20010224 Ver 1_Complete File_20010213

010224
y d + ?n?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL, F. EASLEY DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 9, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Wilkes County, Bridge No. 59 on SR 1 130 over Beaver Creek;
Federal-Aid No. MABRZ-1130(5); State Project No. 8.2761101;
TIP No. B-3073.
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 October 1999. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 59 over Beaver Creek with a three-barrel box culvert on new
alignment to the east. Each barrel of the new structure will be 10 X 9 feet in cross-
sectional dimension and approximately 48 feet long. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure 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 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,
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)
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
X I . ?4
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. 59) is constructed entirely
of timber and steel. Therefore, all components of the bridge will be removed without
dropping them into the stream. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case 3
Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis 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, NC WRC, Eastern MT. Coordinator
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 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. However, 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 BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with 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 fitture.
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.
Page 3 of 3
Wilkes County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1130
Over Beaver Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1130(5)
State Project 8.2761101
TIP No. B-3073
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
fo -25--
Date ?z
rWilliam D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
T' Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
l G/ Z? ??
Date c
M h Graf, P. E.
FrDivi on Administrator, FHWA
010224
Wilkes County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1130
Over Beaver Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1130(5)
State Project 8.2761101
TIP No. B-3073
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
(N CARp4
4 SEAL ?•
i o ?? 99 f ? i 022552
Date Jo L. Williams, P. E. '?.,0 NGINS
Project Planning Engineer C.\\,
''18mnu, 0?vP
o-25.99 w a h -z-
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
10-2 5--97 c??_U _ P
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3073, Wilkes County
Wilkes County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1130
Over Beaver Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1130(5)
State Project 8.2761101
The following headings indicate the individual or oganization responsible for carrying
out the project commitment(s) listed beneath the headings.
Roadside Environmental Unit,
Resident Engineer,
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch (Permits):
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will
be implemented. The existing bridge is constructed entirely of timber and steel. Therefore, all
components of the bridge will be removed without dropping them into the stream.
Roadside Environmental Unit,
Resident Engineer,
Trout County: NCWRC has commented that Beaver Creek is not a Hatchery Supported
Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters. However, Wilkes County is a designated Mountain Trout
County. Therefore, the following will be implemented to minimize impacts to aquatic resources:
• Where concrete is used, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water.
• Where possible, heavy equipment will be operated from the bank rather than in the stream
channel to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into the stream.
• Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Categorical Exclusion Document
Green Sheet
October, 1999
Page 1 of.1
Wilkes County
Bridge No. 59 on SR 1130
Over Beaver Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1130(5)
State Project 8.2761101
TIP No. B-3073
Bridge No. 59 is located in Wilkes County over Beaver Creek. It is programmed
in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 59 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a three-barrel
box culvert on new alignment to the east (see Figure 2). Each barrel of the new structure
will be 10 x 9 feet in cross-sectional dimension and approximately 48 feet long. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 200 feet of approach work to the north and also to the south. The
pavement width on the approaches will be 20 feet including two 10-foot lanes.
Additionally there will be 4-foot grass shoulders (7 feet where guardrail is required).
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 40 mph.
The estimated cost of the project is $465,000 including $450,000 in construction
costs and $15,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 2000-2006 TIP
is $267,000 including $246,000 in construction costs, and $21,000 in right of way costs.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will likely be required due to design speed. To improve the
design speed any more would require major alignment modification and go well beyond
the scope of a bridge replacement project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1130 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located in the southwest corner of Wilkes County just off of
NC 18. Currently the traffic volume is 150 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 300
VPD for the year 2020. There is no posted speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge. The
road serves primarily local residential and agricultural traffic.
The existing pony truss bridge was moved to this location in 1961. Its original
location is unknown. It is 60 feet long. The deck is 12 feet wide. The superstructure rests
on abutments composed of timber caps and piles. There is approximately 11 feet of
vertical clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. There is one lane of traffic on
the bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 20 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions
of 17 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical alignment is fair in the project vicinity. The bridge lies in the middle of a
horizontal curve with an operating speed of 25 mph. The roadway width on the
approaches to the existing bridge is 10 feet. Shoulders on the approaches to the bridge
are approximately 4 feet wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents were reported during
the period October 93 through September 96 in the vicinity of the project.
There are no school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the
Transportation Director for Wilkes County closing the road would not cause any
problems.
Wilkes Telephone Membership Corporation has an underground cable along the east
and west side of SR 1130. There is a single-phase electrical service crossing SR 1130
approximately 175 feet east of the existing bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 59 with a three-barrel box culvert on the existing
location. Traffic would be detoured on secondary roads during
construction. The design speed would be approximately 30 mph.
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 59 with a three-barrel box culvert
on a new alignment 70 feet east of the existing structure. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The design speed
will be approximately 40 mph.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1 Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
Three-Barrel Box Culvert
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches $ 88,000
5,000
92,000 $88,000
5,000
198,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 55,000 87,000
Engineering & Contingencies 35,000 72,000
Total Construction $ 275,000 S450,000
Right of Way $ 10,000 $ 15,000
Total Cost $ 285,000 $ 465,000
VI. DETOUR (ROAD USER COSTS)
The offsite detour considered includes SR 1554, NC 18 and SR 1129. Road users
would have to travel an average of 0.9 miles more than their normal route. The road
closure would last approximately one year. The total additional costs incurred by road
users would be approximately $17,000. This detour would require travel along 1.3 miles
of narrow, winding, unpaved roadway on SR 1554 in Caldwell County. The Division
Engineer has recommended against using this detour for reasons of safety.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 59 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a three-barrel
box culvert on new alignment to the east (see Figure 2). Each barrel of the new structure
will be 10 x 9 feet in cross-sectional dimension and approximately 48 feet long. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 200 feet of approach work to the north and also to the south. The
pavement width on the approaches will be 20 feet including two 10-foot lanes.
Additionally there will be 4-foot grass shoulders (7 feet where guardrail is required).
Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 40 mph.
Alternate 2 is recommended because it improves the approaches to the existing
bridge as well as the tie-in with SR 1129. In addition, this alternate maintains traffic
onsite and avoids detouring traffic along SR 1554 (a narrow unpaved roadway) in
Caldwell County. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation on the basis
safety.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no impacts to any property protcted under section 4(f) of the USDOT
act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Wilkes County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
The Wilkes County Soil Survey indicates that this land type is sloped and often
flooded. Therefore, this project will not have a negative impact on any prime or
important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Architectural Resources
NCDOT and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have reviewed this
project and determined that there are no eligible structures within the project's area of
potential effect (See letter dated August 7, 1997). The pony truss bridge has been
determined not eligible.
Archaeological Resources
NCDOT has conducted an archaeological investigation and determined that no
resources of archaeological significance will be affected by the project. The SHPO
concurs with this determination as cited in their letter dated July 15, 1998 (See
attachment).
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Regional Characteristics
Wilkes County is in the northwestern part of North Carolina in the Piedmont and
Blue Ridge Mountain physiographic regions and is characterized by mountains, foothills,
piedmont ridges, stream terraces, and floodplains. Wilkes County is 758 square miles.
Wilkes County's subsoils are loamy, clayey, and in some areas stony. Rock outcrops are
scattered throughout the mountains and subsoil layers range from shallow to very deep.
The lowest elevation in the county is 880 feet where the Yadkin River leaves the County
to the east and the highest elevation is 4,100 feet at Thompkins Knob to the west. The
Yadkin River and its tributaries drain most of Wilkes County.
Soils
Generally, soils are characterized into soil groupings called Soil Associations, but
Wilkes County groups their soils into "General Soil Map Units". The project study area
lies in the Toccoa-Masada "General Soil map Unit". The Toccoa-Masada grouping is
well drained, deep and has mostly brown, red, and yellow, loamy soils. (USDA 1997)
Toccoa sandy loam and Rion fine sandy loam are the two soil types located in the project
area. (Table 2) A brief description of these soil types is provided following Table 2.
Table 2. Soils occurring in the project area, Wilkes County.
Map Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Capability Unit
Symbol
ToA Toccoa sandy loam 8-15 IIw
RnE Rion fine sandy loam 25-60 VIIe
• Toccoa sand loam (Toa) consists of nearly level (0-3 percent slopes), deep, well
drained soil in Hood pains of the piedmont. Its representative profile consists of a
dark, yellowish-brown sandy loam surface layer (0-8 inches thick) and its subsoil (8-
60 inches thick) is stratified into a dark, yellowish-brown sandy loam on top and a
yellowish-brown loamy sand beneath. Infiltration is moderately rapid, surface runoff
is slow, and soil is subject to occasional flooding. This soil is low in natural fertility
and organic-matter content and is slightly acid to strongly acid. The soil also has
moderately rapid permeability and has a capability rating of IIw. Toccoa sandy loam
may contain wet spots or inclusions at depressions.
• Rion fine sandy loam ?RnE) consists of steep (25-60 percent slopes), very deep, well-
Ur-ainecsoil in flood plains of the piedmont. Its representative profile consists of a
brown sandy loam at the surface(0-4 inches thick), yellowish and reddish clay loams
in the subsoil (4-30 inches) and strong brown to multicolored sandy loam beneath
(30-60 inches). Infiltration is moderate to moderately rapid, and surface runoff is
rapid and very rapid in bare, unprotected areas. This soil is low in natural fertility
and organic-matter content, slightly acid to strongly acid, and has a capability rating
of VIIe. Rion fine sandy loam is a non-hydric soil without any wet. spots or
inclusions.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATION
Water resources within the study area are located in the Yadkin River Drainage
Basin; Division of Water Quality sub-basin number 030701; United States Department of
Interior hydrologic unit 03040101. There are two water resources, Beaver Creek and an
unnamed tributary, in the project study area. (Figure 2)
Seams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries
receive the same classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification for
Beaver Creek [DEM Index No. 12-25, 4/15/63] is class C Tr. Class C waters are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a
minimum. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis. Supplemental classification Tr represents trout waters,
which are protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) considers all trout waters;
therefore, they should be notified.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Source (WS I or
WS II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 miles of the
project study area. Beaver Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural
and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a National Wild and Scenic River.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE WATERS
As Beaver Creek crosses SR 1130 at the study area, it is approximately 22 feet
wide, ranging in depth from 8.0-15.0 inches with a sluggish flow, and is fairly turbid.
Within the project area on Beaver Creek, the substrate consists of profuse, silt
sedimentation and occasional cobble. Fifty meters directly upstream and downstream of
the study area, flow becomes moderate to swift with riffles, eddies, and is more serene.
The unnamed tributary (UT) of Beaver Creek within the study area is approximately 4.0
feet wide, with an average depth of 6 inches, and has a swift flow over sand-pebble
substrate. The unnamed tributary carries an increased sediment load from a ford crossing
and stormwater runoff from the bordering secondary dirt road.
WATER QUALITY
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point sources
and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on
published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These
data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet
human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa
richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There is no BMAN monitoring
station within the project area of Beaver Creek.
Point source and Nonpoint source dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers within the
project vicinity.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms
of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where
they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is
the most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides,
chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff
to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and
nutrients. Animal wastes can also be source of bacterial contamination and elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils enhances
the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (DEM, 1993).
Runoff from an adjacent farm path and ford crossing are examples of nonpoint source
dischargers within the project area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers
and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased .sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream activities
and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading can
further reduce impacts.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. These classifications follow
Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species that are
likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism
refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit is denoted in the
text with an asterisk (*).
Terrestrial communities
Descriptions of the two terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Terrestrial wildlife relationships are discussed after the two
terrestrial community descriptions.
DISTURBED ROADSIDE COMMUNITY
This community is located on both sides of SR 1130 and will be impacted by
alternatives 1 and 2. Because of mowing and the use of herbicides this community is
kept in a constant state of early succession. The ground cover of this community is
composed of several species of herbaceous grasses and weeds, such as: panic grass,
milkweed, ragweed, wood sorrel, red clover, thistle, plantain, vaseygrass, and bluegrass.
Vines that occupy these areas include, rose trumpet vine, Japanese honeysuckle, and
blackberry. Often, the duration between maintenance sessions of highway right-of-ways
is quite long, allowing time for larger herbaceous shrubs and woody vegetation to inhabit
this disturbed area. Some of these herbaceous shrubs and woody vegetation inhabiting
this disturbed community include: sycamore, hazelnut, black walnut, evening primrose,
and smooth sumac.
RIPARIAN FLOODPLAIN COMMUNITY
This community is on the east and west sides of Beaver Creek and borders the
areas adjacent to where the unnamed tributary joins the main creek channel, contiguous
with the disturbed roadside community. Species inhabiting the riparian floodplain
community include, jewelweed, hazelnut, yellow poplar, red maple, false nettle, panic
grass, Japanese honeysuckle, wingstem, virginia creeper, blackberry, elderberry,
knotweed, Japanese grass, black walnut, sycamore, ironwood, silky dogwood, yellowroot,
sedge, Christmas fern, eastern hemlock, redbud, milkweed, pokeberry, rush, tag alder,
and trumpet vine.
TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
The disturbed roadside and riparian floodplain communities adjacent to forested
tracts provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover.
Common birds associated with ecotones between these communities are ruby-crowned
kinglet, Carolina chickadee, bluebird, downy woodpecker, white-breasted nuthatch,
northern cardinal, ruby-throated hummingbird*, indigo bunting, yellow-billed cuckoo ,
blue jay, tuffed titmouse, acadian flycatcher, and mourning dove. The red-tailed hawk is
a major predator in this habitat, feeding on small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
Small mammals may inhabit these early successional habitats along forested
areas, roadsides, and streams for nesting and feeding. Some of these small mammals
include, woodchuck, white-footed mouse least shrew, southern short-tailed shrew, hispid
cottonrat, and eastern cottontail rabbit. Larger mammals may be present in these habitat
areas during the four seasons for foraging, feeding, watering, bedding, and mating
include: raccoon, white-tailed deer opossum, black bear eastern chipmunk eastern gray
squirrel, red squirrel red fox, and gray fox.
Reptiles and amphibians that may inhabit these community types include, queen
snake, black rat snake, copperhead, garter snake, american toad, Fowler's toad, fence
lizard, and five-lined skink.
Aquatic Community
This community consists of Beaver Creek and its unnamed tributary. Research
has shown that a large amount of food chain energy of stream communities is derived
from allochthonous (produced outside the river ecosystem) sources, in the form of
9
terrestrial detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks, etc.), and low velocity areas in the
river trap detritus within the river. The detritus is then decomposed by heterotrophic
microorganisms, such as bacteria and consumed by macroinvertebrates, such as aquatic
insects. In turn, the aquatic insects are then consumed by larger organisms. The amount
on allochthonous energy input within a river varies seasonally. Autochthonous (produced
within the river ecosystem) energy sources include planktonic and benthic micro and
macro algae as well as aquatic vascular vegetation. Fallen logs in the water offer an
attachment substrate for algae.
Aquatic insects found in this community include the water strider*, riffle beetle,
stonefly* (Plecoptera), cranefly, caddisfly* (Trichoptera), stream
mayfly*(Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly.
Aquatic insects found in this community may be eaten by gamefish and other
fishes that may occur in this aquatic habitat. Gamefish such as sunfishes, brook trout,
brown trout, and rainbow trout may occupy Beaver Creek. Other fishes, such as shiners,
golden shiners. eastern mosquitofish, darters, chubs, daces, and catfishes (Ictaluridae)
may occupy Beaver Creek and its tributaries, as well.
Several other animals representing all vertebrate classes are integral parts of the
aquatic system. The northern dusky salamander and the two-lined salamander may
occur under rocks and logs within the riverbed. Frogs, such as pickeral frog, southern
leopard frog , and bullfrog ( may occur in this habitat along stream banks feeding on
aquatic invertebrates. Other reptiles and amphibians occurring in this habitat feeding on
small fish and mussels, include, northern water snake and snapping turtle.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Permanent impacts are considered here, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 3 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are based on the entire
proposed right-of-way width of 80 feet. However, project construction often does not
require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Alternate l Alt -rate 2
Disturbed Roadside 0.10 0.41
Riparian Floodplain 0.11 0.08
Total Impacts 0.21 0.49
10
AQUATIC IMPACTS
Impacts to the aquatic community of Beaver Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 59. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance
of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and
the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in
the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring that may result from an increased
sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to Best
Management P, a; :ices (BMP's).
NATURAL RESOURCE RECOMMENDATION FOR ALTERNATES
Natural resource issues are considered during transportation improvement project
development. The alignment chosen will have variable impacts on natural resources.
From a natural resources perspective, alternate 1 has the least natural resource impacts.
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates that regulate
their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Probable jurisdictional wetland impacts will most
likely not be more than 0.04 acres. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated
based on the linear feet of the stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way.
Based on current information, project construction could possibly impact <80 linear feet
of jurisdictional Surface Waters of the United States.
PERMITS
A Section 6 permit will be required for the foundation investigations necessary on
this project. The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site
testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings
in streams and/or wetlands.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various
regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water resources
A section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
-department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. From a natural resources perspective,
alternate l is preferred.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) designates Wilkes
Count, as a trout county. A designated trout county contains waters that support natural
trout pi opagation and survival of stocked trout. Since the project location is located
within Wilkes County, the Section 404 permit is conditioned by concurrence with WRC.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, MITIGATION
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
12
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the Unit-d States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum ext-t
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of-
• More than 1.0 acres of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 150.0 linear feet of streams will require compensatory mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE;
although, compensatory mitigation is not expected due to limited impacts (i.e. <150 feet
of linear stream; <0.3 acres of wetlands).
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. The FWS lists one species as federally protected for Wilkes County, bog turtle
(Clemnys muhlenbergi). The bog turtle has been classified as T(S/A). T(S/A) denotes
Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance. T(S/A) species are not subject to
13
Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this species is not required;
although, a biological conclusion has been developed for this species in case of any
changes to its classification. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for this species along with a conclusion regarding potential project
construction impacts is as follows.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle)
Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: 01 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 3 to 4 inches in
length. It has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow
bio*_c;i can each .3,.::; of the head ^nd neck is a readily identif iable cha,acteristi.c. The hog
turtle inhabits damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western
Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In
June or July, three to five eggs, are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs
hatch in about 55 days.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
As of May 2, 1997, the southern subspecies of the bog turtle is listed as Proposed
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A) to the northern subspecies. T (S/A)
species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this
species is not required. However, suitable habitat, damp grassy fields, bogs and marshes,
is not present within the project area. The NCNHP database was checked on August 2,
1999 and there were no records of existing populations of bog turtle within the project
area; therefore, project construction will have no effect on bog turtles.
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the
status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration.
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition,
organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species
are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. There are three federal species of
concern listed by the FWS for Wilkes County. (Table 4)
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Wilkes
: - 5cie 'tifit T me common s'Name NC ..Status
abitat
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR YES
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR YES
14
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5 NO
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more
common elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W5"--A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its
habitat; populations may or may not be known to be declining.
(NHP, 1997)
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on August 2,
1999, showed no occurrences of rare species in the project study area. Surveys for FSC
species were not conducted during the site visit.
15
N
1130
1131
1 122 n,
2 7 1123
L C
. Li 1124
` • ?
1125
?. ?t, - 1 a/?rp! _ 1125 a 1212,
Grancrin
•` 1 125 - .) i 0 E a5 /
1552 d
ooo
1 o, / IP0// 1 t 26
i 0\' 1 t _C 15 5° 041, 1 129 t 127 'r ;, .?. J
1121-
1591 ? ,
1571 2 1554, ? ?' a ??
1598 , ? F ?S , , • 12? \
a 1
1558 j
5 ^.
.2 ?
f
n 1 °52 1700 ' ?X zrz
Hollow .?
• 5 rb ? 2 ' SOCK 9s •` l ,
1597
I ? I • HICKORY" KNOB I
? . ?y_.
1ii`o«. I
J I '
ti?(r Ix Mll Wlli•1`' I
' W ?I L E S G

i
i
I
f ',a North Carolina Department of
/•, Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Wilkes County
Replace Bridge No. 59 on SR 1130
Over Beaver Creek
B-3073
Figure One
Fovusai ???o

R j?f
k
{

??. u
r
Y t_?
r

A

}

G
n

z"Way C)
NS:

N
v
'lot
y U>
? C •" w 'p+ to ?, ?
s a G .C

? A a. w
I

o
w
s ,? o

w?u,r
Center of Bridge
Center of Bridge
FIGURE 3
If
Intersection of SR 1130 and SR 1129 facing N
t
fi
Intersection of SR 1130 and SR 1129 facing

'All

East Face of Bridge

Y

Cpj_
i i
1
1
f

{
k

t
c
i'
I, ? ? r
s w ST Ft.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 11, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 59 on SR 1130 over Beaver Creek,
Wilkes County, B-3073, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-1130(5), State Project 8.276110 1, ER
97-8336
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On April 1, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, Bridge 59 is the only structure over fifty
years of age in the project's area of potential effect. We recommend that an
architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the pony truss bridge for National
Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
This area just above Kerr Scott Lake has a high probability of containing
archaeological resources. We, therefore, recommend an archaeological survey be
conducted.
Having provided this information, we look forward to'receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigli, North Carolina 27601.2507 g?
L. Graf
Page 2
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.
Sin rely,
avid Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
vg. Church
T. Padgett
e ?` SUrr o
M
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August-7, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Metal Truss Bridge Evaluations
ER 98-7177
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1997, transmitting the metal truss bridge
evaluations for the above projects.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Avery #83. Bridge #83 is eligible under Criterion C because it is a
representative design of the Roanoke Bridge & Iron Company and is one of
few remaining Pratt pony truss bridges in the central mountain region of the
state.
Randolph #434. Bridge #434 is eligible under Criterion A for transportation
and Criterion C for design and engineering. Located at a major crossing over
Deep River, it was an important link on the early state highway system. Built
by the Atlantic Bridge Company of Greensboro, the bridge is one of only four
steel deck truss bridges in the state.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places:
Buncombe #653 and Haywood #246. These bridges are examples of the
relatively common Pratt through truss bridge, and lack special historical
significance.
Clay #27. Bridge #27 is an example of the relatively common, though locally
rare Pratt through truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Haywood #72. Bridge #72, built by the state in 1920, is an example of the
relatively common Warren pony truss bridge, and lacks special historical
significance.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 10Dn
'Nicholas L. Graf
8/7/97, Page 2
Haywood #374. Bridge #374, manufactured by the prolific York Bridge
Company in 1912, is an example of the relatively common Pratt pony truss
bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Henderson #6, Montgomery #119, and Randolph #226. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common, though locally rare, Pratt pony truss
bridge, and lack special historical significance.
McDowell #48, McDowell #281, and Randolph #123. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common, though locally rare, Warren pony truss
bridge, and lack special historical significance.
Rutherford #28. Bridge #28, manufactured by the Atlantic Bridge Company
of Charlotte in 1920, includes two spans of the relatively common Pratt
through truss bridge, and lacks special historical significance.
Haywood #13, Stokes #63, Surry #138, and Wilkes #59. These bridges are
examples of the relatively common Pratt pony truss bridge, and lack special
historical significance.
In general, the evaluations meet our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
v
Preservation Officer
cc: H.' F. Vick
-Church