20071307 Ver 1_Application_20070730

CF LEN
0~~~~` j+
V~
0~~~
~~ CAg
CfTY MANAGER
W. LANE BAILEY
CITY O F L E N O I R
MAYOR
DAVID W. BARLOW
NORTH C A R O L I N A
July 27, 2007
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
ATTENTION:
Dear Ms .Karoly:
CITY COUNCIL
J. L. GIBBONS
T H. PERDUE
M. F. PERRY
H. L. PRICE
T J. ROHR
D. F.STEVENS
M. O. STRAWN
X71307
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
SUBJECT: Section 404, Regional General Permit No. 198200031 Application for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 75 on Broadway Street (SR 1301)
over Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek, in Caldwell County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1115 (12), State Project No. 8.2732901,
TIP No. B-3933, WBS No. 33366.1.1
Please see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings and Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the subject project. The City of Lenoir proposes to replace the 40.5-foot
Bridge No. 75 in its existing location. The proposed structure will be a 55-foot, single span
cored slab bridge. The proposed bridge will provide a clear roadway width of 33 feet and an out
to out superstructure width of 36 feet. The roadway approaches will provide a 24-foot pavement
with two 12-foot lanes and curb and gutter will be added. Approach roadway work will extend
approximately 150 feet on each end of the proposed bridge. During construction, Broadway
Street will be closed at the site of the bridge crossing and traffic will be detoured onto existing
secondary roads. The anticipated start of construction is October 2007 with an estimated
completion time of 1 year.
Project impacts consist of the placement of approximately 64 feet of riprap on the banks of Blairs
Fork Creek for bank stabilization. There are no wetlands located on the project. No temporary
impacts will occur.
POST OFFICE BOX 958 • LENOIR, NORTH CAROLINA 28645-0958 • [phone]

IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Catawba River Basin (sub-bs Fork S ga3nhour) Creek has been the
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03050101. This section of Blai (p DW Blahs
assigned the Stream Index Number 11-39-3 by the Division of Water QualitYNo de~) ated High
Fork Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C by the DWQ. ~
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I or WS-Ii waters are
Quality Waters (HQW),
present within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Temporary Impacts: No temporary impacts will occur.
Permanent impacts: There will be 64 feet of linearThpam acBncludesrthe placemenlt of prap
the placement of riprap for stream bank protection p
on the,~aiiks of the west side of the bridge where 2 s h ~'~e ~ ~~ h~eae.,nit is not possible~tos
riprap is for erosion protection. Due to the topograp y , P J
outlet these ditches prior to entering the stream;dle fiomis o~urpmp is being placed along the
north end bent slope to protect the proposed bri g
Bridge Demolition: Existing Bridge No. 75 is approximately 40.5 feet long with a de surfadcthon
24 feet. The superstructure is composed of a steel plank floor with an asphalt wearing
steel I-beams. The substructure consists of timbe i hout dro immg badge ccomponents nto thee d
The existing badge can be removed in sections w t pP
stream. Bridge demolition activities will follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR).
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance measures were taken during the Planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
Avoidance/Minimization
• The bridge will be replaced at the existing location and anoff--site detour will be used
eliminating the need for a temporary crossing.
• The proposed bridge will span the stream and no bents will be constructed in the water.
• Bridge demolition activities will follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR).
• NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
followed during the construction of this project.
Mitigation
Mitigation is not proposed due to the minor amount of impacts associated with this propose
project.
2

REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: A request is hereby submitted to the Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers for Regional General Permit No. 198200031, issued under Section 404 of the CWA,
authorizing the above-described activities.
Section 401 Permit: We also request a 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3627 from
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). We are hereby submitting 5 copies of this application to the DWQ for their
certification.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. if you have any questions or need additional
inform.~tian, please contact me at [phone] or ckbeck a,ci.lenoir.nc.us.
Sincerely,
C'~.~,
Charles Beck
City of Lenoir, Director of Public Works
cc w/attachments:
Ms. Amanda Jones , USACOE
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 0 0 7 1 3 0 7
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: RGP 198200031
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ^
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Charles Beck, Public Works Director City of Lenoir
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 958
Lenoir, North Carolina 28645
Telephone Number: 828-757-2183 Fax Number: 828-757-2112
E-mail Address: ckbeckna,ci.lenoir.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: William T. Stephens Jr. P.E.
Company Affiliation: TGS Engineers
Mailing Address: 975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Telephone Number: 919-319-8850 Fax Number: 919-319-6999
E-mail Address: bstephens ,tgsen~ineers.com
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
2
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of bridge No. 75 on Broadway St. over Blairs Fork Creek
T.LP. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only):.
B-3933
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Caldwell Nearest Town: City of Lenoir
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Project is located on
Broadway Street (SR 1301) approximately 0.2 miles north of junction with Creekway Drive
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.9164 °N 81.5573 °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek
8. River Basin: Catawba River Basin
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Land use in the project area consist of residential
development and forested land.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of bride No. 75 at the existing location with rip rap on the stream banks
Heave roadway construction equipment will be used such as trucks excavators dozers
cranes, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a deteriorating and structurally
deficient bride.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Jurisdictional impacts include
placing rip rap on approximately 64 ft of stream bank for bank stabilization
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
senarately list impacts rlne to tenth ctnictnre and flnnrlina
Wetland Im act
P
Site Number
(indicate on map)

Type of Impact T
ype of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) vLocated within
I00-year
Floodplain

( es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream

(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage mnltinly length X ~x,;~Ith than r~ivi~7a by d2 S~(1
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on ma)
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Im act Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres
I Blairs Fork Creek Bank Stabilization Perennial 25 ft 64 0.038

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 64 0.038
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill. excavatinn_ dredging- flnnrlincr rlrainaae hnllrhaarlc ata
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) ...

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8

6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resultinP from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.038 /
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.038
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 64
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. NCDOT's Best Mana ement
Practices (BMP's) for the protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge Demolition
Proposed Bride will span creek. (Also see attached cover letter)
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8

USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No mitigation proposed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 6 of 8

IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multinliers.
Zone* Impact Multiplier Required
(square feet) Mitigation
I I 1 3 (2 for Catawba) I I
2 I l.s
Total I I
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 1 SA NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260.
No mitigation required.
Page 7 of 8

XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.
Approximately the same as current conditions
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
In kind replacement of existing bridge.
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
~~
_~ ~ Q
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

NORTH CAROLINA
.: -
_.
~} t •p
~ '
. Y I]
~~ ~ i` ,ti -
e~ ~s }.~
~~ ,~ ~S
°__~--~
r`~(
~ ~~ .~
r~
~ 2
~ Y~~y
I
I t
321 ~~
~ 68 ~
i
i
~ 18 ~
:~~ gp ~
`- ~
~ ~
. `~ ~
~ ~
SITE ' LENOIR ti
~~ ea ;
.~
64 321
~ ~
~`~ ~ 321 ~
A
~ ~
,~. ICKORY f
_• l_ ~
`. .'-
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 Miles
CITY OF LENOIR
PROJECT: B-3933
VICINITY CALDWELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.75
MAP OVER BLAIRS FORK CREEK ON
BROADWAY STREET
SHEET 1 OF 7 JULY 200'7

(1 `-~ ~_,\ '~\`~ ,' ~.~ I . \ ;~~~ x.11 • . ti~ ' • `D
f '
Y . .` ~ti'^,~-~ ~~ n ) ~ (.'t N %/ /•..... 11• C\ \ \ I: ~ FYI / • f • - --- ``'\~',~ •• + "''S ^r
`lam ~ ` ~ I ~+•~ (• • ' j ~ i ` • r , ~ I h1'. . ~
~ \ `'fit f '/ ~ ~J~ .~-- ~~ ~ I + ~ ~ s l / i;
~ tl ~,:1 i ~ i '' _ i tt ~t,
°~~ '. V j j~ ~ ` ~ ~ ' O ~j
.. i Ir t
~ ~,, .,.
.. '\~ ' ~'~` ~~ '~/~"I. Y~~ ` .w, ~~rll zap;j~.
. „~ ,
.,~, ~ ~, s . ~ , ,j , . ~ ~ r' ~ ' ~, p i =~ ~'
i \.. \J ,.
1Y 1 L•~1'~ ~-•~ I _ J~V {ICI ~~~1 '~.
0 o.as o.s ~i~
SITE MAP
~~
~'~',~c
.•
1_
CITY OF LENOIR
PROJECT: B-3933
CALDWELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.75
OVER BLAIRS FORK CREEK ON
BROADWAY STREET
SI~ET 2 OF 7 JULY 2007

6
3
6
'3
~sx~rsSVSTiME~~r~:x
7;~;~5~5~~~S2Lti£Sy:UL'N~ti!68~~x44:~~:$4~xS
// ~/
I ~ // /
/ I ~ // // /
/ ~ / I
k ~ / / ~m / r /O~
IJ / ~ //I
x y / m 2 /I O
p ~ l < I
rr
X~ ~ ~ li $ O l~l.
m ~ / G Q // ~ v /~
...~ j Z / ~ ~ ~ //
% ~ /~j N ~
II N ~+ ~j ~_ //~ ~~,qw` m ~~~
O ~ CD v l/ 'Y llI
TZ B ~
./
° CD1~ ~ °` mm / ~ iq~, ~o ' l ~ ~ cn~~lr~op~
mN
my + wn c~ Z rn11 11 II II II~
~- o-, "~~ / II bN q
N / 1 fil ~~w
~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ ~a ~
a`y ~ ~ 0 2 io '~ cam,
D om l
^ ~ / ~~ ~ I
l , `57p75"OOZE ~~ ~ / I N+
i I
v ~~ CVO N Q° 04 ~ ~/ ~ "'+ Ri+ ~ y
C Om F Pm ' Pt 8`
m° ~x8 t ~$ ml I ~ i i I ~ ~ ~s ass ~ /~ .
y
~ ~W 8 ~ ~~ I I
5.0 ~ m~; ~ gM
ii
I

v
~ _ x I $
U~ ~~ ~ a 4~ a n
~ r ~ T $'v g? v ~ { L ~ ~ u
mi<
z
n ~ r8= I
-' ~ s n

N v~

° o
N~ZO

~ ~
~

~ x. \~
n
T W ° o
~ ~ -
l~ / ~~
/ / tim Ir I ~~ 8~
H
Z Z --- ---
C
Fli ~ pp
G _O So
O o ~~3
O ~+N ~
P P
- Z m

-
P
$g
._...- __.__.._ ..
~ $
~
~oL 9 ~
/ Q ~
mmm /

j ~ HS I ONB
CHG''EK ~ ~ ~~
~
m +
a
I 1

~ 'O
4
l 1 _ ~-~~ -- ~ o m ~~ ~
~ ° ~ rn
__ --- ---

rn ~
~ _
k____
~
o
rn
~ _. __.. . __
fJ
z G„ \ !
v ~~J~
\ I pv SS
'A ~, +

~fi
~ ~
~
u
8
m

r/ • ~n~rm
~

~~

rr ~
~~

~ ~
~'
8
s
C N m ~ D
O -1 d_- Noy,
a' 1
z \ 2
r \ ~.
i +
~.~
w ~ + + . o. \ c ` \Z \
_ ,I
T ~ UI 00
-I - N
Z
n
^ u
rn
rn
_. _ _ __
iF
~o
rn rn
~N m
_ (7 N_
O Z
m
(I1
~n ~
~ ~ T
~_
r O
nZ ~
C
m
Dp
c- o
mm rn
v-
mm mT
N 3 N
~s ~~
w~ a~
P (v Q -~
+ +
< ~ < 8
i
0 0
s s
N
N O
0 0
r r
P
~v
Nm~
2
mN
~o
;~
°f -ai o ~ D
~~ ~
O~ D
a ~~ ~ ~ r=
ny
mm fTl
~ 2
J ~ -D{
q ~~
or
O
O
O
m
A

Z
0
m
C
Z r
mr
~~
om
~ N
2 =
fT1 D
~r
~r
m im
z
o~
mD
oN
m 2 ~ Q~ Q~ \\~~O .~
i L
a ~ O ~
~ D O O tr
p
0
O r_
~ A
p~ D
S7B •58'44• ~cC
38.50'
o ~ ~y~~
m c~
minm ~ m ~~m
1 D < ~ N ; ~A~B dr4 Om ~°~ ~(y3~
~ <~09~ ><NOp
~ W d .' 9 D % P ti y S O m
Q1 N ~O -1 ~ N f1 b m E
~ a ~
~ N =
y ~ N
mm
~~
Z~

O ~
~ a
r
~
~ ;~
\ ~~~

~ o D ~
+r
+
° ~ ° D
c
n o~
r
~ ~ N
~ ~
om~
O mo
1
y Q W ~ * Q =
~ s
~ U1 N O
o0
to TTO
~ +
+ T
~
F
~ NT
O
m
i
O +
S
~ +
m T
N O
a~
ip
N
O
c~z
,O O
C C
no
- r
D
~~Q
o~m
+ D -I
r D
o --- o
~,<~
0
man
1} ~
Q7 TI x
~, q
O
T -
~o
T
:b Nr
0=
m

i
I
y
N
O +
m p
m 0
m ~
N
U
O
i
-i
~~
tJ N
++
O O
++
~~
=i =1
~o ,o
Z I
~0 / ~
s~ m ~
33d~ ~tl0 / a ~ 0
/ y ~~
" r
~ ~
~ ~
on ~

~y~~ ~
~ e2
OA
-i

i
pwm ~
~
v= N
O
~
yy
K D ~ v
1InL
Z°uZi ~° '~
n ~ D
O
°o
°1 r
a D
0

H
m
!~I V + m
O
7~ w o
A
D
-i
_
~g$L
~ z
-1.1-._-__ _..
_____
/ 8g s8 ,' ~ ~~
I ~
\ ~ ~~
s F
j i
^ ~
J4~
G
o +
V
$
~

l
/
_
m ~ f
y
~ ~ v ~
O
~
G ON OR ~
,~~.~ ~d0
A'
\ yd y
'~
\ ~

- B3tl ~~
. ~ ~-V~J ,-
,~,_, , ~
/
a
_~
dz
m~
v~
~T
Oy
Os
c°
n
r
D
\'V
_m0
oDm
~ ~r ~
? +~ n D
V7
o r^ D
m ~
} ~
Qms ~1 Q =
7
UIN•
O O
,,-T+ o
T
± N'~1
o°-
m
ti
m
°°
°, a-
r m?

_~
~
J
m ~
,,D~
= m
F'- ~ D -I
^! o D
a N~r
v°
~ °-D
m
~
a i
Z
T
N `
m
Z
-~
M.Bb~9C•B8N_~~ ~-- I
v
~\ /~
~
~~ /
~\ ~ ~ O
\\ Q
~ ~(~ I

~m ~~1
\\ \ ~S- \
~~s \ 2 ~ D
~'°m

~~~\ I~~
`\V
\ '~
~ \~
\ \ ,. _
L
.
am
\ \\\
~ \ \ V\ \
/~
/, ~ /
//
i ~
S~ 8~
°o sr
~~
m b m
o C'
P ~ 0
E ~ o
~ ^1
~ Fro~I y ~www.....III
C
u
;~ O~
i~
0
g o
i K ~I ~
p~~w~
==wm
Z O
K O
Z
O
Z ~ m
Pul ~ O

3
3
~_
s S$~4SaSYSTIMEE$s8S
$S$SS$S$SSSS~SSSDGNSSSS~$$$SSS$sssS
i
5/
28/99
r
O

~
~ n Qgg~~~~~~
rn
~ ~~~rn
rn

~ ~
ixxcD
o
rn ~
~
~ ~~~~
''~
~a n
ic~~
p
c ~c2
~"~~Z m~ c5
a i
rn
~
~ rn~,o~x~
~
m
~
~
~ ~rn~~~rn
~
~ ~
y~zi a rn0
rn
x

2~rn
C

n
II II II II II II II II II 11 II
O
' '~'~ w
~„b
~
~
\~~
~~~~~ n
~ ~
TT
~
i~y~N~
~Nh~t

IJ

J
W
~
°
°
p Z
~ r

N
rn~`C
-~D
~
,,
~
O~ _, .p rn
~W~m
o` -f• ~ <
"~
~
tn
II
70`0
'~ cn m .~
~
O
N ,p

N

~ N
V

O
A

N ~
TI
"' O m
N 7o N
_
~
rn
Z
~ ~

n ~ ~
~ X
-
0 r
~
v C'1
7 -I ~ i i
C
~
r ~
<Z
~
~
Cm o
~
o

Z rnA £
s~ $~ z ~ ~
/~ ~ ' AN ~ ~
0 xC
~ ~ro s Z w
~
~ m
~
~ ~ o
a
~ ~~
2b =
r ~ ~a
~
Fy r!
~ ~ ~
~`"
y
~ z~

~ An
~
~ =
~
z
O

0
0
N

7
K ~
W
g~
m N
M ~ Q
o~ 03

zOm ~o
J~ zm
IL
W 2
D ~ D Y
U U a m W

U U
gY
~
a
A
0
~ LL LL
0
m
W
w
x

~ ~ c
m .m
7 N ~ ~
m
~.
Z lq ~
C C U O-
N m d ~ ~
~ X L
~ ~
V W U

a

~ c
rna~Na~
C C U G
:... C m m ~
y m o
W . ~
w U ~
Q a

W

V w
0_ U U
~ ~ n
m
~ ~ v
U

~- C N

N~ N U
OD
M
pp
M
~ ~ ~ n m c o
Q °' E o
~ a
~ ~°
=
_
N ~
L ~ L m
U CJ

~ ~
m
~
U
a
m ~ -~
`°'~
~ m m
U
c6 _
_
N m
U O
~' >
N N >
C ~ C
U
a c m
o~
W j ~ U

~ m 2u~ m
X J
Z W C
g ~
~
"`
w 3 m
U
~ ~ m
N
F C
C V1

"O
C
m
m ~
_
>
N
a
J
C W Q
~ K ~
D ~
U N V m
~ ~ ~ m
g
r W

O O
h
O ~ A
~~ ~
O t
N
~ ~
J
°~ o
In Z

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
1
GARY CALVIN WOOTEN AND
LYNN PORTER WOOTEN
1009 MIDLOTHIAN TPg
RICHMOND VA 23235
2
P B REALTY, INC., A NORTH
CAROLINA CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 500
LENOIR, NC 2865
CITY ®F LEN®IId
CALDWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: B-3933
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.75
OVER BLAIRS FORg CREEg ON
BROADWAY STREET

City of Lenoir
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 75 on Broadway Street
over Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1115(12)
State Project No.8.2732901
WBS No. 33366.1.1
T.LP. No. B-3933
COPY
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION - '
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
;`l ~
:°
D~TE ~~'~"'Ciregory J. Thorpe, PhD ~t~
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
.Ia ~3 a~ ~
A //''' John F. Sullivan III, Division Adminis
dTY Federal Highway Administration

