20000284 Ver 1_Complete File_20000301

MAR.31'2000 16:23 #1279 P.014/044
?5 -17
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville, NC FAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC r•AX [phone]
NC Division of water Quality
Raleigh, NC MX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC FAX [phone]e39
1. ACTION ID: 200020799 and 200020800
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/TIP B-3071/NC 16 bridgon ropl./itilkoo County
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: April 3, 2000
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): April 7, 2000
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline):-April 17, 2000
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Eric Al=oyor
FAX: [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached. PCN to the Fish and wildlife
Service, for review and comment concerning any likely affect to any
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat within that
agency's jurisdiction.
I'1 pry
MAR.31'2000 16:23

#1279 P.015/044
RECEIVED FEE 2 9 2000
?01 ? o 7 ?9
_ i wcc
44,b ;3-OP49o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

JAMES 13. HUNT JR. P.o. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
15 February 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Wilkes County, Bridge Nos. 51 and 57 on NC 16 over Reddies
Piver and Middle Fork Reddies River; Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-
16(10); State Project No. 8.1761501; TIP No. B-3071.
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 January 1998. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 51 over Reddies River and Bridge No. 57 with new bridge
structures over Middle Fork Reddies River, both on NC 16, Wilkes County. Bridge No.
51 will be replaced at the existing location with a temporary detour on the north side.
Bridge No. 57 will be replaced on improved alignment on the north side of the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the
replacement structure and approaches.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do Dot 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. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work for the two bridges to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
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,

MAA.31'2000 16:24
#1279 P.016/044
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 is requesting that the WRC provide comments to the COE
concerning permit requests.
The DOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BD&R attachment). The existing bridge No. 51 is a structure 118 feet
long and 23.2 feet wide. The superstructure includes three spans, which is composed
entirely of reinforced concrete deck and reinforced concrete deck girders. Demolition of
the superstructure will not result in any fill. The substructure includes abutments and
interior bents in the water. The existing bridge No. 57 is a structure 103 feet long and
23.2 feet wide. The superstructure includes three spans, which is composed entirely of
reinforced concrete deck and reinforced concrete deck girders. The substructure includes
abutments and interior bents in the water. Depending upon the demolition method, which
could include the use of explosives, the maximum resulting temporary fill would be 46
cubic yards for bridge No. 51 and 40 cubic yards for bridge No. 57. However, actual fill
quantities would likely be significantly less. In order to remove the existing bridges, a
temporary work pad Will be constructed. This bridge demolition has been classified as a
Case 2 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatervng). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance ofa Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed arc construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruetion notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
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,
Attachments

William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
t
MAR.31'2000 16:24
CC,. Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastem MT. Coordinator
#1279 P.017/044

MAR.31'2000 16:24
#1279 P.018/044
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: a000'_00%C3
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR HATIOMaDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINA'T'ION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGMMNT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO TIM APPROPRIATE
712LD OZ71CZ OF TEE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) :
733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wilkes NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Wilkesboro
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 16; Bridges NOS. 51 &57 over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Reddies River and Middle Fork
Reddies River
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin-Pee Dee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
MAR.31'2000 16:25 #1279 P.019/044
Water Supply (WS) II Tr(Trout Water)
1
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X)
7C. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION Z.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): Action ID: 200020048
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL. PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [•] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 0.0
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A EXCAVATION: N/A
FLOODING: N/A OTHER: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 1 FT AFTER: 1 FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/.FLOODING:

MAR.31'2000 16:25
#1279 P.020/044
OTHER: Causeways will temporarily impact Bridge No. 57, 460 square
feet and Bridge No. 51, 515 Square feet.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See attached CE
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To construct a causewax to remove
Bridges Nos 57 and 51 over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies River
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): n/a
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: date of letter(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: March 19, 1997
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X) NO [j (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
L-AA. -
MAR.31'2000 16:25 #1279 P.021/044
YES [X) NO t1
3
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X) NO ()
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
16. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
d. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SC.A.LE$ SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
SO FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
q. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TnNTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

MAR.31'2000 16:26
/ 4
nrot?c.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
#1279 P.022/044
-s- 01
DATE
"Al i. .
MAR.31'2000 16:26
#1279 P.023/044
s
VICENITY
MAPS
SHEET I OF rl
77,
/• T' 1 '?Y r.l r'NllJrr, +• NI' r
V C ..1
JV ? 11•I.IN 41..x.11.1
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1761501 (B-3091)
REPLACE BRIDGES NO.51 & 57
ON NC 16

dr,
IrrWr ryrw???
1(/ `v ?
N ?•?^ Rt/11. /?11r
/////h.. 1 W I N L w?K £ S 1
I".AA.31'2000 16:26
41279 P.024/044
C
n

?q ? e ti N
v
Z ? ? O o ? U

I
?? z
o a c ?.

?U3 3 G
wl

I
I
o
I I I
'
? o
v
w
m
U
1
+
?
?
I I Ln
a
?
w
w z
1 I I ? ?, o

f I I
I z /?
-

1
I ? I i
I I? w W
?
w ?
W
0 I ?.
J w 1 I '? :d
°w II , m
r / '
I (?
I I
I
_.1 fr r _ ?, w ,
rrr I
? /
? S J I',
?I I
?
?
r '
? ?- I W
?
I / I
r I
r ? I I I I
I 1?
I I I ? ? ?

'ZI
c

I'
i
t
l I 1
I
I ?
I I I 1 ``'

MAA.31'2000 16:26
#1279 P.025/044
C ?
F?
?+ ^
o
r
0 ? ? tl 0

? x U ?z

? p w
? ? G Z a V S O w

R ? ? o z ? ? as

5

LU ! ? ,,
ai

?
x J

I

(
I
9
V
? y

V

• I
OI
v $ z

Al
? d? 7 J
? a

7
X
Q i 0 pl I
a ?

MAR.31'2000 16:26
#1279 P.026/044
?mro
Q
a
y
Z?? I 4-1 I I I I I z
c
?. i f l I (
I
1
I ?? _ I I I I I I o
1 - II ( I
Wl I c.,
t I ?- I I I I(
I I I I j i W z
I ( I I ?(
? = ? II II 1 -
I II '
I (I /
to i1r. -
W N I I
-'•'?r,r ?? rf rr- J ? (II III
.lit
W _ I I II I
1 •?
W Q
I? O
W I Ln
1 I
ul I
1 I
ul 1
:h2-11
•kn
i
I ? (
W C?
I I m
( z
I
I
I 1 ?'
I X
W W
I I ? I
?
I I I ?
0
u
m

a
w
F
? cZ
< R1
? U
C6 !
N ?
N
z
z j
o ?
.- &....... M.U.. .
MA
x.31'2000 16:27

r-' W

a
L

r

n

C
#1279 P.027/044 _
z
o
?1 M "r
4 ?
a a ? H ° O
t x o o W U
2? 4 F o ? ? ?z
w ? ?o ? E-az
0 ti w trJ
i
m

? o
r
n
i
r
0
0
l1
I
1

m
F
< W
F y
?z
xy
w
O R

MAR.31'2000 16:27
#1279 P.028/044
O ?
J M ?
? ?, U ~ A Z
O J
o
a a. a w
ci w
z y
W
J
cz: as U
?
cr-
o
V) V) ~
M Q a
+- V
Q ?`- F4 ?
Z
U
u
N
A'.
® W
t
N ? ? d a
ul
z
F
z °z
a ,?+
P.
MAA.31'2000 16:27
#1279 P.029/044
_
? cs v o 0
?U
o 0 0
v ? c
?U

? U. 0 0 0

to -. v v o
? C V
C C fp
v
U.
O
N =. n Q N
O
!3 z
.
U r
.
0 0 0
A
U v
m o 0 0

}' b y? V
?omro
e
Q ?? 0 0 0

LL
d? u
?
c

? o v o
S ? u
=-ro
O IA
N d
N C go
G O
N
.
J J
N
lL

N
N Z fV
0
H
MAR.31'2000 16:27
#1279 P.030/044
_ o v o

UU

? O O p
CC
C ?
M
a
w [c$ o 0 0
?i U-

W
U
.. o 0 0
N ? u
C ?p
N ?+.

N MM
g
y
ttSS C ? 0 O O
0=Z
" IL ..
?
rn. 0 0 0

T U
1
0
0
c 0 0 0
a U
61 ro
a ?.S

A

N a
S

N O O O
_
a
p
?
,
U
tV
,
5
N
C C ? 0 D
a A ?
li. S

? r
to !r
?A
r1 ? m

? O

J J
N ?

N
z CN
F?

? A
,.amr.In
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
15 February 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION:
SUBJECT
Dear Sir:
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
000284
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
WAER UAL CTION
Wilkes County, Bridge Nos. 51 and 57 on NC 16 over Reddies
River and Middle Fork Reddies River; Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-
16(10); State Project No. 8.1761501; TIP No. B-3071.
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 January 1998. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 51 over Reddies River and Bridge No. 57 with new bridge
structures over Middle Fork Reddies River, both on NC 16, Wilkes County. Bridge No.
51 will be replaced at the existing location with a temporary detour on the north side.
Bridge No. 57 will be replaced on improved alignment on the north side of the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction of the
replacement structure and approaches.
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. The DOT asks that the bridge replacement
work for the two bridges to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit 23.
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,
a
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 is requesting that the WRC provide comments to the COE
concerning permit requests.
The DOT will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMP-BD&R attachment). The existing bridge No. 51 is a structure 118 feet
long and 23.2 feet wide. The superstructure includes three spans, which is composed
entirely of reinforced concrete deck and reinforced concrete deck girders. Demolition of
the superstructure will not result in any fill. The substructure includes abutments and
interior bents in the water. The existing bridge No. 57 is a structure 103 feet long and
23.2 feet e. Th u erstructure includes three spans, which is composed entirely of
reinforce nCrete k, and reinforced concrete deck girders. The substructure includes
abutments and interior bents in the water. Depending upon the demolition method, which
could inglude the use of explosives, the maximum resulting temporary fill would be 46
cubic yards for bridge No. 51 and 40 cubic yards for bridge No. 57. However, actual fill
quantities would likely be significantly less. In order to remove the existing bridges, a
temporary work pad will be constructed. This bridge demolition has been classified as a
Case 2 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
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,
C' kt-j?
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
•
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. John E. Alford, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. W. E. Hoke, P.E., Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastern MT. Coordinator
T
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID: 2000'a0 0%)(,d
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N. C. Department of Transportation
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) : 733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Wilkes NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Wilkesboro
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 16; Bridges NOS 51 &57 over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies
River in Alleghany County
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
Reddies River
RIVER BASIN: Yadkin-Pee
Reddies River and Middle Fork
Dee
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN:

Water Supply (WS) II Tr(Trout Water)
1
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): Action ID: 200020048
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A
EXCAVATION: N/A
OTHER: N/A
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A
FT AFTER: N/A
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 1 FT AFTER: 1 FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
T
OTHER: Causeways will temporarily impact Bridge No. 57, 460 square
feet and Bridge No. 51, 515 square feet.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2"
ONLY): See attached CE
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To construct a causeway to remove
Bridges Nos. 57 and 51 over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies River
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): n/a
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: date of letter(ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: March 19, 1997
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
SIZE OF THE
OF TYPE OF
X 11" DRAWINGS
I
YES [X] NO [ ]
3
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
?? / ) 4
C i? ??
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
02 /; 2 a
DATE
I

1
1
Y
{

/ /// / rl a L10«II IMMTMI?
w
///////// ?.1•. W- I L K E 5 /...?
C I1.
J?\ rn,.,w ? .,«n.m rwl I
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILKES COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1761501 (B-3071)
REPL.•.CE BRIDGES NO.51 & 57
ON NC 16
SHEET I OF 'I
3
z
------------ ?CD

O
,? tt
w
w
z
O

H

a
O
M
06

z

cG

o

a
?
U

o

o

o O
U

d
3 o
.^a

?
C
a
q

?
U
a
? u
z

r-

c
N
F
w

71
w /? U
I I I ;?
I w l ?
I I ? ?
I 1 w '.
I
Q)
I ?, z d
I
-1 w
t

Mid
J g
I
a
E
J
Z
I
I ? I
V?
? x I
u

z
o

0 3 H m C

?

v c
a
w
p
U c
?

p
3
c

Q.
?

d.
w o ?.
o

?
txl
z?
y„
- r
0
0
9
?I
i
i
of
hl ? •?
OI V
+i J
Z
i
}
W
I y ?l
?w
r
Q i 0 ? SI

y
GY
W
F
as
d U
a
W O
F h
Fz
O J
m
o ?.
2
C3

I w
? I w
I ? I 11'
I I I
I ?I Lu
I
I l? I
Ilp w
-/ i
lJ-E
z
o
r ? M ~

d'

w
o
U ?
O

A O
? .o
O

a w
U

a
w
cG U
O

?
w
?
I
7n
w
0
co
0
z
1 F-
I xx
w

0
w
.a
U
a
w
F
a 3
w
a U
o°. c
ti
w a
F y
? z
o ?
z ?
A w

V
P
n
Ul
S
a
i
0)
i
r
s
it -

to
i 9
0
0
J
L
d
Z N
1
w
N
d
c
d
d
h
x
4
n?
J
J.
I
I y
? a

1
)1
1

z
o

Z F
r
.?
p
d

o
t~
G=1
U =

z
0 o
?.r

W z

?
a
m
F
t
t ?
a v
a ?
F y
?z
F
O ?
o a,
z
o
y
o
v
z ? o
r?, m F as o cz,
O p ? ? U O
a ? 3
o ?
A ? w
c U ? ?
z
W
a CL Q ?+
C
F
m = o ? ?
J J
? U U O
crn ?
w
F
?• d
w
? a
w ]
F y
V1
z
z z ?
w d
A w

c
o a
c L
W U
? 0 0 0

d m L

? 0 0 0
c
3 w0

v ?^ o 0 0
c 0 m
v
d1 LL
U')
? 0
N
c
E-my

? =
= o 0 0
N C
c C ? U
N M

a) 0 0 0
°'
c c

Q
C
CGC y
O O O O
G Q C
a
u
?
o
Z x
W c
N O O O
T
Q
U
E (D T
H
c
y O O O
c 'o
U
? f
9
W Q)
Q) LO
LO Ln
Ln
y
O
U ,N N N

? m m
c O
O
N
O J J
N ?
ll.

(? Z
r
N J
?
O
H

m 0
0
0
p c
c U
w
N ? ? 0 0 0
1- ;Q c
d ?U

0 0 0
W •C
3 "
wv

U O o 0
(D V
ca o

N U.
2>1?= o 0 0
U O O O
C a
c0
Z
O O O
C 'C

0 0 0
m y c

ca y c
-
cG
G r-
Q y
O C O O O

U > Z o

Z x
w c

O O O
W y
C
3
j.T
y co
c
N o 0 0
c o
C
U
= ca c9

1n t()
V N_
7 N N
C C
m m
C ?
(V .-
«p O J J
Cn
U-

Z
Z6
CV J
F¢
Q
H
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of')
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
• If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. Rbivever, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these &UP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove ally
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated ?vith the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency ~vith jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Paize 3 of 3
0 1 R

9
NC 16
Bridge Nos. 51 and 57
Over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies River
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-16(10)
State Project 8.1761501
TIP No. B-3071
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways

17
s-
Approved:
Date
130 8
Date

H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
'0
Vicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
I

v
NC 16
Bridge Nos. 51 and 57
Over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies River
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-16(10)
State Project 8.1761501
TIP No. B-3071
Categorical Exclusion
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
NC Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
January 1998
Document Prepared
by
\?;< 1 ?'? etherill
Norman Willey, PE
Project Manager
for the
I
im$
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
.A. Bissett, Jr., PE Unit Hea
Consultant Engineering Unit
RVV,6v ? - &Ak
E. Brady, PE
F
6
Project Planning Engineer
CAR
• ?N.,.....,Pt
??? ??ESS1p?
NC 16
Bridge Nos. 51 and 57
Over Reddies River and Middle Fork Reddies River
of
Wilkes County
Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-16(10)
State Project 8.1761501
TIP No. B-3071
Bridge Nos. 51 and 57 are located in Wilkes County on NC 16 crossing the Reddies
River and Middle Fork Reddies River. They are 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.
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
• All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
• The project is located in western North Carolina in Wilkes County, which is one
of the counties designated as "trout counties" in western North Carolina. The Middle Fork
Reddies River is designated as Hatching Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). The DWQ stream
classification is WS-11. Therefore, the following environmental comments will be
implemented on this project:
• NCDOT will consult with NCWRC on the proposed construction of this
project
• NCDOT's "Design Standards: in Sensitive Watersheds" will be strictly
3
adhered to during the design and construction of this project.
NCDOT's "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvement adjacent
to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina, October 2, 1992" will be
incorporated into the erosion control and sedimentation control plans for
this project
v NCDOT will investigate the need for hazardous spill catch basin(s)
• 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 to
reduce the likelihood of introducing pollutants into the stream.
• Archeological survey and assessment of potential effects on unknown resources
will be conducted prior to right of way acquisition. An archeological salvage, if necessary,
will be completed prior to any construction activities.
Bridge Nos. 51 over the Reddies River and 57 over the Middle Fork Reddies River
will be replaced with new bridge structures. Bridge No. 51 will be replaced at the existing
location with a temporary detour on the north side. Bridge No. 57 will be replaced on
improved alignment on the north side of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction of the replacement structure and approaches.
The replacement bridge for Bridge No. 51 will be approximately 36.6 meters (120
feet) long by 12.0 meters (40 feet) wide to accommodate two 3.6 meter (12-foot) travel
lanes. Approach work will extend approximately 289 meters (950 feet). The temporary
detour length is estimated to be 298 meters (977 feet). The detour roadway width will be
6.0 meters (20 feet) with 1.8 meters (6-foot) shoulders on each side. The shoulder width
will be increased 0.6 meters (2 feet) where guardrail is required. The temporary bridge
structure width is 7.2 meters (24 feet) and has a length of approximately 35.9 meters (118
feet). The detour will have a design speed of approximately 70 km/h (43 mph).
The replacement bridge for Bridge No. 57 will be approximately 32 meters (105
4
feet) long by 12 meters (40 feet) wide to accommodate two-3.6 meter (12-foot) travel lanes.
The alignment improvement is estimated to be 461 meters (1515 feet) with two 3.6 meter
(12-foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders. The shoulder widths will be paved for 0.6
meter (2.0 feet) and widened an additional 1.0 meter (3.28 feet) where guardrail is required.
Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be approximately 100 km/h (60
mph)
If The estimated cost of the project is $2,151,000, including$2,000,000 in construction
cost and $151,000 in right of way cost. The estimated cost of the project in the 1998-2004
TIP is $895,000.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 16 is classified as a Rural Major Arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The speed limit along this section of road is 90 km/h (55 mph). The
road serves both local and through traffic in the northwestern area of Wilkes County. The
study area is primarily agricultural, with scattered. businesses, residences, and a mobile
home park.
The existing bridges were completed in 1934. Bridge No. 51 is 35.9 meters (118
feet) long and 6.17 meters (20 feet 3 inches) wide. It has a 90° skew to the river.
According to the Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating is 49.9 out of a
possible 100. It is currently not posted. Bridge No. 57 is 31.4 meters (103 feet) long and
6.17 meters (20 feet 3 inches) wide. It has a 301 skew to the river. According to the Bridge
Maintenance Unit records the sufficiency rating is 49.9 out of a possible 100. The bridge
is currently not posted.
The horizontal alignment is fair to good in the vicinity of both bridges. Shoulder
widths on approaches to both bridges are approximately 0.6 to 1.5 meters (2 to 5 feet) wide.
The average daily traffic (ADT) is currently 3800 vehicles per day and projected
to increase to 6800 ADT by the year 2020.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that three (3) accidents have been
reported within the last three years in the vicinity of Bridge No. 51. A total of five
accidents have been reported during the same time frame in the vicinity of Bridge No. 57.
Of the eight (8) total accidents: three (3) involved an animal (deer), three (3) were rear-end
5
of a slow or stopped vehicle, and two (2) involved sideswipe or fixed object (bridge rail).
Thus, two (2) of the eight (8) reported accidents (one fourth) may be directly attributable
to the narrow bridge widths and three (3) others (the rear-ends) may be indirectly
attributable.
There are four (4) school buses that cross the bridges each day, two (2) in the AM
and two (2) in the PM. The Wilkes County School Transportation Director indicated that
the on-site detour would not impact school bus operation in this area of the county.
There is no sign of fiber optic cable in the vicinity of either bridge. An aerial utility
cable crosses the river on the north side of Bridge No. 57 and on both sides of Bridge No.
51. According to Mr. Clyde Bumgardner of the Cricket-Millers Creek Water Association
there are no public water or sewer lines in the vicinity of the project. The utility impact
rating for the project is low.
Research of public environmental records did not find any evidence of the presence
of hazardous/toxic materials in the immediate project area. However, on site inspection
found junk vehicles, piles of old tires and other debris located in the southeast quadrant of
bridge no. 57.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Two build alternatives, a "do-nothing" alternative and a rehabilitation alternative
were considered for the proposed improvement of Bridge Nos. 51 and 57 on NC 16 Wilkes
County.
Temporary detours and realignments were considered on the north side of both
bridges. Since the river parallels the south side of Bridge No. 57 and a mobile home park
is located on the south side of Bridge No. 51, south side detours and/or realignments were
eliminated from consideration. Traffic access to the mobile home park will be maintained
during the construction of Bridge No. 51.
The existing traffic volumes and importance of NC 16 to through traffic in the
northwest portion of North Carolina coupled with the absence of primary or major
secondary routes in the project vicinity make and off-site detour not feasible. SR 1559
generally parallels this portion of NC 16, however, three posted bridges and poor horizontal
6
alignment render it unsuitable as a temporary off-site detour.
Alternative A consists of constructing an on-site detour on the north side of the
existing bridges. Removing and replacing the bridges in place, while traffic is maintained
on the run-around detour. Remove the temporary detour and restore the natural area upon
completion of the new structures and approaches. The design speed for replacement
structure and approaches is 100 km/h (60 mph). The design speed of the temporary detour
64 km/h (40 mph).
Alternative B consists of realigning the roadway just north of the existing bridges
and replacing the bridges on the revised alignment. The existing bridge will continue
carrying traffic during construction. The existing bridge and roadway approaches will be
removed following completion of the new bridge and roadway. The design speed for the
replacement structure and realigned roadway is 100 km/h (60 mph)
BRIDGE 51
The build Alternative A (Recommended) consists of constructing an on-site detour
on the north side of the existing bridge. Removing and replacing the bridge in place, while
traffic is maintained on the run-around detour. Remove the temporary detour and restore
the natural area upon completion of the new structure and approaches. The design speed
for replacement structure and approaches is 100 km/h (60 mph). The design speed of the
temporary detour 64 km/h (40 mph).
Alternative B consists of realigning the roadway just north of the existing bridge
and replacing the bridge on the revised alignment. The existing bridge will continue
carrying traffic during construction. The existing bridge and roadway approaches will be
removed following completion of the new bridge and roadway. The design speed for the
replacement structure and realigned roadway is 100 km/h (60 mph). This alternative is not
recommended due to a relocatee and no significant improvement in the roadway alignment.
Traffic access to the mobile home park will be maintained during the construction
of Bridge 51.
BRIDGE 57
The build Alternative A consists of constructing an on-site detour on the north side
of the existing bridge. Removing and replacing the bridge in place, while traffic is
maintained on the run-around detour. Remove the temporary detour and restore the natural
area 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 64 km/h (40 mph).
Alternative B (Recommended) consists of realigning the roadway just north of the
It existing bridge and replacing the bridge on the revised alignment. The existing bridge will
continue carrying traffic during construction. The existing bridge and roadway approaches
will be removed following completion of the new bridge and roadway. The design speed
for the replacement structure and realigned roadway is 100 km/h (60 mph). This alternative
is recommended due to improved roadway alignment and lower construction cost.
BRIDGE NOS. 51 & 57
The recommended alternative consists of an in-place replacement and a temporary
detour at Bridge No. 51. An improved alignment of Bridge No. 57 is recommended. An
improved alignment was considered for Bridge No. 51 but eliminated due to its length, a
relocatee and topography (side hill cut).
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 reduced 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 on this project.
8
1
VI. ESTIMATED COST
BRIDGE NO. 51 BRIDGE NO 57 BRIDGE NOS.
51 & 57
ITEM Alternate A
(Recommended)
COST Alternate B
COST Alternate A
COST Alternate B
(Recommended)
Cost Alternate A& B
Recommended
Total Cost
New Bridge Structure 5463,300 5463,300 5404,400 $404,400 $867,700
Bridge Removal S24,800 S24,800 S21,700 $21,700 S46,500
Approach Roadway 5170,900 $296,900 $216,900 5348,900 $519,800
Temporary Detour S272,000 S330,000 $272,000
Engineering &
Contingencies 5169,000 S118,000 S172,000 5125,000 $294,000
Total Construction S1,100,000 5903,000 51,145,000 5900,000 $2,000,000
Right of Way S51,000 551,000 5100,000 S100,000 5151,000

Total Cost 51,151,000 5954,000 $1,245,000 51,000,000 $2,151,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 51 will be replaced with a new structure on the existing alignment NC
16 over the Reddies River. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary on-site detour
approximately 12 meters (40 feet) north of the existing bridge.
The new structure for Bridge No. 51 will be approximately 36.6 meters (120 feet)
in length by 12 meters (40 feet) wide, which allow for two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes. It will
be constructed at approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge.
Approach work will be approximately 289 meters (950 feet) for Bridge No. 51. It
includes two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders with 0.6 meters (2.0
ft.) paved. Based on preliminary design work the design speed will be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph).
The temporary detour will be approximately 298 meters (977 feet) in length for
Bridge No. 51 with a two-lane 7.2 meter (24-foot) roadway. The detour structure will
9
likely be a bridge, 35.9 meter ( 118 feet) long by 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. The design
speed of the detour will be 70 km/h (43 mph).
Bridge No. 57 over the Middle Fork Reddies River on NC 16 will be replaced with
a new bridge structure on new alignment. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. The new alignment is approximately 12 meters (40 feet) north of the
existing bridge, and downstream on the river.
The new structure for Bridge No. 57 will be approximately 32 meters (105 feet)
long by 12 meters (40 feet) wide, which allows for two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes. It is
proposed to have approximately the same elevation as the existing bridge.
Approach work will be approximately 461 meters (1512 feet) and includes two 3.6
meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4 meter (8-foot) shoulders. The inside 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) of
the shoulder is to be paved and widened an additional 1.0 meter (3.28 feet) where guardrail
is required. Based on preliminary design work, the design speed will be approximately 100
km/h (60 mph). The Division Engineer for the 11th Highway Division of the NCDOT
concurs in the recommendations of the recommended alternative.
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The study area is located in rural Wilkes County approximately 15 kilometers (9
miles) northwest of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina (See Figure 1).
Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Purlear quadrangle map (1966); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of
Wilkes County (1984); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USDWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Map (Purlear 1994); USFWS list of protected and candidate species
(1997); 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) formally NCDEM, 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.
10
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on
February 3, 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).
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the full 24.4 meter
(80.0 foot) wide right-of-way limits. The actual construction impacts should be less, but
without specific design information 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 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
366 meters (1200 feet) above mean sea level. The project site lies within the Blue Ridge
Mountains Physiographic Province.
According to the soil map for Wilkes County (SCS, 1984), the dominant map units
within the project areas for both Bridge No. 51 and Bridge No. 57 consist of Rosman-
Reddies complex. This map unit has inclusions of hydric soils and is described as a fine
sandy loam on 0 to 3 % slopes. Rosman-Reddies complex is occasionally flooded and is
found along drainageways and old stream channels. There is a small area mapped as
Potomac very cobbly loamy sand along the drainage way on the north side of Bridge No.
51. Potomac very cobbly loamy sand is a poorly drained soil along drainageways which
has inclusions of hydric soils. These soil types were confirmed in the field by taking soil
borings.
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
11
communities is based on a system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 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
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-
dominated and disturbed mesic mixed hardwood forest communities. There are no
hydrologic indicators or hydric soils present within the project area. 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 regularly
maintained road shoulders. Additional man-dominated communities associated with
Bridge No. 51 include the cow pasture located in the northwest and southwest quadrants.
The southeast quadrant includes a trailer park which is sparsely vegetated except for the
irregularly maintained areas around the edges of the park along the river banks and adjacent
to the road shoulders of NC 16. Bridge No. 57 includes a regularly mowed and maintained
field in the northeast and northwest quadrants. The southeast and southwest quadrants are
irregularly maintained man-dominated areas under the utility easement.
The regularly maintained areas including the road shoulders, fields and pasture are
dominated by fescue (Festuca spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), white
clover (Trifolium repens), wild onion (Allium cernuum), and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). The irregularly maintained areas adjacent to the trailer park are dominated by
blackberry (Rubus spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). The irregularly maintained area south of Bridge No. 57
is also dominated by these invasive weedy species as well as foxtail grass (Setaria spp.),
aster (Aster spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus) and saw greenbrier (Smilax bona-
nox).
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
12
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. The carcass of a striped skunk (Mephitis
mephitis) was observed along the roadside within the project vicinity. An American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), and Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) were observed
in the field in these areas on the day of the site visit. Species such as Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and Eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This partially disturbed community is found in the northeast quadrant of Bridge No.
51. The area adjacent to the road shoulder includes shrubby species and saplings, with
older canopy trees approximately 15.0 meters (50.0 feet) to the north. The canopy layer and
understory is dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub layer includes blackberry, tree-of-
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). The herbaceous
layer includes common greenbrier and Japanese honeysuckle.
On the day of the site visit, a white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and a red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) were observed within the project vicinity. Other species
which may reside or forage in these areas include wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), black-and-white
warbler (Mniotilia varia), striped skunk, Eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), Eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor
constrictor), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
Aquatic Communities
. The aquatic community in the project area exists within the Middle Fork Reddies
River and the Reddies River. Within the project area of Bridge No. 57, the Middle Fork
Reddies River flows south and is approximately 8.0 meters (26.0 feet) wide. Within the
project area of Bridge No. 51, the Reddies River flows north and is approximately 10.0
meters (33.0 feet) wide. On the day of the field investigation, the water within both project
areas was turbid and flow was moderately fast. The depth of the river within both project
areas ranges from 0.2 to 0.5 meters (0.6 to 1.6 feet) deep. The substrate consists of a fine
micaceous sand with some cobbles and boulders which form riffle areas.
Vegetation along the river banks associated with Bridge No. 51 and Bridge No. 57
13
is sparse. Species within the project area of Bridge No. 51 include tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), sycamore, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, and greenbrier. Similar species
vegetate the banks of the project area of Bridge No. 57, as well as tulip poplar and river
birch (Betula nigra).
Species such as the Eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta picta), Northern water
snake (Natrix sipedon sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) may reside or forage
within this aquatic community or along the waters edge. Macroinvertebrates 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 river. ,The
macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae
(midges) and oligochaetes (segmented worms). On the day of the site visit, stonefly,
mayfly, and cranefly (Diptera) larvae were collected by dipnetting in the river.
According to Joseph Mickey, District 7 Biologist for the NCWRC, Bridge No. 57
is the downstream end of trout waters, with marginal trout habitat upstream. According to
Mr. Mickey, species that would likely be found in the project areas of Bridge No. 57 and
No. 51 may include brown trout (Salmo trutta), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi), fantail darter (E.llabellare) highback chub (Notropis hypsinotus),
white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), redlip
shiner (Notropis chiliticus), creek chub (Semotilus spp.), and bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus).
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. Construction
impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
Terrestrial Communities
The man-dominated community and the disturbed mesic mixed hardwood forest
14
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. Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals from
construction machinery used during clearing 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. The proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 51 will impact up to 0.75 hectare (1.87 acre) of terrestrial habitat
(including temporary detours). The proposed replacement of Bridge No. 57 will impact up
to 0.91 hectare (2.23 acre) of terrestrial habitat. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to
terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.

TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARES ACRES
Replacement Man- Mixed Hard- Aquatic Combined
Impacts Dominated wood Forest Community Total
Community
Bridge No. 51 0.53(l.32) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.06) 0.55(l.38)
Temporary 0.22 (0.55) <0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.03) 0.23 (0.59)
Bridge No. 57 0.63(l.55) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.04) 0.64(l.59)
Temporary 0.28 (0.68) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.02) 0.29 (0.70)
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.
15
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area of Bridge No. 51 exists within the
Reddies River. The replacement of Bridge No. 51 will result in up to 0.03 hectare (0.09
acres) of disturbance of stream bottom (including a temporary detour).
The aquatic community in the project study area of Bridge No. 57 exists within the
Middle Fork Reddies River. The replacement of Bridge No. 57 will result in 0.01 hectare
(0.04 acre) of disturbance of stream bottom (no temporary impacts). This represents worst-
case conditions; actual disturbance area will likely be less.
Impacts to the adjacent man-dominated and forested communities can have a direct
impact on aquatic communities. Activities such as the removal of trees, as well as the
construction of the bridge and approach 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 can be minimized through the use of
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs), "Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds" and "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Projects Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters."
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
Middle Fork Reddies River flows south through the proposed project area of Bridge
No. 57 and has a width of approximately 8.0 meters (26.0 feet) wide. According to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) the Middle
Fork Reddies River has a best usage classification of WS-II Tr. The classification index
number for this river is 1240-2. The Reddies River flows north through the proposed
project area of Bridge No. 51 and is approximately 10.0 meters (33.0 feet) wide. This
portion of Reddies River has a best usage classification of WS-II; the classification index
16
number is 12-40-(1). Class WS-II indicates waters protected as water supplies which are
essentially in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharges of pollution shall be required in these waters. These
waters are suitable for all Class C uses which include 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 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 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
NCDEM 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 Middle Fork Reddies River or Reddies River 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 areas are not
within a Critical Area; however, both project areas are within a protected watershed (WS-
II).
There are no water resources classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) 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, stormwater runoff from NC 16 and
runoff from any fertilizer used on the residential lawn or fields may cause water quality
degradation. There is a lawn service along the Reddies River, just downstream from Bridge
No. 57. This area has several old junk cars and trucks, piles of old tires and other debris
17
adjacent to the river bank. Contamination from fluids and leachate from this debris may
cause water quality degradation.
Within the project area of Bridge No. 51 is a cow pasture in the northwest and
southwest quadrants. Cows can pass along the sandy bank under the bridge and come in
direct contact with the river, which allows potential nutrient loading due to excrement.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures
or a culvert in the river channel. In the short term, removal of trees which provide shade
along the river banks will likely result in an increase in water temperatures, and
construction of the bridge and approach work will increase sediment loads. 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:
• 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, 1992" will be incorporated for the protection of
surface waters for 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
18
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).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Middle Fork Reddies River
and the Reddies River have well defined banks within the bridge replacement corridors.
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 meter (80 feet) of linear
stream channel or 0.03 hectare (0.09 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur
at Bridge No. 51 and 24.4 meter (180 feet) or 0.02 hectare (0.06 acre) of jurisdictional
surface water impacts at Bridge No.57 due to the proposed replacements.
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.
Wilkes County is a trout county and the Middle Fork Reddies River is designated
as Hatching Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters. Thus, coordination with NCWRC
is required.
19
Foundation investigations will be required for the project. The investigations test
borings in soil and/or rock for in situ testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory
testing. This may require test borings in streams. This is covered under General 401
Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6.
4.3 Mitigation
Since this project is likely covered by Nationwide Permit 23 and no wetland impacts
are anticipated, mitigation should not be required by USACOE. Due to the linear impact
to surface waters mitigation may be required by the USACOE and/or DWQ. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE and DWQ.
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
20
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.
No bog turtle habitat is present within project corridor.
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 of 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 NCNEP 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.
TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
WILKES COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
Common Name Status Present
Dendroica cerulea SR No
Cerulean warbler
Speyeria diana SR No
Diana fritillary butterfly)
Juglans cinerea NL No
(Butternut)
Orthotrichum keeverae E No
21
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 Not listed (species for which there is no state designation).
A search of the NCNHP database showed no occurrences of any Federal Species
of Concern within the project vicinity.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is not present for any protected species; according to the NCNHP database,
there have been no reported occurrences of any federally protected species, Federal Species
of Concern or state protected species. No individuals were observed at the time of the site
visit.
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 June 5, 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 concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated March 19, 1997, stated the project area is
considered to have a high probability for presence of archaeological sites and therefore,
SHPO recommended that an archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project. NCDOT will conduct an archeological survey and assessment of the potential
effects on unknown resources prior to de design of this project. As archeological salvage,
22
if warranted, will be completed prior to the commencement of any construction activities.
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 two
inadequate bridges will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacements 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 relocatees 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.
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). According to the USDA, the
proposed project will impact 0.42 hectares (1.04 acres) of soils in Wilkes County defined
as prime and unique farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the total 26,545
'' hectares (65,591 acres) of prime and unique farmland in Wilkes County, Form AD-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, is included in the Appendix.

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.
23
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 attainments 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 significant.
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 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
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 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 stonnwater. 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
24
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.
4
A

2J
FIGURES
_ r ?, - _ , spa a l 1 \ ??2 •?
_ -s TNs a
I'6>
115 ? ? 1 l
6
1 3
I BRIDGE N0.51 & 57 1 h,
a '\
/• ftl ?4A rs?
? e ?' . > I Y2
1 ?
1L8IDQVIXd MM \ • 2 ••t '.\ .
sTAT1 PA. - \ I ya n,• \ 1 \
1 1
170D?' `
VT ..?! t3.9 . _ 1 1 J ,r
r ti r.
2-1
'3m IIY6 0/ INJ / ?.
c } Ixq _
54
mccrm
PCIP. 3.8"
r 171) ar \
t 17T .'\
I? II, ? . ? r I w 1 1 /. /)
D 1.9 II.? 1 ` •r?7?•- F rte' -? 421
-1\ j??? ?? > 1t l\ WILKESBORO T lf? :`
s..a
NCDOT HIGHWAY MAP SCALE 1"= 2 MILES .:
Roarlna Ga0 ¦,?
DoutMOn
Ic z.
.m b
1b 'TraohJl 17hutmon0 Ir
G.o? MCGNOr Auslln
IMaLs Ma1
W K E S I
wllD,r c _ Mare a ? Roar-ne \\?? vulDen fain aInSJ R1rer r onoa rhlpton•
1 Millets .F
i5 P North T t dktsDOi IIM •D010 Ir
FIGURE 1 _ ttk
SITE LOCATION MAP ?:
TIP NO. B-3071 V?N Ferguson , 'S Mo,aaan?all.l'll i.
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 0 \ Boomer , - -' -
BRIDGE NOS. 51 AND 57 ON NC 16
WILKES COUNTY, NC

0
t?

$ g
z0
-Co z?
(V M u ?J
a O L?4 Q C C
Q
0zz?
y.

r-
tn
d
z
w
m
21mmmmm?s?taa?x
' }1210.1 ' IGGIN
r Z ro'?
tt
t?''•tir,
w?
4
ti
¦

¢`?4I
Q g
N
O
o ? U Q
?M cjz
94 1 ti
?z woo

Y

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 51 & 57 ON NC 16 FIGURE 4 A
WILKES CONTY TIP NO. B-3071
f

I•? ??
>'J?M ?tm- 1'A `
.,

FACING NORTH - OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE #51

FACING SOUTH- OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE #51
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 51 & 57 ON NC 16
WILKES CONTY

.
i

i

I 1
1
•

_ ! v
I

}
. t
f `?

f?
',`??. ?,'.`I' x,•1.1', _ ?:.? .. t
-
x= r?4Jz. I."
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 51 & 57 ON NC 73
WILKES CONTY

i
v
,t ?
a
?
t
C'
FIGURE 4 C
TIP NO. B-3071

151

^
k

FACING SOUTH- OVERVIEW OF BRIDGE #57
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
BRIDGE NO. 51 & 57 ON NC 16 FIGURE 4 D
WILKES CONTY TIP NO. B-3071

APPENDIX A
`i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROUNA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO March 28, 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:
\J
t C)
7 441

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
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. 146 on
SR 1730 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,
Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
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
had flood hazard areas identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (F1RMs). 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, Hams 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
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]
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.

i
h
WiO?s s
o o
Co un t Sc
,
201 West :Main Street i
Superintendent Wilke sboro, North Carolina 28697
,
Dr. Joseph H. Johnson
667-1121
910
Associate Superintendent 910-838-5021 FAX "?- ter" tu?sn
Dr. Linda H. Greene G;.. stc ?. Ha;:?s
Assistant Superintendents Bli?_ L' : u?c:te
K. Wayne Barker Gicn :., ?. 7n Ictt
C. Eugene Reavis B_ ? ,. K=:barn
July 7, 1997
Mr. Norman Willey
Wetherill Associates, Inc.
4915 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 295
Raleizh. 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-30 72, or 3-
30077. 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

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commdssion'EE
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau. Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program ?--
DATE: March 11. 1997
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacement of Bridge Nos. 51 and 57 on NC 16 over Middle
Fork Reddies River, Wilkes County, TIP No. B-3071.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and preliminary comments on
the subject project.
Middle Fork Reddies River is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water at
the project site and also supports smallmouth bass. We have the following comments for minimizing
adverse impacts to fisheries resources:
1) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact stream
water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream's water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
2) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.
3) Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained
until project completion.
4) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days
of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control. If seeding is done after 1
October 1997, then the NCDOT should return after 1 April 1998 to reseed if necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this project. If
you have any questions regarding these comments. please contact me at 704/652-4257.
i,S1. It ice- Hi r r: I ~+-?r
111 '_•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History-
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
p - March 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ?? 'v C-? ??
Deputy State Histonc Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XIII, Bridges 51 and 57 on
NC 16 over Middle Fork Redding River,
Wilkes County, B-3071, State Project
8.1761501, ER 97-8557
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.
The project area is considered to have a high probability for the presence of
significant archaeological resources. We recommend that a comprehensive survey
be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the presence and
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior
to the initiation of construction activities.
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 East Jones street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2307
Fcdcral Aid l3KS1P I? (l01 TIP T ?•'j0-' I Cctlnty WILKES
'T
CONCURRENCE FORNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
9
B-e: P.ciec: Dcsc-cticn CLEPLC.GE ?21GGF? rI•. 51 4,40 177 19-4 aL l(, pySe rAioot-,
F,R.? 2EVD1E5 RwEtZ ?Be1DGE GQouP x1111 `
On ?uaE I'?17 , re-.rescnrativcs of :he
? Ncr.7 C a r c i i n a Dc-a:..:..nt cfTr.?.nspor:atIcn (?1CD0 i
? Fcdc ?! Hisivxav Ad:ninis::aricn (FriNvA)
? Ncrl: Carol;na State :iistor.C PrCZCP/adCll OE:c= (SF20)
i
Oti.c: i
re:ic,ccc ' c subjec: prejec: at

A scooing mcc:in-2
H:Stcric arc !,'I' ZSCUMZZ ::1'c[c2rz r1 :Ct.C'.t' SCSSiC[1??CP.S.11:a..Cn
O u:.C.
All p: r::cS .^i CSC 1t aS'CC?
t!:... ,..., rc orct;e.^.:Cs CS'C7 cid «'1 thin :'IC .:CICC. s ca CL rcCC:.cial c::CC:
t! C:. a.. nC CiCCCr;:CS !CSS u.an ::,Tj ?'Ca:= old which are Ccns.CC =,. t0 .:.C^?. C:itC.':C.
Ccrsidcraticn G wi yin tine projec:'s a= of petentiai c.:ec s.
? t!.c-- ,-CC prCCC.:CS 0?'C:vcr:s old (lis:.-- -c;-c`) %VitLin ti.e :roICC-'s arc-- Cc =ct-Ct:ai
but c--4 on thcais6c..;
ev-Wc.' Na GI ;jrLicGE Nr, C77 AND 1-?ous8. ar-- .cns:cc GC: C!:U1C!C
fci ?a.:crai R,^}s:c. 'Ind :.o .=.:ri:cr e•:ait:a.icr. cfti:c:n is nccc==
nIcS «• ,: i , t!:c ?r icc-'s zrc= of :cc--,., _ •s
_.e -a Ccc^^
Rc^rescr..? `CDOT
FH%vA,i rr:i:cDivisi Adrunistrtor, oor other . Fcde.•aI Agcnc*,
Rcpresc:.tativc, SRPO
v
Statc Historic Presc::aticn Oftlccr
Date
D?cc
Datc
ICa sun"es -port is pre-zucd, 2 1111=1 c=ov cCt::is fcr.n and tl v =ttrc:uS list %%ill he inc!udc:
Al
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
NjF-N1nRAND17N1
To:
Mr. Byron Brady. NCDOT, Planning &- Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell. NC Division of Water Quality G L U
Subject: NN att:r Quality Checklist lbr Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 12, 1997, in which you requested comments concerning
the scope of work to be performed by Wedterill Associates. Inc.. for five bridge replacement projects. The
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT and itti consultant consider the following generic
enyironmcntul coinmiunents for design and construction of bridge replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Slandards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout desi;_n and construction for this
project in t11e area that drains to :streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), I-IQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish %Vater) 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, remediaUon measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certificadon 2726/Nationwide Pennit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must he followed.
C. DWQ request that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stre.un
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should he
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) radier than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should he avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structuresitneasures) to the maxunum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should he chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will he
required by DWQ if' impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require m igation by the
U.S. Anny Corps of L-ngineers.
F. Borrow/waste :teas should not he located in wetl:utds. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will he required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ Prefers replacement of bridges wiUt bridges. If Uie new structurc is to bun culvert. it
should he countersunk to.dlow unimpeded fish passa?,e through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Eaual Opportunity Attirrnalive Action Enpbyer 50"/. recycled/10% post consumer paper
171'
1 ° v
Ir r
? E=
F-71 ?- TIT n
i
mr. C run Brady A1enuo
Fuhru:rv ,(, 1907
N.-,c,
I1. If foundation test borings will be required. Utis should be noted in the document. GcoICLhnical
work is approved under General 401 CertiFIicatiou Number 30-17/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Sun•ey Activities. Written concurrence from Ute Noah Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Many Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
1. If Uiis Project is processed aL,; a Cate-!orical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if w•edwid impacts exceed one acm in accordance with DWQ Welland Rules ; 13A
NCAC 211.M6 (h)(?)).
The attached table hats been prepared by DWQ for your assistwice in studying Utc SN'stems involved in
Utese bridge replacements. This information includes Ute DWQ Index Number. DWQ Stre:un
Classification. river hasin. and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
WcUand Imventon• (NWI) map references are not ?o be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qu.6ified biologists.
Thautk you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issu:utce of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerts. to ensure Umt water quality standards are met
and desimnated uses are not last or degraded. Questions regarding We 401 Certification or oUter water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at (919) 73?-1786 in D%\'Q's Water Quality Environtnenull
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2936.DOC
I-
ti
cz
G
N _
r ? ? Z V d u d
Z C __ t7 ?
7
j,
3 G ? c N

C! C u a
_
O Q` O N N a
G (L
? V1 N
N O 27
N U O D O N N
F N r N G C7 N aN m_ :
N o o^ m al y n a
rj
a
r ? c ^
= rJ ,
N N
_ _ r

r3
0) C
3

m

C)
m i
n
i

am

•. O O O

N

r

m
m
m
a
C m

m
G
. d L
}
I
I

O >
}
co
rJ ? I O - .ts

O U

V
' .. N

N
N

C

rte..
O

I C

fn u
CV
7
N N

C 7 i
I
N
II II
11

'' I
m
m
m N
r

i i
s

°
Y a
I
a a U °'
m
a m ?
U U
N ? 3 ? U

ri a)

N 72
O. ? ..

.. ? I
I m

m
m I
m
U G © c7 t7
O ?j i
d N d d m

C i
© ?
O
t0
^
u N
•
-

`"
O N (/? to
J
O
rn
?
? ?
'n O1
c
Lo

? Lr)
m

O
tD
n N
0 0 O

6.
N 0
0 m m m
H
U.S. Oeoara+ent of :.ancuiture
D CONV???S10?! IMPACT RATiNC
FA?.MLAN 1 Q., ta-, 199
I Cats G: lend ?valuattan rifcu.tt
PART 1 ! o hr C:rnareie? by -C'e ?! ASerrcl I Fedanl ,:,..trey Imolvfd /
,
8 -30
Nam.Ct a•oIR: ?IC Dp'r ?'• t, p• IC:uncy:.ndstate 1`l N T ? ? l'
?rooosaa `na Us• Q R 1 D }? L {? C- m I Cata Aeay'nt R.tz'?(f? 3v SC a
V ` 1" ?? P?rrn Sa•
I
PART It (To be ccmplered by SCS! Y= No lac.. ImP ate'
farad? _ / ?I
. snt:wice or loal imt:erGnt tare' C
Coen no sits Cn=tn Feime, unique to tr of Cris farrrr). 03 tnan to F*?Oa` -
leta addrda+t+! :•a I,arnounc cr r•rR+'^°'" 6.41
(If no. rte '= 'PA dcas ricr :pciv - o nor c.,mp a a
Farrnsae Lana in GwL %Ur-'e:on I X ^ y• i ??: (O ? ?
Malor Cooltr ' ?, f ! a,n 3v Su
l aCLS: Cate Larva M"bzu n Raturn
?? ? Narne Ot t.? S;ts Aassarr+•rrt Srttsm l
,%Anw Vr LarsQ d-,41Wt1an Sy1iant lala'd i.lfffnatlvf -",ff AatlflO
• ' }J L s;ca c I sta _
.1 k -? ? ? 1, sct..a I S;c¦ 3 I
me/1 I I I
PART III (70 be ccmplered by F-sGn "s
A. Total Acts To 3e Canver^_a Cir_ecv I ,p d
3. Toni Acrts To de Ccnver-:c Incirec=+ 11 p d I I
G . I I I ,
Total Aerts In c1.=
=va{uat:cn Inferntaticn
7-7 e .+ne L-el Imeernt rarra an ( OGI I
B. To-i __ - Sttt=vric
C o rc-mace Of Rarrsiand In C-t:nrr Or :.c?i Govt- Urnc N c°` 4 csv +++ I 0
d, ?artar*ra4+ Ct Ffrrmund.In GCVL Syr?,nt=on ••
b letsd by craluaticn C.::rr.cn
FAR-, V 70 Q c-+'r na ever (?1a of 0 ro 1C0 Pcin^_1 I Q
Rtiat:ve valuo %.j, . •••_.._ - - I
,..: y Ma:imum
PART V1 (-j?o be ccrplered by F-_e•?I AgrnCJ)
rainfC in 7 GeR 6tdflbJ Peints I
I
Tant C.ltarta r-.7 fay cHrrrie an tt
S. is - I
• Arta In Ncnuman Use
..?.,n I Ito I
:,. Ptrcns Ot Site 3eina F ?rmeo?^? 1 ?cl Government
4. P-ntecren rrcvcucz+ uv ----
_°. Ois== From Uruart Q&Jiltua Area
- c-, nr Prtsetst r=arm Unit Carraarnd To Avarac
-- - _,_ r-innd
-EL C:aaticn Cr NCnrarm 661 - - I I
Availabr+ Ot Far-st SupooR SarviC? I I I
M On-?-arrn Invaz?rn= I 1
?uvics I 1
11. E''r^ Ot Ccrrrersian On Farm Sucocr: I I
12 Gmcat + wit:t Existno Ac•EGltural US• I Ip
'OTAL SITi: AS"Q=??EVT PdINTS I I
PART VII (i o be ccmplered by FerdQn/ Agv=l) I
I I
I 1 0 I I I
Reiativs Value Of Farmland (From Par. V) tt}0
t _. -._ e.....r- 1Fram Psrr '/! aaovv or a /ocrl I I I
I was A L,nl S;ca A:wssrrla*+t Ua?al
Ycs CI NO C
Irv ;?lrrrnrr CEp
T OTAL POINTS (Total of abCv Z IlncsJ
I Data Of Selac:?on
5'tta 5atec=:
R?san For Sf,fc-.son: