'#0. fle
ulDerr 3 FaRplams Rive, onoa /tmgton•
trS X80.
1
,.?---•? `'. Mill
69
1 eek
APurIeN
FIGURE Q„tDa? IkesD
15 or iN pr0 „
v-, 'Cycle
SITE LOCATION MAP
TIP NO. B-3079 p` 1w . I
Jk,? Ferguson 13 Moravian Falls II I
I Boomer -, i
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0v 5 _- _I
BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1730
WILKES COUNTY, NC STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
r-
-I!, I .
dl
?I
BRIDGE NO. 146
BSHER
.•..r.. .•.'.: •r.t •, \ .'f. ?.: ice...
CREEK
BREWER J
ZONE A
S.R. 1735F-? :
FEMA MAP = 370256 0100 B
EFFECTIVE DATE MAY 15, 1991
NOT TO SCALE
IL
LEGEND
ZONE A -NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED.
ZONE X -AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
NOTE : ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 3
FLOOD PLAIN MAP
TIP NO. B-3079
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1730
WILKES COUNTY, NC

I
?I
BRIDGE NO. 146
? I7,t
i
HER y9k
ins
ZONE A

S.R. 1735
1

FEMA 1vL->,P ' 370256 0100 B
EFFECTIVE DATE MAY 15. 1991
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
ZONE A -NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETER.YIINED.
ZONE X -AREAS DETER.NII'NED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 3
FLOOD PLAIN MAP
TIP NO. B-3079
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1730
WILKES COUNTY, NC
?J
31 I •) ??
?I l

1
BREWER

Ii
I?
FACING EAST - OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE 9146
FACING WEST- OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE # 14b
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1730 FIGURE 4A
WILKES COUNTY TIP NO. B-3079

P•1
FACING NORTH - OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE #146
3
f
r
AL
v
FACING SOUTH- OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE 9146
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 146 ON SR 1730
WILKES COUNTY
FIGURE 4B
TIP NO. B-3079
71
APPENDIX A

I
Superintendent
Dr. Joseph H. Johnson
Associate Superintendent
Dr. Linda H. Greene
r Assistant Superintendents
K. Wayne Barker
C. Eugene Reavis
July 7, 1997
County Schoofs
201 West Main Street
Wilkesboro, North Carolina 28697""
910-667-1121 -- -- u`` -
910-838-5021 FAX s^ jBi==''?" `"all aan
D'r. rss'e N. Haves
Blake D. 1 ovene
L;.., .. S. Trmleu
Mr. Norman Willev
Wetherill Associates, Inc.
4915 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 295
Raleigh. NC 27606
Dear Mr. Willey:
A few months ago I received written information from the Department of
Transportation. Division of Highways for "request for scoping" comments concerning
four bridges in Wilkes County. The information requested pertained to school bus travel
on these bridges and the impact to travel if the roads were closed during the replacement
of the bridges. After reviewing the routes in question, it was determined very little
impact to school bus transportation would occur with TIP No. B-3071, B-3072, or B-
3077. However, construction and closing the road on TIP No. B-3079 would cause a
routing problem for mutiple school buses, serving nearly twenty children at several
different schools. I spoke to Mr. Herman Lancaster in regards to the situation.
Sincerely yours,

Charles Wooten, Director of Transportation
Wilkes County Schools

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
.•
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
'. P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 28, 1997 1 E '-
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
0, t
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:
This is in response to your four letters, all dated February 12, 1997, requesting
-? our scoping comments on five bridge replacements over various streams in Wilkes
't County. These bridges include No. 249 on SR 1119 over Blood Creek (TIP No.
B-3072), Nos. 51 and 57 on NC 16 over Middle Fork Reddies River, (TIP No. B-3071),
No. 176 on SR 1706 over Hay Meadow Creek (TIP No. B-3077), and No. 1.46 on
SR 1 -1/30 over Harris Creek (TIP No. B-3079). Comments on these bridge
replacements are to be used in Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical
Exclusions).
Our enclosed comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional
resources, which include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,

Enclosure
,E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division

I
March 28, 1997
Page 1 of 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
Replacement of Five Bridges (Nos. 249, 51, 57, 176, and 146) in Wilkes County
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
All five proposed bridge replacement projects are located in Wilkes County, which has
7 had flood hazard areas identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). From a review of
several FIRM panels, dated May 1991 or September 1992, it appears that all crossings are
located in identified flood hazard areas, with the streams being mapped approximately. For
each location, we recommend that the flow-carrying capacity of the existing structure not be
reduced.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. John Thomas, Raleigh Field Office, Regulatory
Branch, at [phone], Extension 25
Review of the subject project indicates that the proposed work may involve the discharge
of fill material into Blood Creek near Boomer, Hay Meadow Creek near Mulberry, Harris Creek
near Abshers, and Middle Fork Reddies River near Wilbar. Also, the projects are located in
one of the twenty-five mountain trout water counties. This requires that, before any discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, the applicant will obtain a letter of
approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission with reference to impacts to
mountain trout water habitat and furnish that letter to the Wilmington District Engineer.
All work restricted to existing high ground areas 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 within the crossing of the aforementioned waters and wetlands. Specific permit
requirements will depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within streams and
wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final plans are
a. completed, including the extent and location of development within any waters and wetlands,
the applicant should contact Mr. Thomas for a final determination of the Federal permit
requirements.
3. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS: POC - Mr. Dan Keir. Natural
Resources Management Section at [phone]
T - - One of the proposed bridge replacements, No. 249 on SR 1119 over Blood Creek,
crosses land on which the Corps has flowage easements for the W. Kerr Scott Dam and
Reservoir project. When construction plans are available, please contact Mr. Andrew Duncan,
Resource Manager, at [phone], Extension 31, for a review of the plans to determine
impacts on flood storage.

1
VV r S '° '
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources..:.
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary March 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation a'
FROM: David Brook /?" 1??'I?", ? ?"?
Deputy State giistoric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XIII, Bridge 146 on SR 1730
over Creek, B-3079, State Project
7 8.2760901, Wilkes County, ER 97-8560
Thank you for your letter of February 12, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. 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
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2307
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 26, 1997
1slEMORANDI?M
?EHNR
r

To: Mr. Byron Brady, NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality G L 6
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 12, 1997, in which you requested comments concenting
the scope of work to be performed by Wetherill Associates, Inc., for five bridge replacement projects. The
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT and its consultant consider the following. generic
environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests thatD?T-?ctictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitl esi??n Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds 115A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and cons uc toil or iliis
project in the area dta( drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), IIQW (IIigh 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. If'
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General -101 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. SS (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that liazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing. a streaun
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 stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge beuG% in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. It' this is not possible. altsnaatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ it' impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
l? F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is U-ely 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 CulvCrt, 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 Allirrnative Action Employer 509/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
I
Mr. Byron Brady Memo
February 26. 1997
Pm,.e 2
II. If foundation test borings will be required. this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under Genera) 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Pennit 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 w; a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wethumd impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A
NCAC 211.0506 (h)(2);.
The attached table h.ts been prepared by D1TVQ for your assistance in studying die systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stre.un
Classification, river basin. and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (N-WI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DO'r is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concenis, 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: I\iichcllc Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2936.DOC

? U I
I m N
c ?'
o ? N
o? -°
v C O
d
N
a o_
° a o e d
Q a`' u II 3 o
m
'
3- a o
3° °?' -E 7
°

1
° 3
° c _

2
r i ?
o
75
t cn = -
?i
3 _
D d O
3 '
^
N a o
3
R 3 d C a
cu
L U 0
L ` N N N
CL a
N O a N y '?
N V Q a N y
E N R 7
ro N CJ N y f9 C
E N N O G> U O C>
C
d ?' 7 'O . CL.= O U a C >
R p 7 :.. N C
O O_
V I R N G p ,? C
l9 f9N CJ .N = C N
E_ .N N n •- E c? o •N N ._

I
l co M
Z5 .0
Z
c
z75 3: 3 Z

I CD
? am
? a)
m
c o m d d
m = L a d a a

Y
Y c
Q a }
I } }

J? E _
r °
=
m
;? R C3 ^a

p •y U ?- ? u7

v
E I

y O .-.

I u)

N
N I
Q

p
O
co
Z v I I d
y x ? C? I
I c
II
'!'; = i II r I ?I II
I
I

T
?
?
N I
d
? I
d
Y N
N
Y
L7
a I.
co
a v I U I
I

z
LLI
0
I I

R
Z °
L v
U 3
° cc- a? U
'? >

e
I
N v
m _
° CC
u
o m
2 . o
I a m

i
O I y N
U 41 U

l U
R
°U C.

°- m
I ?
I
Q
m ca
o_
¢ c
i
y
cc
aGi
n
v ¢
D
o °? ° to

R
N . U

Z

CL
J Z U
d
p I
O
I
v tD
?r
I .= O
N
t Z `n U)
m

O
Z
p

^
n
p
f`
O N
n
d O
N O
m cv) C?
co
m
F-

I

01/07/9U 14:59 RESUURCE 5UUTHEH51 -? tb1ti11?r
NU. 000 VCJC
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources ion=
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh. North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
January 5, 1999
Ms. Lisa Warlrek
Resource Southeast
1513 Walnut St.
Suite 250
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Dear Ms. Warlick.
This is in response to our conversation nn Decefnber 22,1997 concerning the name of the
creek located at bridge No. 146 on SR 1730, Wilkes County (TIP B-3079). In the March 11,
1997 memo from our agency to Mr: Franklin'Vick, NCDOT, the name of the stream was
incorrectly identified as Pike Creek, the stream in question is actually Harris Creek.
Harris Creek is Hatchcry Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW)
and also supports wild trout. However, the stream is being proposed as a deletion to our
DPMTW list, effective July 1, 1998 due to the requests of several landowners who wish to
promote wild trout populations in the stream.
Our recommendations stated in our March 11, 19997 letter still apply to this project.
However, I would like to bring to your attention two items that have developed since those
comments were submitted. The first is that the laridowner, Mr. Sidden, in cooperation with
several interested individuals, would like to fence cattle from the riparian zone along Harris
Creek through his property. The major problem is that cattle use the current bridge as a passage
way between the pastttres above and below the road. We would like for NCDOT to look into the
feasibility of providing a cattle crossing under the new bridge that will keep the cattle out of the
strearn. A walk way can then be provided on the east bank below the bridge that will exclude
cattle from the riparian none, allowing for it to recover from past livestock 4daamage.
The second item of which you should be awam is that a pasture bog'is located below the
road on the west side of the bridge. Bog turtles have been located just downstream in the Harris
Creek drainage, and researches believe that this bog, along with several others on Mr. Sidden's

I

01/07i9e 14:59 RESOURCE SOUTHEAST -+ 951d1bY
J
IVV. WV vu.+
property might be utilized by the bog turtle. Bridge construction must be conducted in a way
that does not impact the bog and it's hydrology.
If you have any additional questions concerning this project please let me know. Thanks
in advance for your consideration during this planning phase of the project to provide cattle
accGSs under the bridge and avoidance of the bog.
Sincerely,
4L N - AG.L?, /
Joe H. Mickey, Jr.
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator
NCWRC Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, NCDOT
Mr. David Sawyer, NCWRC

i.

?Noortthh C.-oollinnaa
r r 111110
Joe H. M0ey, Jr. --
8026MI i how Fnl+V"
I"TW*WW=kTIW .tom a .
SM Road. NC Zam
tllfir, W... R AM - 5 PM Pmww. MMA& B I2 ?iC

Fcdcral Aid,,' ISM- 1717 TIP r '70-11 County Wtt.t<ES
CONCURRENCE FORINI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description Vf ftAaE Vr-lvw, at. We mN ?? t-13o s? uz .rc
(1?i(IptrE, (r(-?atP X111
On Ak7fLiL t-1i 1°1,17 . representatives of the
? ',,,or-,h Carolina Department of Transportanon (NCDOT)
Fcdcral Hisinvay Administration (FH%vA)
? North Carolina State Historic Prescrvatien Office (SHPO)
Othcr
rc:ic::ed t.? c subject project at
A scopina rnecting
? H:szcr;c arch;tcctural rescurcCS photograph re':lcw sesslon/ccnsultat:on
Othcr
All o[i^ics nrescnt agreed
1 ? 17 1, thc. c a.., no prepenics over fi -v years oid witiun the proicct s area of petcntial cr;cc s.
? there arc no prooc:acs icss than fig years old which are Considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G wiL?in the project's ar of potential C:icCts.
flier, are Cr CC.iiCS 0?'er ii%N-ca rs old (list attached) vithin the proicct s arc: of potc-mial c`F-ccts.
vase" cr. the t1iStOrlCal iriiOl'nailOn a?'ailable and the phc[cerapr,s of each prope. prc[)c,:;-s
'Jul
idc.,.i15cd zs arc considcrcd not eligible
1cr Na, G: 1 P.e isi.-' _na no rurLi . e':ah:_t:On of d, C IS rice CSJ
? t::crc arc r:o \aticrai R?_;stcr-':ist:d prcccrties within the proiCCt s ar.a of pcicniirl C? .C.

fit
CDOT
-Date
FHwA, the Division AlLminisuator, or other Federal Agcncv Date
VIP- '
Representative, SHPO ?Datc
Statc Historic Presc: ration OfEccr atc
Ira sun-es report is prepared, a final eoov oCthis Conn and the aUzelied list -ill he inchiucd.