19920415 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

?y. STA]Z 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
July 21, 1992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890 11
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 1 -3 1992
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: SR 1119, Bridge No. 130 over Snowbird Creek, Graham County,
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1119(1), State Project No. 8.2930201, TIP No.
B-2039
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration as a "Categorical Exclusion" 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 November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and, Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the
construction of the project.
We anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
DOT will apply directly to DEHNR for that permit when plans have been
developed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely, //
L. . ?a-TrdK,P,. E., Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. Verlin Edwards, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
SR 1119, Bridge No. 130
over Snowbird Creek
Graham County
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1119(1)
State Project No. 8.2930201
B-2039
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
/-fD to L. ard, P. E., Mana er
Planning and Environmental Branch
ADate Nich s raf, P. E.
,AXDivision Administrator, FHWA

6
SR 1119, Bridge No. 130
over Snowbird Creek
Graham County
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1119(1)
State Project No. 8.2930201
B-2039
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Bill Kinlaw /? ?'
Project Planning Engineer
ZL-m14 -
Linwood Stone
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
J
H. F nklin Vick, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
t
r

SR 1119, Bridge No. 130
over Snowbird Creek
Graham County
Federal No. BRZ-1119(1)
State Project No. 8.2930201
B-2039
Bridge No. 130 has been included in the current Transportation
Improvement Program for right-of-way acquisition in fiscal year 1992 and
construction in fiscal year 1993. The project location is shown in Figure
1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has
been classified as a Federal "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique environmental
commitments are necessary. No reduction in wetlands will result from the
proposed action. Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize
these impacts.
The proposed project will have no impacts upon any archaeological
sites in the area of potential effect (APE) that are on or eligible for
inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. No historic
properties either listed in or eligible for the National Register are in
the APE.
There will be no 4(f) involvement nor involvement with US Forest
Service lands. However, if additional right-of-way from the U. S. Forest
Service land is needed for the proposed project, the U. S. Forest Service
will be contacted to determine if an additional biological survey is
required. If a survey is needed, it will be performed prior to right-of-
way (ROW) authorization.
It is anticipated a Bridge Replacement General Permit will be
required by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 130 should be replaced on new location approximately 32
feet north of its existing location with a cored slab bridge with vertical
abutments as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2. Upon completion of the
new structure and road improvements, the existing crossing will be
removed.
The Bridge Survey and Hydraulic Design Report indicates that a
90-foot (two 45-foot spans) cored slab bridge with vertical abutments
should be provided. The two (2) spans will require one pier in Snowbird
Creek. The proposed structure consists of a 24-foot clear roadway width
(20-foot roadway with 2-foot wide shoulders on each side).
V
5
2
Approximately 385 feet of new roadway approaches will be required,
approximately 160 feet on the eastern approach and approximately 225 feet
on the western approach. The approach roadway will be 24 feet of
pavement, tapering back to the existing roadways on both sides of the
proposed bridge.
Traffic will use the existing bridge during the construction period.
When the new structure is completed and the new road is open to traffic,
the existing bridge will be removed.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is approximately $275,500.
The total estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1992-1998
Transportation Improvement Program, is $532,000 ($2,000 is prior years
cost).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1119 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is not part of the Federal Aid
System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1119 has an 18-foot pavement width
with 3-foot wide grass shoulders on the western approach. The eastern
approach is an 18-foot paved road. Vertical alignment is generally flat.
Horizontal alignment involves curves at both approaches. The western
approach is approximately a 65 degree curve and the eastern approach is
approximately an 85 degree curve. The structure is situated 14 feet above
the creek bed. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
primarily rural residential. The Snowbird Community Center and associated
services are located in the southwest quadrant of SR 1119 and Snowbird
Creek. In the general area of the bridge, SR 1119 is signed for a 20 MPH
speed limit.
The current traffic volume of 100 vehicles per day (vpd) is expected
to increase to approximately 200 vpd by the design year 2011. The
projected volume includes 0-1% truck tractors semi-trailers and 2% dual
tired vehicles.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1960. The
superstructure consists of a timber floor on steel girder floor beams.
The substructure i.s composed of concrete abutments and bents.
Overall length is 101 feet. Clear roadway width is 11.1 feet. The
posted weight limit is 11 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck
tractors semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 130 has a sufficiency rating of 22.5 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure. It has an estimated remaining life of five
(5) years.
No accidents were reported within 200 feet of Bridge No. 130 during
the period from May, 1987 to April, 1990.
Two school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
t
0
3
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 130 were studied as follows:
Alternative 1 - Replacement at existing location with an on-site
detour to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Alternative 2 (Recommended) - Replacement with a new structure
immediately north of the existing bridge and use the existing facility for
the maintenance of traffic during the construction period.
Two replacement structures were considered: a cored slab bridge and
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC).
A hydraulics study concluded that a RCBC could not handle the water
flow of Snowbird Creek. The study was based on the projected 25-year
flood elevation. Therefore, the RCBC is not feasible.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1119 to residences in the immediate vicinity.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition.
V. TRAFFIC DETOUR
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic at the studied
bridge site is felt to be necessary. No other outlet roads are available
for traffic currently using the existing bridge. In view of this factor,
it is clear that traffic should be maintained at the existing bridge site
during construction.
The Division Engineer concurs that Bridge No. 130 be replaced on new
location just north of the existing bridge. This will allow traffic to be
maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period. The
Graham County School Transportation Director prefers maintaining traffic
on-site during the construction period.
4
4
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of a replacement bridge for the studied
alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
Roadway Approaches $ 17,000
Structure 167,000*
Structure Removal 14,000
Temporary Detour 92,000
Detour Structure 33,000**
Engineering and Contingencies 48,000
Right of Way, Utilities 27,000
Total Cost $ 3989000
*Prop. New Str. (24' x 116')
**Prop. Temp. Str. (12' x 116')
***Prop. New Str. (24' x 90')
(Recommended)
Alternative 2
$ 82,500
114,000***
12,000
38,000
28,900
$ 275,500
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 130 should be replaced on new location approximately 32
feet north of the existing location. The recommended length of the
replacement structure is 90 feet. Approximately 385 feet of roadway
approach work will be required, approximately 160 feet on the eastern
approach and approximately 225 feet on the western approach.
The roadway grade at the proposed structure will be approximately the
same as the existing grade. Vertical endbents will be used to minimize
impacts to Snowbird Creek. One pier for the two span bridge will be
located in the middle of the creek. It is anticipated the elevation of
the new bridge will be approximately equal to the floor elevation of the
existing bridge. The structure dimensions may be increased or decreased
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
A 24-foot pavement will be provided on both approaches. A 24-foot
clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure. This
will provide a 20-foot travelway with 2-foot shoulders on the structure.
The 24-foot clear roadway width will accommodate both the proposed
approximate 65 degree curve (west approach) and the proposed approximate
85 degree curve (east approach). The design speed is 20 miles per hour.
Traffic is to be maintained on-site using the existing structure.
The Division Engineer concurs with this recommendation and agrees that
road closure during construction is not desirable, since there is no
detour route available. The school bus supervisor has also indicated that
school bus operations would be inconvenienced by any road closure. It
will be necessary to acquire some additional right-of-way to construct the
replacement structure.
5
4
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Social Environment
The proposed project is expected to have an overall positive impact
on the area environment. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result
in safer traffic operations. Current NCDOT standards and specification
for construction practices will minimize any potential adverse
environmental impacts.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
No businesses or homes are to be relocated. Therefore, no adverse
impact on families or communities is anticipated.
No significant 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.
Natural and Cultural Resources
The project was surveyed on October 30, 1991, by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways staff archaeologist.
The results of that study indicate that the project will have no impacts
upon any archaeological sites that are on or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect
(APE) were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
SHPO agreed with the NCDOT that there are no historic structures located
within the APE. (The SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.)
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
Ecological Resources
The proposed project was surveyed on November 14, 1991 by a staff
biologist. That study and the associated preliminary investigation,
resulted in the determination of no wetland takings, and no threatened or
endangered species impacted by the proposed project.
Terrestrial plant communities are presented within the context of two
broad categories, Uplands and Wetlands. Three upland plant communities
were encountered in the study area. These communities are: Disturbed
Scrub-Shrub, Riparian and Rich Cove Forest. Wetlands are variously
defined, but, ecologically, they tend to be ecotones, or transitional
areas between uplands and deeper water systems. These areas can be
important to wildlife and, depending on individual attributes, can serve
to buffer flood flow and remove pollutants from surface waters. Although
6
4
"wetlands" are often viewed only as sites with a combination of Plant,
Soil and Hydrological characteristics, open water, or "waters of the U.S."
are also jurisdictional wetlands. No wetland plant community exists in
the study area.
It is estimated that less than 0.7 acre of plant communities will be
impacted. Anticipated impacts to plant communities are viewed as
temporary, with no long-term consequences, since habitat will be replaced
in the vicinity of the old bridge structure and its associated
approachways.
The project will impact both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife
communities. The proposed action does not pose as a significant threat to
terrestrial fauna. These disturbed areas are attractive to a range of
adaptable wildlife which thrive in man dominated zones. Their adaptive
behavior has enabled them to enjoy a relatively safe existence at the
fringes of man's domain, often cohabiting the same structures (rodents,
owls, barn swallows, lizards, etc.). Impacts to these habitat zones are
not likely to be severe in terms of diminishing populations, etc. Some
temporary fluctuations in populations of animal groups which utilize these
areas is anticipated during the course of construction, but post-project
levels are expected to return to normal after the old bridge is removed
and habitat zones are restored to normal.
Slow-moving, burrowing and/or subterranean organisms will be directly
impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be
displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in these adoptive
communities will result in a redefining of population equilibria.
Soils
Soils in the study area are uniformly mapped as Dellwood Cobbly Loam.
This soil series is generally found on landscapes with 0-4% slope. This
soil is not listed as hydric soil for Graham County, nor are hydric
inclusions found associated with this series.
Surface Water and Water Quality
The proposed action is likely to have substantial affects on the
aquatic environment unless strict enforcement of sedimentation control
measures are observed. Demolition activities are likely to place sediment
into the water column, as will pier/end bent installation activities.
Sediment-loading of the stream channels by such activities can be harmful
to local populations of aquatic organisms, trout and bream (or sunfish),
as well as invertebrates such as mollusks, crustacea and insect larvae,
important parts of the aquatic food chain.
The only water source in the study area is Snowbird Creek, a
tributary to Santeetlah Lake, which originates at/or above 4,000 feet
(above mean sea level) near the Cherokee County, North Carolina and Monroe
County, Tennessee lines in far western Graham County. This stream lies in
the Little Tennessee River Basin.
0
Snowbird Creek is approximately 60 feet wide in the study area, the
channel width varying elsewhere, depending on channel depth and
configuration, meanders, etc. The stream flows west through the study
area across substrates varying between sand and pebble to cobble with
occasional large boulders. Depth of the stream is considerably variable,
from 2-3 inches near shoals and quiet areas, to more than 2 feet in some
locations, although pools and holes several feet deep are not rare.
A best usage classification of C Tr has been assigned to Snowbird
Creek by the Division of Environmental Management of the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) agency.
Class C waters are best suited for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, and secondary recreation. Water quality standards
designed to protect class C usage are reported in 15A NCAC .0211. The
"Tr" (Trout) supplemental classification denotes that the waters are
suitable for natural trout (brook trout) propagation and maintenance of
stocked trout (rainbow trout).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) lists the
study area portion of Snowbird Creek as a Designated Public Mountain Trout
Water (DPWTW) within the Hatchery Supported Trout Waters category. This
designation is applicable between the "old railroad junction", located
several miles upstream, and its mouth, at Santeetlah Lake.
The NCWRC does not object to this project if the following
stipulations to avoid and minimize adverse impacts are implemented (see
appendix):
1) Construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of
November 1 to April 15 in order to protect the egg and fry
stages from sedimentation.
2) Heavy equipment should not be operated in the stream.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact water entering or flowing in the stream. This will
reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated with bridge
construction.
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where
soil is disturbed and maintained until project completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
These stipulations will be followed by NCDOT to the extent necessary
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts.
Potential impacts to Snowbird Creek include: increase sedimentation
from construction-related erosion; changes in ambient water temperature
and incidence of light due to elimination of adjacent vegetation. Best
management practices and HQW-designed sedimentation controls for high
quality waters will be applied during construction of this facility.

0
8
Wetlands Findings
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has primary
responsibility for reviewing actions which propose to place fill into
"waters of the United States". Jurisdictional ly, wetlands (subsets of
"waters of the United States") are defined as "Those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface of groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions."
The Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR) also has a
jurisdictional role under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401
Permits, when required, must be issued prior to authorization of any
Section 404 Permit by the COE.
Since the study area stream is a DPMTW, the NCWRC must review the
proposed action and concur before the COE will authorize the project under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The only jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are the "waters of
the U.S." represented by Snowbird Creek. The area of involvement includes
"bank-to-bank", a distance of 50-60 feet long. No channel realignment is
anticipated and no fill will be placed in the stream during proposed
construction and demolition activities.
In the absence of the DPMTW classification, this project would
normally be authorized under Nationwide Permit 23, the Categorical
Exclusion Permit (33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)). However, the COE implemented
Discretionary Authority in Designated Trout Waters in N.C. on March 27,
1989. This policy resulted in overriding certain Nationwide General
Permits, including 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23), and requiring instead
authorization under an Individual Permit or by a Regional General Permit.
Either permit will allow for the review of the proposal and for the
identification of appropriate measures to preclude or minimize adverse
impacts on trout waters. Although, as mentioned, the COE can require an
Individual Permit for such actions, it is more likely that they will
authorize the proposed action under a Bridge Replacement General Permit.
Such authorization is subject to NCDOT acquiring a letter of approval from
the NCWRC (see Appendix). Final discretionary permit authority rests with
the COE.
No reduction in wetlands will result from the proposed action, thus
no compensatory mitigation will be required.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
As of December 10, 1991, two federally protected species are listed
by the U. S. Fish'and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for Graham County. The two
species are the Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel and the Virginia
spiraea. However, no habitat considered even marginally suitable to the
9
41
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel is located in the project study area;
therefore, the proposed action will not result in impacts to this animal.
A thorough plant-by-plant survey of shoreline and adjacent habitat was
conducted by the staff biologist to search for any specimens of the
Virginia spiraea. This species does not occur in the study area or
adjacent sites, therefore no impacts to this species by the proposed
action will occur. Records at the N. C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
were inspected but no recorded sightings of state protected species have
been made for the study area or vicinity.
Based upon a thorough investigation of protected species in the study
area, there is virtually no likelihood that any federally or state
protected species will be impacted by the proposed action.
National Forest Service Land Impacts
The new bridge will be constructed just north of the existing bridge.
The existing approximate 65 degree curve on the western approach and the
existing approximate 85 degree curve on the eastern approach will be
shifted to align with the respective approaches to the new bridge.
Shifting of the western approach will not cause any unforeseeable
problems. Shifting of the eastern approach will require a rather large cut
section due to the steepness of the mountain. The relocated curve will
require the cut slope to extend 90-100 feet from the centerline of the
proposed road. One small corner of the preliminary cut slope is projected
to encroach on U. S. Forest Service land. If the cut slope can be
steepened, as determined by a geotechnical survey, the possible claim with
the U. S. Forest Service may be avoided. Once a determination is made,
the U. S. Forest Service will be contacted and an additional biological
survey will be accomplished prior to ROW authorization, if required.
Farmlands
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland
soils by land acquisition or construction projects. Prime and important
farmland soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
and may include soils that are not currently used for agricultural
purposes. The SCS was contacted concerning the location of prime and
important farmland soils in the project area. The SCS indicated that no
modern soil surveys have been conducted for Graham County. Therefore, no
information on farmland soils is available. Further consideration of
potential impacts to farmland soils is not required.
Air Quality Analysis
The project is located within the Western Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Graham County has been
determined to be in compliance., with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Program (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of Title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not apply to this project.
9

10
Traffic Noise Impacts
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will
be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall
be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are
required.
Floodplain Involvement
The approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain are shown in
Figure 4. The proposed structure is not expected to adversely affect
existing floodplain conditions. Graham County is a participant in the
National Flood Insurance emergency program. The studied crossing of
Snowbird Creek is within a designated flood hazard zone. The planned
replacement with a crossing design of similar conveyance to the existing
structure will be consistent with the intent and requirements of the zone
regulations.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of project.
WBK/pl r
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
4

. Tapoco ontana
Vdl_a Re iS
s,,....r,!A M
G R A _
Lake-' H <7 A` Alms/
0 Sanfeufluh -' an teetla Sw,ah
a
Cheoah r
_ ?p>E Robb, vdle
+ 'Nantahal;
. /
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 130
OVER SNOWBIRD CREEK
GRAHAM COUNTY
B-2039
0 mile 1
1 1 I FIG. 1

S Z ? w I

? tt

p

J
fY x
14,

B-2039
BRIDGE NO. 130
GRAHAM COUNTY
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
FIGURE 3
ftn,nyl
$pn`QQ\lah
` ,123
•t
I
I.
...............
.•• WEST BUFFALO
CEMETERY
r?
lJ
?;?/1f11'll
1127
.A l
y?ln4

1
II
,123 y
j
:? .... yr? \ `
ZONE A
Y:. .1

\J

ZONE .

ILI
1J \\ i _
11 %\\
BRIDGE NQ. 130
RR
.. at
jt )o YFhR x1,001) LMI:'r \ \`
'l
.J: •.• „ls 11

.. ?r1
i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND F.NVIRON IENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 130
OVER SNOWBIRD CREEK
GRAHAM COUNTY
B-2039
0 feet 2000
1 1 1 FIG. 9

APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE
4
0
MEMORANDUM TO:
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEVE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 25201
jack Ward, Manager
Planning and Research
Room 462, Hwy Building

THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
L. J. Ward, R E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
ates, Bicycle Coordinator
Bicycle Program
Z10 /V h 0/? '7?
SEP 1119 a
© 91
Scoping Meeting for Replacing Bridge No. 13n-ry ?
SR 1119 over Snowbird Creek, Graham County, TIP No. B-2039
In your memorandum of 1;Ppt.PInlhPr a , 1 ggl , you requested our comments
regarding the proposed improvements to the above mentioned project.
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for bicycles on this project.
This section of SR 1119 in Graham County does not
correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it part of our Bicycling Highway system. We have no
indication that there are unusual levels of bicycling on this roadway.
As with any of our roads and highways (except, of course, for those which have limited
access where bicycles are prohibited), bicycle travel will occur as part of the overall traffic mix.
Even though this project has no special bicycle element, reasonable efforts should be made to
accommodate existing bicycle traffic within the overall project design.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above named project. Please feel free to
contact us again regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/jc
An Equal Opportunity/ AffirmetlveACtion Employer
W

hON

4 v, (7
fd, 0, Q
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso ryes °>??>

James G. Martin, Governor Divisi ro Archive'6nd t-tiTt r
Wi ar .Price,., Di
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 26, 1991 I
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highwyys
artment of Trans ation
De
p
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 130 on SR 1119 over
Snowbird Creek, Graham County, B-2039,
8.2930201, BR2-1119(1), ER 92-7262
Thank you for your memorandum of September 4, 1991, concerning the above project.
There has been little survey work conducted for Graham County. Our Western Office
does have information from Margaret Owen's far west reconnaissance survey, but this
is not comprehensive. This survey showed no historic structures in the area of potential
effect. Our files show no National Register or study list properties in the APE. The
bridge was built in 1960 and does not appear eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that
may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown
resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Robin Stancil will be on vacation and will not attend the "meeting of the minds" on
October 8, 1991, at 11:00 AM. These notes should serve as our comments.
DB : slw
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
4

IM

Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
December 2, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
T- le?:J p
,;D C No o-
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 158 OVER VALLEY RIVER IN CHEROKEE COUNTY,
PROJECT NO. 8.2910301, B-2016, AND BRIDGE NO. 130 OVER SNOWBIRD CREEK
IN GRAHAM COUNTY, PROJECT NO. 8.2910201, B7039
This is in reference to your letters of November 12, 1991, regarding
replacement of Bridge 158 and Bridge 130. Both these projects will
likely require a 26a permit from TVA. Please contact Kenneth Spencer at
[phone] in Norris, Tennessee, for details on this permitting
procedure.
Since TVA conducts environmental reviews for all 26a permit requests and
because key technical staff are currently involved in the preparation of
a priority environmental impact statement, we will defer providing
environmental comments on the subject projects until receipt of the 26a
permit applications from your office. If there are questions regarding
this environmental review process, please contact Dale K. Fowler at (615)
632-6716 in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Sincerely,
M. Pau ierbach, Manager
Environmental Quality

Dear Mr. Kinlaw:
This..corresporidence responds to a request by you for our
comments regarding the replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1359
over Valley River in Cherokee County and Bridge No. 130 on SR
1119 over Big Snowbird Creek in Graham County. At this time, we
understand that the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) proposes.to replace both bridges with new bridges at:the
same sites. Temporary bridges will be constructed to detour
traffic around construction sites.
Valley River (HIW 1-10) is Hatchery Supported Designated
Public Mountain Trout Water that may support wild.rainbow trout
in its upper reaches. Big Snowbird Creek (LTN 1-2-2-22-6) is
Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the
area of the bridge and also supports wild populations of brook
and rainbow trout.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
does not object to these projects if the following stipulations
to avoid and minimize adverse impacts are implemented:
1) Construction is prohibited during the trout spawning
period of November 1 to April 15 in order to protect the egg
and fry stages from sedimentation.
2) Heavy equipment should not be operated in the streams.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact water entering or flowing in the streams.

rth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-33 ,
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
y?_ F
December 6, 1991 f
?J N 2 7 1992
Mr. Bill Kinlaw
Planning and Environmental Branch ???1«?C?t or,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611 td.,,z
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 158 on SR 1359 aver Valley
River in Cherokee County and Bridge No. \;60 on SR 1119
over Big Snowbird Creek in Graham County.
,,_
i
4
Memo
Page 2
December 6, 1991
` This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated
with bridge construction.
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles,.as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16.
U.S.C. 661-667d.). Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please advise.
Sincerely,
/I Ll-?- kl-'?
Dennis Stewart, Program Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9. Fisheries Biologist

--

=

i

G
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission _
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
December 9, 1991
Mr. David Baker, Permit Coordinator
USACOE, Regulatory Field Office
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building
37 Battery Park Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
SUBJECT: Trout water exclusion letter of concurrence for
replacement of Bridge No. 130 on SR 1119 over Big
Snowbird Creek west of Robbinsville, Graham County.
Dear Mr. Baker:
This correspondence is in response to a request from Mr.
Bill Kinlaw of the Planning and Environmental Branch, North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for a letter of
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) to replace Bridge No. 130 on SR 1119 over Big Snowbird
Creek in Graham County. Big Snowbird Creek (LTN 1-2-2-22-6) is
Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in this
area and also contains wild populations of brook and-rainbow
trout. The NCDOT proposes to replace the bridge with a new
bridge at the same site. A temporary bridge will be constructed
to detour traffic around the project site.
The NCWRC does not object to this project.if the following
stipulations to avoid and minimize impacts are implemented:
1) Construction is prohibited during the trout spawning
period of November 1 to April 15 in order to protect the egg
and fry stages from sedimentation.
2) Heavy equipment should not be operated in the stream.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact water entering or flowing in Big Snowbird
Creek. This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills
associated with bridge construction.

N?
Memo
Page 2
December 9. 1991
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordinati6n Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d.). Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please advise.
Sincerely,
t:?Zl
Dennis Stewart, Program Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: ?Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Bill Kinlaw, NCDOT

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
June 5, 1992
Mr. Bill Kinlaw .
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
SUBJECT: Second response to proposed replacement of Bridge No.
130 on SR 1119 over Big Snowbird Creek,.Graham County
Dear Mr. Kinlaw:
This correspondence responds to a request by you to Ms.
Stephanie Goudreau of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) on May 27, 1992 for further comments regarding
the replacement of Bridge No. 130 on SR 1119 over Big Snowbird
Creek in Graham County. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge #130
with a another bridge approximately 30 feet downstream of the
existing bridge. Traffic will continue to use the existing
bridge during construction so that no detour is required.
Big Snowbird Creek (LTN 1-2-2-22-6) is Hatchery Supported
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the area of the bridge
and also supports wild populations of brook and rainbow trout.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
does not object to this project if the following stipulations to
avoid and minimize adverse impacts are implemented:
1) Construction is prohibited during the trout spawning
period of November 1 to April 15 in order to protect
the egg and fry stages from sedimentation.
2) Heavy equipment should not be operated in the streams.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact water entering or flowing in the
streams. This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills
associated with bridge construction.
+ Memo Page 2 June 5, 1992
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be
implemented where soil is disturbed and maintained
until project completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare
surfaces, including spoil piles, as soon as
construction is complete. Permanent vegetation in
these same areas must be established within 15 days of
project completion to provide long term erosion
control.
These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d.). Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this project. If we can be of further assistance,
please advise.
Sincerely,
0-4?
Dennis Stewart, Program Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
a
0
a,4A
S
$141,101
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
December 18, 1991
In Reply Refer To:
HB-NC
Dr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Dr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
Subject: Section 106 Consultation, Archaeological Study, Bridge
No. 130 Over Snowbird Creek, Graham County, NC, TIP No.
B-2039, State Project No. 8.2930201, BRZ-1119(1)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) performed
the archaeological study on the subject project. The project
involves the replacement of an existing bridge structure.
Enclosed are two copies of the Archaeologic Study for your review.
The results of the study show that there are no archaeologic
resources in the area to be impacted by the construction of this
project.
We are in agreement with the findings made by the NCDOT and ask
that you concur with them. If you have any questions related to
the survey, please feel free to contact our office. Thank you for
your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
G
Fo Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Enclosures
cc:
?_` Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., NCDOH
t

JAN 29 1992
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
January 27, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Bridge No. 130 over Snowbird Creek,
Graham County,.TIP B-2039, BRZ-1119(1)
ER 92-7262, ER 92-7670
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives r
?ncl}Hiftory
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 1991, transmitting the archaeo-
logical survey report by Thomas Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological sites were located
within the project area. Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project. We concur with this.recommendation since this project will not
involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
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,
A'Le;z,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB : s?lww
CC: " L . 'T. Ward
T. Padgett
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807