City of Lenoir
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 75 on Broadway Street
over Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1115(12)
State Project No.8.2732901
WBS No. 33366.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3933
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2006
Documentation Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, NC 27511
~«
~g 1y1~. i!'.
si go '~ii > ~
s ~~:~"
® ~ ..,r .~
~. ,,, 9s ~, ~ J. enneth Burleson, PE
°r~'~^ "=e ~~l i'~ X09" ~~, ~~>" Head of Planning and Environmental Services
~~ t% ®•a~oea~~ ,,~,,~
~z ~'~~t3e~„~E ~~.y~~_a.v.
'.'f ,
/Z / O ~
ate
Charles Beck, Public Works Director, City of Lenoir D e

City of Lenoir
Caldwell County
Bridge No. 75 on Broadway Street
over Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1115(12)
State Project No.8.2732901
T.LP. No. B-3933
INTRODUCTION:
The replacement of Bridge No. 75 in Caldwell County is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the
Highway Bridge Replacement Program (BRP). The location of this bridge is shown in Figure 1. On
the basis of the planning and environmental studies, it was determined that this project will have a
minimal effect upon the quality of both the human and natural environments. The proposed project
along existing Broadway Street will cause no changes in route classification. Since no substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated, the proj ect is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Bridge Maintenance Unit
records indicate the existing Caldwell County Bridge No. 75 has a sufficiency rating of 20.6
compared to a possible 100. This bridge is considered structurally deficient due to a
structural appraisal of 2 out of a possible 9 according to Federal Highway Administration
Standards. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Caldwell County Bridge No. 75 is a one-span, 40.5-foot steel beam structure supported by
a timber substructure. The structure has a 24-foot clear roadway width between curbs. There
are_ no sidewalks present on the structure. The current posted weight limit on the structure
is 18 tons for all vehicles.
Broadway Street, is designated as an Urban Local Route in the NC Statewide Functional
Classification System. The existing approaches to the structure have a 22-foot paved width.
Broadway Street currently serves approximately 1600 vehicles per day (vpd) and is estimated
to serve approximately 3000 vpd by the year 2025. The daily traffic volumes include
approximately 2 percent dual-tired trucks (DTI) and 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers
(TTST). The posted speed limit along Broadway Street in the vicinity of the project is 35
miles per hour. Two damage-only accidents have been reported in the vicinity of the subject
crossing in the past three years. Three school buses cross Bridge No. 75 in the morning and
again in the afternoon.

The existing land use along Broadway Street is residential. Homes are located to the
northwest and the northeast of the bridge. Numerous industries and businesses are located
to the west of Bridge No. 75. The zoning within the area is regulated by the City of Lenoir.
The area northeast of the bridge is zoned for R-6 (Multi Family Dwelling). The area
southeast of the bridge iszoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and the area west of the bridge is zoned
R-12 (Single Family Residence).
Blairs Fork Creek is also mapped as Spainhour Creek and is part of the Catawba River
Drainage Basin. At the crossing the creek carries a Class C best usage classification
indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture (NC-DENR). The creek channel ranges in width from 10 feet to
30 feet wide.
There are currently no utilities attached to the existing structure. Power lines are overhead
along the west side of Broadway Street.
At the subject crossing, Blairs Fork (Spainhour Creek) has a drainage area of approximately
8.4 square miles. The creek is in a FEMA Flood Hazard Zone and in a detailed FEMA Flood
Insurance study. The flood study indicates a peak discharge of approximately 4980 cubic feet
per second at an elevation of 1098.0 feet for the 100-year flood at the subject crossing.
III. ALTERNATIVES- .
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 55 feet long and 36 feet
wide. The replacement structure will be a one span prestressed concrete cored slab
deck on concrete abutments. A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard above the 50-year
flood elevation should be provided. This structure will provide two lanes with a clear
roadway width of 33 feet.
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The
final design of the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach
beyond the current 100-year flood plain limits. The length of the new structure may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by
further hydrologic studies.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two alternatives considered for replacing Caldwell County Bridge No. 75. are
described below.
2

Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure in its existing location with a
temporary on-site detour. A detour to the east presents a conflict with a residential
driveway located just southeast of the structure. A detour to the west of the structure
would improve horizontal roadway alignment. However, it would increase the
impacts on the home at the northwest corner of the structure and would likely get into
a monitoring well on the northwest corner. This alternative was rejected due to the
added cost of construction for the detour structure.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure in its existing
location using anoff-site detour to maintain traffic. No change in the roadway grade
of the new structure is anticipated. Roadway improvements will be needed for
approximately 150 feet north and -150 feet south of the existing bridge. Although a
40 mph design speed is desirable, the obtainable design speed is 25 mph which is
consistent with the remainder of the route. The recommended detour route follows
Broadway Street, German Street, Meadowlane Drive, and Creekway Drive. This
detour is approximately one mile long. The culvert on Meadowlane Drive is not
posted.
C. Alternatives Eli~[ninated from Further Study
The "do-nothing" or no-build alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the
bridge due to the .deteriorated condition. Closure of this bridge is not desirable as
Broadway Street provides access to many residences.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Both alternatives considered for this project replace the crossing at the existing
location. The recommended alternative for the proposed project is Alternate 2,
replacing the structure in its existing location and providing anoff--site detour to
maintain traffic (see Figure 2). This alternative was chosen because it is the least
costly, has the least affect upon the human and natural environment, and maintains
traffic during the construction process. Caldwell County EMS and Caldwell County
Schools have indicated the proposed off-site detour is acceptable.

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on 2006 prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Structure $193,000 $193,000
Roadway Approaches 138,000 138,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 205,000 N/A
Structure Removal 33,000 15,000
Misc. & Mob. _ 35,000 35,000
Eng. & Contingencies (15%) 88,000 57,000
Total Con~tr'nctto~ Cost- s?'" 4: ~ti$b ,000 $438,000
Right-of-way Costs ~ 10,000 5,000
Total" ~ 4.]~~~a~t ~~ ,.~ p. ..~'~ ${ 0000 t k $43,000`
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
ESI (Environmental Services, Inc.) has conducted a jurisdictional wetland delineation
and a N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records review for the proposed
replacement of Caldwell County Bridge No. 75 on Broadway Street over Blairs Fork
(Spainhour) Creek, located in the City of Lenoir, North Carolina. The project study
area is centered on Blairs Fork Creek (also mapped as Spainhour Creek). The area
was delineated based on a approximately 200-foot by 600-foot project study area
(100 feet upstream and downstream and 300 feet north and south of the bridge).
The project study area was reviewed on April 21, 2005 by an ESI biologist. Prior to
the initiation of field efforts, available resources were reviewed, including the
appropriate U.S. Geological Survey (IJSGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles
[Lenoir, NC (1993)], and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil
mapping (Caldwell County). On June 27, 2005 ESI conducted anNHP record review
for the project study area to determine if any state or federally listed threatened or
endangered species were documented in or within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
4

B. Physiography and soils
Soils within the project study area did not exhibit hydric characteristics. (Mansell
color 2.SYR 4/4). Vegetation across the project study area varied in composition,
ranging from maintained residential yards and maintained roadside rights-of--way to
mature hardwood forest. Overall, vegetation was not strongly hydrophytic in nature.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-31 within the Catawba
River Basin (DWQ 199'n. This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit
03050101. The bridge targeted for replacement spans Blairs Fork
(Spainhour) Creek with no direct involvement of additional streams or
tributaries. This section of Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek has been assigned
Stream Index Number 11-39-3 by DWQ (1999).
2. Stream Characteristics
The - stream ~ channel is an incised, bed-arid-bank system with no attached
flood plain or adjacent wetland systems. The channel ranges in width from
10 to 30 feet. Bank heights range from 6 to 8 feet. Both banks of Blairs Fork
(Spainhour) Creek are failing downstream of the bridge. During evaluation,
the channel exhibits moderate, clear flow. The channel bottom consisted of
unconsolidated sands with scattered gravel.
3. Anticipated Impacts
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State ofNorth Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of
streams in the basin. A best usage classification of C has been assigned to
Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek (DWQ 1999). The designation C denotes that
appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers
to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis. No
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I
or WS-II waters are present withing 1.0 mile upstream or downstream of the
project study area.
The project study area is located within the Catawba River Drainage Basin.
The Catawba Riparian Buffer Rules (Buffer Rules) apply to a 50-foot wide
5

riparian buffer directly adjacent to the main stem of the Catawba River,
downstream from Lake James. The buffer Rules do not apply to Blairs Fork
(Spainhour) Creek.
The DW Q (previously known as the Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section ~DEM~) has initiated awhole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for
the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Catawba River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 1997). Blahs Fork (Spainhour)
Creek has a biological rating of Pair. The Biological Rating is based on
macro-invertebrate sampling in the system. Blahs Fork (Spainhour) Creek
is rated as Impaired.
D. Biotic Resources
The living systems described in the following sections include communities of
associated plants and animals in the project study area. Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species
described. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observation,
evaluations of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
1. Plant Communities
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project
study area reflect landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology,
and past or present land use practices. Development and other disturbances
have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. Three community types were
identified within the proj ect study area: Maintained/Disturbed, Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest, and Piedmont Levee Forest.
Maintained/Disturbed Lands include those areas dominated by
anthropogenic forces. Within the project study area, these areas include
maintained sewer line easements and roadside rights-of--way, as well as
residential yards. Ornamental tree and shrub species are present within the
residential yards. Vegetation within the existing right-of way consists of
various grasses and shrubs.
As elevations increase in wooded areas of the northeast and southeast
quadrants, with increased distance from the bridge, canopy species include
white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra var. borealis),
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), beech
(Fagusgrandifolia),aad short-leafpine (Pinus echinata). Subcanopy species
include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca),
6

and saplings of canopy species. A diverse assortment of vines includes
poison ivy, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle, and
greenbrier (Smilax glauca).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest includes the forested areas located east of
the existing road. Vegetation within this community includes mature
northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and American beech (Fagus grandfolia),
with scattered tulip poplar (Lirodendron tulipifera), iron wood (Carpinus
caroliniana), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and box elder (Ater negundo).
Understory vegetation ranged in density from thick to absent, and was
comprised ofwild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum
pubescens), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and dog hobble
(Leucothoe axillaris).
Piedmont Levee Forest includes the area located within the abandoned flood
plain/levee associated with Spainhour Creek southeast of the bridge. This
community is in degraded condition. Vegetation within this community
includes river birch (Betula nigra), box elder, American sycamore (Platanus
occidental is), and green ash (Fraxinus americana). Midstory vegetation was
generally thick, with sapling sized specimens of overstory species as well as
areas of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multi-flora rose (Rosa
multiflora).- Understory vegetation consisted of wingstem (Verbesina
alternifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
2. Wildlife
The project-study area is located within a generally urban area; however,
large forested areas are present within the project vicinity. However, due to
the close proximity of Broadway Street and residential areas, there is little
habitat present within the project study area for forest interior species.
No mammal sightings were documented within the proj ect study area during
the field review. Species expected to utilize habitat within the project study
area are the conspicuous larger and medium-sized species that have wide
habitat tolerances and commonly occur in anthropogenic landscapes, such as
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Smaller mammals expected to utilize habitat within the project study area
include insectivores such as southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) and least
shrew (Cryptotis parva).
7

Bird species documented in the project study area are typical of maintained
and disturbed areas of North Carolina. Bird species observed within the
project study area include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), tufted
titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia).
Other bird species expected to occur within the project study area include
disturbance-adapted species such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura),
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area. Common
reptiles expected to occur within the project study area include species
occurring in disturbed habitats, such as eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) and black racer (Coluber constrictor). Common terrestrial or
arboreal amphibians expected to occur within the project study area include
green frog (Rana clamitans), American toad (Bufo americanus), and spring
peeper (Hyla cruder).
Spainhour Creek is not expected to support a diverse fish community. No
fish species were observed during the field investigation. No .fisheries
sampling information is available for Spainhour Creek. Expected species
within Spainhour Creek include bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus).
E. Special Topics
1. 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
(CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that
are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions.
Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
2. Surface Waters
The NCDWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that
contains water for the majority of the year. These channels usually have
8

some or all of the following characteristics: distinctive stream bed and bank,
aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge (NCDWQ, 1998). Blairs
Fork (Spainhour) Creek is a perennial stream system.
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams
The project study area was reviewed to determine the presence or absence of
jurisdictional wetland areas usingthethree-parameter approach (hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of jurisdictional hydrology) as outlined
by the U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers (USACE). Jurisdictional surface
waters (streams) were identified using N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) and USACE standards.
Based on this approach, the project study area contains no jurisdictional
wetlands system and one jurisdictional stream channel.
The jurisdictional stream channel flows in a southwest direction through the
project study azea towards its confluence with Lower Creek. A review of
active NPDES permits (review date July 1, 2005) indicates no permitted
discharges are located on Blairs Fork (Spainhour) Creek.
The stream was delineated and located.with GPS equipment meeting NCDOT
specifications for jurisdictional mapping.
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly
follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMPs-BDR).
4. Permit Requirements
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (LJSEPA) is the principal
administrative agency of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps Of
Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementation, permitting,
and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330. Permits will be required for highway
encroachment into jurisdictional wetland communities and surface waters.
The Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for approved Categorical Exclusions
is expected to be applicable for all impacts to "Waters of the United States"
resulting from the proposed project.
In addition, a Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC #2745)
is also required for any activity which may result in a discharge into "Waters
of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal permit or license
9

is issued. If foundation test borings are necessary, a General 401
Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 will be required.
Certifications are administered through the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Water Quality.
A no-rise certification will be required as the structure crosses a FEMA
regulated stream. The existing structure is predicted to overtop during a 100
year storm.
5. 1Vlitigation
Since there are no wetlands in the proj ect area, wetland mitigation will not be
required by the USACE. Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than
150 feet is generally not required by the USACE or NCDWQ. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACE and
NCDWQ.
The Jurisdictional Areas Map, soils map, Routine Wetland Data Forms, and
site photographs were reviewed. by the USACE to determine if a site review
would be necessary to confirm the delineation effort. The USACE verified
the delineation effort on July 28, 2005.
The bridge demolition activities associated with this replacement will strictly
follow NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (BMPs-BDR). Assuming the worst-case scenario that all spans over
water are potential discharge, removal of the existing bridge span could
potentially drop a maximum of 72 cubic yards of fill into the creek. The
proposed project falls under Case 3 of the BMPs-BDR. There are no special
restrictions on bridge demolition activities associated with this project
beyond those outlined in BMPs-PSW and BMPs-BDR
F. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline
either due to natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and
protected species listed for Caldwell County, and any likely impacts to these species
as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following
sections.
1. Federal (Threatened, Endangered)
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
10

under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service list five
federally protected species for Caldwell County as of April 27, 2006. These
species are listed in the following table.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES CALDWELL COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status
Microhexura monitvaga Spruce-fir moss spider Endangered
Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii
- Bog turtle Threatened
(S/A)
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star Threatened
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Threatened
NOTES: Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
Species: Microhexura monitvaga (Spruce-fir moss spider)
The spruce-fir moss spider is a small spider known only from Fraser fir and
red spruce forest communities of the highest elevations of the southern
Appalachian Mountains in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.
The typical habitat of this spider is found in damp, but well drained, moss
mats growing on rock outcrops and boulders in well shaded situations within
these forests.
High elevation habitats are not present in the lower elevations of the project
study area. Potentially suitable habitat for this species is not present within
the project study area. NHP records do not record any known occurrences of
this species within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
11

Species: Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus (Virginia big-eared bat)
The Virginia big-eared bats are so rare, little is known about their biology.
However, much is known about the species in other parts of its range. In parts
of its range, this species occupies buildings in summer. In the eastern U.S.,
with rare exception, it has been reported only from caves during summer and
winter. Virginia big-eared bats hibernate in caves (sometimes mines) where
the temperature is 54 degrees F or less but generally above freezing. Cave
hibernation sites are often near entrances in well-ventilated areas. If
temperatures near entrances become too extreme, they move to more
thermally stable parts of the cave. They hibernate in tight clusters of a few to
a hundred or more individuals. During hibernation, the long ears may be erect
or coiled. Solitary bats sometimes hang by only one foot. Virginia big-eared
bat maternity colonies aze usually located in relatively warm parts of caves.
During the maternity period, males are apparently solitary. Where most males
spend the summer is unknown.
NHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of this species
within 3.0 miles of the prof ect study area. Potentially suitable habitat for this
species, consisting of caves or mine entrances, is not present within the
project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Species: Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle)
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to
4 inches. This otherwisedarkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the
presence of a bright yellow, orange or red blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually
in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow
streams over soft bottoms. The bog turtle has declined drastically within the
northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat alteration. As
a result, the USFWS listed the bog turtle as threatened within the northern
portion of its range, and within. the southern portion of its range, which
includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance [T(S/A)] to the northern population. The listing
allows incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from
otherwise lawful activity. T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7
consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. Field surveys for the
bog turtle are not typically requested by the USFWS in North Carolina as a
permit requirement since the species is listed as T(S/A).
12

NHP records do not indicate any documented occurrences of this species
within 3.0 miles of the prof ect study area. Potentially suitable habitat for this
species, consisting of bog areas, is not present within the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Species: Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star)
Heller's blazing star is distinguished by its spike of lavender flowers on one
or more erect stems (max.16 inches) arising from a tuft of narrow pale green
basal leaves. Habitat for this species includes high elevation ledges of rock
outcrops and cliffs in shallow acid soils with exposure to full sun.
High elevation habitats are not present in the lower elevations of the project
study area. Potentially suitable habitat for this species is not present within
the project study area. NHP records do not record any known occurrences of
this species within 3.0 mils of the project study area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Species: Hexastylisnaniflora~(dwarfflowered~heartleaf)
Dwarf-flowered hearkleaf has the smallest flower of any North American
member of this genus. Habitat for this species includes acidic sandy loam
soils along bluffs and nearby slopes with a generally northern aspect, hillsides
and ravines, and in boggy areas adjacent to creekbeds and streams. This
species needs abundant sunlight in early spring for maximum flowering and
seed production. NHP records indicate that a known occurrence of the
species is approximately 2.0 miles northwest of the project study area. The
project study area contains several slopes with mature forest that may be
considered potentially suitable habitat for this species. Visual surveys were
conducted by an ESI biologist familiar with this species within the forested
areas to determine the presence of any member of the genus Hexastylis.
Scatteredindividuals ofarrow-leaf (Hexastylis arifolia) were noted. Arrow-
leaf has a distinctive leaf shape which is clearly distinguishable from the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf. No other individual of Hexastylis were noted
within the project study area.
Based on finding no dwarf-flowered heartleaf individuals or any other
unidentified Hexastylis within the proj ect study area with leaf shapes similar
in appearance to dwarf-flowered heartleaf, this species is presumed to not be
present within the project study area.
13

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Z. Federal (Species of Concern)
The USFWS indicates seventeen (17) Federal Species of Concern (FSC) have
ranges known to extend into Caldwell County. FSC species receive no
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, unless
officially proposed for listing as Endangered or Threatened. NHP records do
not indicate the presence of any known occurrence of any Federal Species of
Concern within 3.0 miles of the project study area.
VL CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford
the Advisory Council a reasonable opporhznity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The existing steel and timber structure was constructed in 1970. In a letter dated
August 9, 2005, the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State
Historical Preservation Office (HPO), stated that they had determined that the
proposed project will not affect any historic structures.
C. Arc~aeoiogy
After reviewing the project, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) stated in
a letter dated August 9, 2005 that they are aware of no properties of archaeological
significance with the project area.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic.operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
14

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation
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 the construction of the project.
No apparent environmental impacts from Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities were
identified within the project area. The Geographical Information Service (GIS) shows that
no apparent regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur withing the project limits.
Based on the GIS search and field reconnaissance, no apparent RCRA or CERCLA sites
were identified within the project limits.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of--way acquisition will
be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance
in the areas being utilized by the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct
conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
The project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effect on any minority or low-income population.
The project is located in Caldwell County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR 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.
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 does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. There are nopublicly-owned
parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, State, or local
significance in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
VIII. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
There are no areas of controversy present with the implementation of the project.
15

IX. AGENCY COMIVVIENTS
United States Department of the Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment:
To Comply with the MBTA (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) we recommend conducting a visual
inspection of the bridge and any other migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area
during the migratory bird nesting season -- March through September.
Response:
The field investigation was conducted in April which is within the migratory nesting season
and no evidence of any migratory bird habitats was present within the project area.
Comment:
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) occurs in Caldwell County. We encourage the
NCDOT to assess habitat for the bog turtle.
Response: .
Afield investigation was conducted on Apri121, 2005 by Environmental Services, Inc. and
no habitat for the bog turtle was observed.
Comment:
Our records for Caldwell County indicate occurrences of the federally threatened dwarf-
flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near the project area. We recommend conducting
habitat assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project area for this species
during its flowering period of March through May.
Response:
The field investigation was conducted in April which is within the flowing period of March
thru May for the flowered heartleaf. The environmental consultant found no evidence of this
species within the project area.
16

~~ ~,.~_ ~
w_ r ~ ~~
~'. .!8y
h Ste.
..r?; ~~J
c ~ ~~1
i
~'~.. _ _.._ _. ir, . ~ ..
r$ tr - ~ . ~+~~
~~~-
f ~' ~ ~ s`~r^.~'x.~ l L.
~ ~ t' ~ ~ ti'~~ :~ 'gy'm; t ~~
~. ~ Bridge No. 75 `~ ~,~' ~° ~ ~ ' ~~
,~S s. r r ~ 1
'' ~ r''~ fi 1 ~ tx1 - r .~~, f r ~ 'Cs
~ - , 7
~,~ ~a ~ ; ~S : ` ~ '~'ti ~"' #-~`~: apt , U~
_ ~...~
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~
APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 1500
FEET

LEGEND
PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
CITY OF LENOIR
Caldwell County Bridge No. 75
on Broadway Street
over Blairs Fork (Spainl~our) Creek
TIP No. B-3933
Figure 1

I
~~
1 1
I
~~
~~
~ /
~~
~~`
~~~ S~~'9
~~~as
~~~~~~~.
~ '
i
~~
~~
~ ~I
g I ° _
x
~, ~ ~
m -° i
,.
0
W
~ H ~ ~ C1 ~ o
v-n~m00~~ ~ ~ /~
d
o n o m~ 0 A ~ ~ ~\ /S
W N ~ Z r ~ \ \ °~9'
b ~
W O °C ~ O Z \
W T N V C 0 I //
W O N N Z- `/AL{t
\ \
~~
T ~ \
m \
C
N \

B-3933
CALDWELL COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.75
ON BROADWAY STREET
OVER BLAIRS FORKCREEK
(SPAINHOUR CREED
RESIDENCE AND
DRIVEWAY AT
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
SOUTH APPROACH
~,(Tratl~TZ~Tr NOI:TH
N®RTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3

~T - "a:: _
- - '.i ;-.
- ~ ~:• -~
North Carolina Department of Ciilfii~al"Resozrces.~~~~~~...:: .. - -:•
- State Historic Preservation~Office-- ~- '""'•' - ~ '
:-,. _ •
PetecB.Sandbed:;Administrator-; ~ - ~:-i•';"'
)tiIiehaelF. Easley, Governor ~ - - - _ -" ~'~ Office,bf chives-undFFistory"-
Lisbeth GEvans, Secretary - - = I-`,-... ~ .. ~ .
~" ; ~.: Divisipn of Historical Resources
Jef&ep J. Crow, Deputy Secretai9 - • - - _ ~ - -
. :David Brook, Director : .
August 9, 2005 - ~ - ~. -: - ... .. ~ . - :.: .
J. Kenneth Burleson - - .' - .. `-: =;`-- . • - . - - : ` -
- :r.,.
TGS Engineers - . ~ ~ ; "; ,~- :. ~- _ , . .
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141 - - - - - -Y? ~~~~~"~~ .`.~•' .: .
Cary, NC 27511 - •. - - ... - _.. .. ~ .. _-.
•Re: Bridge 75 on Broadway over Spainhour Creek,- B-3933,-Caldwell Countp;~ER:05-1359,- . •. ~ ' : - . ~ -- ~ .
. Dent Mr. Burleson: - ~ ~ - .. _ - ' - - ' . - " . -
Thank you-for your letter of June 16; 2005 conceming.the above project . -~~~ ~ • - - - • - ' ' - .. ~ -
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the prop,7sec1 project-afea~-'~f the replacement is to be~located~ ~~ :: . ~ -• y~: .
along the existing alignment and there is no onsite detour, it is "unlikely that~sigiiificant"archaeological resources.wiIl•:: "- --
beaffected and i}o i>aves tton is recommended:: If; however, th~e'r~placemeiit is to be in a Rew location, or an ~ _.- :-~ • ' -
~:.::.
oi~site detour is proposed, ~ archaeological survey-bp.an e$p-erienced'atchaeologist ~is~recoi~nniended to identi[y-,.:: - •-` -
.and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that:may" be.daniageti:gr destroyed lip the proposed project:.::.°;:.
Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to,-the initiation of csristl:uction activities: ~ :':' == _:~. "-.:::° •. •` '
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect, any histbri~ strlictures.'..~ -.;:.: - ~ ~ - - - "
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of 'the Natiolial~Historic Preservatio'n-Act and the ~'~ ~-: - . - -- : -.:' ~ -
.Advisory Council on Historic Prese_rvation's Regulations for Complialice with~Section lb6 codified at 36 CFR Part- - ~ ~ - •
800. - - ~ - ~~ - - - - ~ - - .. .
Thallk you fox your cooperatio» and consideration. If you have questions cotlcerning.the~ above comment,: contact - - -
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763: Iri all future cori3inusucation : -•~ -
concerning this project,• please cite the above referenced tracking nurnber..~;~ ~::: ~:. -_'. ~'": ~•~ _-.-..'`_:: ; . - :.-~ :: - ` :. ~ ~ , ~ .. .
Sincerely, ~ ~ - - . - - .. : - : - ~ - - -.
eter Sandbeck - ~ - • . ~ .. ;~,: - ~: ~ - - ~ .. -
c:.- ..Matt"Wilkerso NCDOT ~ - "- ~~ _ -~ ~-~ - ~ ~ _ ~ - ; ~~`? ;`~ - ~.`~ -
".. .Maiy.PopeFurr;NCDO'I'.- :: -- - - ~ .. _'.<;~_.- .. " - _ ~Tw_~=- . - ~ .f : ~ .
..
.._
..
- .,.
..
...: -
..
-. ~--
..
• . --•`~-
~ • - .. -
ADMINISTRATION
RESTORATION
SURPSY & PLANNING
Location - .
507 N. Blovnt Steel Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount Sleet, Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount Sleet, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address- ~ ~ Telephone/Fax
467 Mail Service Cmtcr, Raleigh NC 27699-4617: ~ - (91733-4763/733-8653 -
- .-. - 4617 Mal Service Cmta ,Raleigh NC 27699-4617 ~ ~ ~~' ~ - , (91 X733-6547/715-4801
' 46]7 Mal Secvicc Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4G17.-~. ~- ~ (91733-6545/715-4801

CALDWELL COUNTY SCHOOLS TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
113 Tremont Park Drive
Lenoir, NC 28645-6470 • _-._-.__.-__.__._.....__ .. _._.___..
828-754-8041 Fax: [phone] email: apenninQtonna,caakl2.nc.us _
Amanda Pennington, TIMS
June 28, 2005
Mr. Steven Taynton .
School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
6319 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6319
Dear Mr. Taynton:
I received your~letter regazding Caldwell County Bridge no. 75 on Broadway Street over
Spainhour Creek in the city of Lenoir.- We currently have three school buses which cross this
bridge daily. They each.cross in the morning and afternoon.- We would~be able to re-route the
buses when the bridge is being replaced. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arran a Pennington
TIMS Coordinator
Caldwell County Schools

~~,ENT OF T
ti
QPQ'. '~ F
O Za
v1 4 F
~ a
4~4HC -,$p9
H3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 5, 2006
Ms. Stephanie Higdon
TGS Engineers .
145 West Parker Road
Morganton, North Carolina 28655
Dear Ms. Higdon:
Subject: Bridge Replacement No. 75 on Broadway Street over Spainhour Creek in the City of
Lenoir, Caldwell County, North-Carolina (TIP No. B-3933)
We have~reviewed the subject bridge replacement-project and are providing the following comments
in accordance witli~tlie,Fish and~•Wildlife'CoordinationAot as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the
Migratory Bird~rreaty~Act (16 U:S:C: 703, •et seq:)'-(MBTA); and. section 7 of the-Endangered
Species Act-of~I.973; as amended (1:6~U.S:C. 1531~1543)(Act):~- : •• • .~ - ~ .. -
Fish and "Wildlife Resources -The information provided for. this prof ect -does not include a detailed
description of the structure that will replace the existing bridge; therefore, our comments are general.
We will provide more substantive. comments when the categorical exclusion is prepared. In all cases
we recommend that an existing bridge be replaced with a new bridge, and we request that the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for this project consider r_eplac~ng the exisung
bridge with new bridge as an alternative. If an alternative is chosen that does not replace an existing
bridge with a new bridge, such as an alternative that igvolves the replacement of an existing bridge
with a culvert, we request that the NEPA document include an evaluation as to why an alternative of
replacing an existing bridge with a new bridge was not chosen.-
We recommend that the new bridge design include provisions for the roadbed and deck drainage to
flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from the runoff of stormwater and pollutants. The bridge
design should not alter the natural stream or the stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage.
Any piers or bents should be placed outside the -bank-full width of the stream. The bridge and
approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the
channel or floodplain:..ff~spanning the floodplain is nofi feasible, culverts should be installed in the
floodplain portion ofthe`approaches in.order to restore-some of-the hydrological functions of the
floodplain and reduce high velocities of floodwaters ~withiri the°affected areas. ' .

Measures to control erosion and sedimentation should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing
activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with a stream. In most cases
we prefer that a bridge be replaced in place by constructing the new bridge through staged
construction or by detouring traffic to existing off-site routes.
When reseeding/revegetating disturbed areas, we strongly recommend. that only native plant species
be used or, if an adequate seed source cannot be found, that noninvasive species (such as annual rye)
be used until native plants can reestablish themselves. While many of the exotic plant species
typically used in erosion-control and reclamation efforts have proven beneficial to some wildlife
species, we now know that the invasive nature of these species outweighs any short-term
erosion-control or wildlife benefits they may provide. Exotic species, including tall fescue (native to
Eurasia), Korean and Sericea lespedeza (eastern Asia species), redtop (a Eurasian species), Sudan
grass and Bermuda grass (native to Africa), and Kentucky bluegrass (native to Eurasia and northern
Canada); choke out native vegetation and often result in monocultures that prove to be of little
benefit to wildlife and can be very detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole.
Migratory Birds -The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle), their eggs, parts, and
nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. To avoid impacts to
migratory birds, we recommend conducting a visual inspection of the bridge and any other migratory
bird nesting habitat within the project area during the migratory bird nesting season--March through
September. Ifmigratory birds are discoverednesting in the project impact area, including on the
existing bridge, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) should avoid impacting
the nests. during the migratory bird nesting season. (March through September). If birds. are
discovered nesting on the bridge during years prior to the proposed construction date, the NCDOT, in
consultation with us, should .develop measures to discourage birds from establishing nests on the
bridge by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs, or the NCDOT should avoid
construction and demolition activities during the nesting period.
Federally Listed Species -The bog turtle (Clemmys mulilenbergia~ occurs in Caldwell County. We
encourage the NCDOT to assess habitat for the bog turtle. If impacts are anticipated, the NCDOT
should avoid those impacts and contact the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, who
participates actively in s'rveys and conservation efforts for the bog turtle. While the bog turtle
technically does not require section 7 consultation, it is a species of concern, and the NCDOT is
actively managing mitigation sites or parts of sites for this species. Our records for Caldwell County
also:indicate occurrences of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartl_eaf (Hexastylis nan~ora)
near the project area. We recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable
habitat in the project area for this species during its flowering period of March through May.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our staff at
828/258-3939,. Ext. 226.
Sincerely, ~
` ~ ~.~
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor