19981028 Ver 1_Complete File_19981019

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
VIA
1 ? •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
October 28, 1998
Buncombe County
WQC 401 Project # 981028
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 164 over
Beaverdam Creek, as you described in your application dated October 19, 1998. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3127. This Certification allows you
to use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If the property is
sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying
with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation
may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
1Dt _t
Fres n Howard, Jr. P.E(
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
981028.Itr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone]
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

??. STATE,; ?
\\\,. / 2
STATE OF NORTF{ CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOW RNOR SECRETARY
October 16, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
A
i
r OCT 1 91998
'NETLANDS GF QP,
Vti!1TE?UALIfY Subject: Buncombe County, Replacement of Bridge No. 165 over Beaverdam Creek on
SR 1674, Federal Project No. BRSTP-1674(2), State Project No. 8 .2843401,
T.I.P. No. B-3118.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No 165 will be replaced approximately 30 meters (100 feet) upstream of
the existing location with a two-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing structure during construction. Construction of the proposed
project will not impact any jurisdictional wetland communities.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration 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 Appendix A (B-23). Tile provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate the 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing
one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
We also anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers.
By copy of this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward their comments to the Cotes of Engineers.

-t
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
J
William D. Gilmore, .E.,Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
W DG/ag
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E. Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Ms. Cynthia D. Sharer, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, Mt. Region Coordinator
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1674 OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 165)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-1674 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2843401
T.I.P. NO. B-3118
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
01S 97 44"-yja?
DA E H. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
,,l ? A AnAj'114
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
SR 1674 OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 165)
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-1674 (2)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2843401
T.I.P. NO. B-3118
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
? ,oyQ, t
Montell W. Irvin, P.E.
Project Manager
W$lo111/1111,,
H CAR0 ti.
_ SEgE 9? s
do- 18755 s
s
O
?hll 1#I11 N'",?
10/30/97
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
it r mes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
Cy hia D. Sharer, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement
SR 1674 over Beaverdam Creek
(Bridge No. 165)
Buncombe County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1674 (2)
State Project No. 8.2843401
T.I.P. No. B-3118
The replacement of Bridge No. 165 in Buncombe County is listed in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP No. B-3118. The
purpose of this project is to replace the existing bridge due to its poor condition and substandard width.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the existing
human and natural environment, it is concluded no substantial adverse environmental effects will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 165. Refer to Figures 1 through 4 for location and illustrations of the project area
and existing bridge location.
All measurements contained in this report are in System International (metric) units. The approximate English
System equivalent units are indicated in parentheses next to the metric units.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
To avoid or minimize environmental impacts associated with the replacement of Bridge
No. 165, all standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Managemeni
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA)
Water Management Standard Conditions will be implemented, as applicable.
2. A preliminary site assessment will be performed prior to right-of-way acquisition to
determine the existence and extent of any contamination caused by any past or present
underground storage tanks (UST's) at the used auto sales business located on the north
side of Beaverdam Creek adjacent to the west side of Alternate A.
3. The floodplain of Beaverdam Creek will not be used for a staging area.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 165 will be replaced on new location (Alternate A) with a multi-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) on new location approximately 30 meters (100 ft) upstream of the existing structure. The project will
begin on SR 1674 approximately 137.2 meters (450 ft) south of Bridge No. 165 and will extend northward,
ending at US 25 (Merrimon Avenue) directly across from Elkmont Drive.
SR 1674 will have two travel lanes at the beginning of the project, however, will transition to a three lane curb
and gutter facility to provide a northbound left turn lane at the intersection of US 25. The left turn lane will be
approximately 45.7 meters (150 ft) in length. The roadway within the curb and gutter cross section will provide
three - 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes. Right-of-way for the preferred alternative will be approximately 18.3 meters
(60 ft).
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed along with its
associated roadway approaches and the existing traffic signal after construction is complete.
A used auto sales business, once used as a gas station, will be relocated as a result of the preferred
alternative. No other relocations are anticipated for this alternative.
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $785,000. This amount includes $500,000 for
construction and $285,000 for right-of-way, which includes $175,000 in utility costs. The estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $248,000 ($225,000 for construction and $23,000 for right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 165, over Beaverdam Creek, is located on SR 1674 approximately 30 meters (100 ft) south of US 25
in the Town of Woodfin in Buncombe County, North Carolina. Refer to Figure 1 for the existing bridge location
and Figures 2 through 4 for illustrations of the project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Bridge No. 165 was constructed in 1958. It consists of a single steel girder span totaling 12.5 meters (41 ft) in
length and has a clear roadway width of 7.9 meters (26 ft). The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete
deck and rails on steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced
concrete abutments with wingwalls located at the waters edge. The wingwalls on the downstream side of the
bridge tie into vertical concrete walls that parallel the stream for a distance of approximately 45.7 meters (150 ft)
west of the bridge. The deck of the bridge is approximately 3.8 meters (12 ft) above the creek bed.
According to the 1995 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 41.9 out of a
possible rating of 100.0 and is structurally deficient. The bridge is currently posted for a weight limit of 14,515
kilograms (16 tons) for single vehicles and 18,144 kilograms (20 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
BEAVERDAM CREEK
Beaverdam Creek flows under Bridge No. 165 at a 120 degree skew to the centerline of SR 1674. This skew is
the result of a meander in the creek just upstream of the crossing formed after construction of the bridge. The
upstream channel banks at the bridge extend into the creek blocking approximately half of the bridge opening.
Vertical concrete walls and building foundations confine the downstream channel banks in the vicinity of the
bridge. The capacity of the downstream channel is larger than the existing bridge opening and at this time does
not cause flooding in the area.
Beaverdam Creek has a drainage area of approximately 25.6 square kilometers (9.4 square miles) at the bridge
consisting of mostly rolling terrain in a predominately urbanized area with commercial and residential
development.
2
Beaver Lake is located approximately 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) upstream of Bridge No. 165. This lake was
created by the construction of a dam in Beaver Creek in 1926. The surface area of the lake is approximately
24.3 hectares (60 ac).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS) water surface profile shows
the 10-year flood elevation overtops the existing bridge. There is a FEMA Floodway associated with Beaverdam
Creek (see Figure 5). On the upstream side of the bridge, this Floodway is approximately 61.0 meters (200 ft)
wide and begins at the south end of the bridge and extends to the north side of US 25. Based on field
investigations, the elevation of US 25 at the intersection of SR 1674 is lower than the bridge deck elevation
indicating it will flood before the bridge will be overtopped.
Buncombe County is a participant in the FEMA National Flood Insurance Regular Program. In the project area,
Beaverdam Creek is included in a detailed FEMA study and has a regulatory floodway. Refer to Figure 5 for a
copy of the Flood Insurance Rate Map showing the 100-year flood zone boundaries and the regulatory floodway
limits within the project area.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
SR 1674 is classified as an urban collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It is a two lane
street that measures 6.0 meters (20.0 ft) in width and has variable width unpaved shoulders. SR 1674 ties into a
horizontal curve on US 25 at a skew angle of approximately 55 degrees. This channelized "Tee" intersection is
controlled by a traffic signal and is located between two unsignalized "Tee" intersections on the north side of US
25 that are approximately 76 meters (250 ft) apart. The center of the intersection is approximately 27.4 meters
(90 ft) north of Bridge No. 165. There are left and right turn lanes at this intersection. Sight distance for the
eastbound right turning traffic from US 25 is poor at the intersection due to an apartment building located in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection. The eastbound right turn lane from US 25 ends at the north end of the
existing bridge. Refer to Figure 2 for illustration of the intersection.
The vertical alignment of SR 1674 is on an estimated one percent downgrade from the beginning of the project
to the US 25 intersection. The horizontal alignment of SR 1674 is relatively straight within the project area.
However, there are sharp horizontal curves just south of the project area. The posted speed limit in the vicinity
of the bridge is 60 kilometers per hour (35 miles per hour).
The 1997 average daily traffic volume on SR 1674 over Bridge No. 165 is estimated to be 3,400 vehicles per
day (vpd) which includes one percent TTST vehicles and two percent dual-tired (Dual) vehicles, The 2017
design year average daily traffic volume over the bridge is predicted to be 5,100 vpd.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Land in the project area is urbanized. It consists of mainly residential and commercial land uses. Property
adjacent to the east side SR 1674 belongs to the Newbridge Baptist Church. Property adjacent to the west side
of the roadway, south of Beaverdam Creek, consists of single family residences, an AMOCO fuel storage facility
and a business/residence. Land north of the bridge consists of multi-family residences, auto repair businesses,
used auto sales businesses, restaurants and a shopping center. There is a used auto sales business located
adjacent to the northeast corner and an apartment building located on the northwest corner of the existing
bridge.
3
The used auto sales business located adjacent to the northeast corner of the bridge was once a service station.
Underground storage tanks (UST's) for the station were located approximately 14 meters (45 ft) from the
centerline of SR 1674. An oil changing pit associated with the station was located approximately 21 meters
(70 ft) from the centerline of SR 1674. The UST's were removed from the site around 1977.
According to school officials, Buncombe County school buses cross Bridge No. 165 six times on an average
day.
Three accidents were reported on SR 1674 within the project area between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1996.
Two of these crashes involved vehicles making left turns and the other was the result of a vehicle running off
the road and crashing into a utility pole. None of these accidents resulted in major injuries.
The City of Asheville has a 400 millimeter (16 inch) waterline running along the east side of SR 1674 but is not
attached to the existing bridge. There is a concrete valve pit located on the east side of SR 1674 approximately
64 meters (210 ft) south of the bridge (see Figure 2). There are aerial power lines along both sides of SR 1674
and diagonally across the existing bridge. There are aerial and underground telephone lines in the vicinity of the
bridge. A Southern Bell manhole is located near the southeast corner of the bridge. The Public Gas Company
of North Carolina has an underground gas line along the east side of SR 1674. Utility impacts for this project
are expected to be "medium" to "high".
There are no U.S. Geological Survey geodetic survey markers located on or near Bridge No. 165.
No major developments or roadway improvements are planned that would impact the historical growth rates or
travel patterns in the area of this project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
"Do-Nothing" Alternate
A "Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project, however, this alternate would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge and roadway. Based on the amount of traffic currently crossing the existing bridge, the
"Do-Nothing" alternate was eliminated from further study.
"Rehabilitation" Alternate
Rehabilitation of the existing structure was also considered. This alternative was eliminated from further
consideration due to the poor condition of the existing structure.
Existing Location with Off-Site Detour
Replacing Bridge No. 165 in its existing location using an off-site traffic detour was evaluated. For this
alternate, SR 1674 would be temporarily closed during the replacement of the existing bridge. Two alternatives
(A and B) were studied (see Figure 6) to detour traffic off-site during the construction period. The preferred off-
site detour route, Off-Site Detour A, would utilize US 19-23-70, a controlled access highway, and US 25 to
maintain traffic during the construction period. This route would be approximately 3.7 kilometers (1.5 miles)
longer for through traffic than the existing route. Off-Site Detour B would utilize SR 1695 (Brookdale Avenue)
and would be approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) longer for through traffic than the existing route. This
route was eliminated from further consideration because it would require major improvements to SR 1695 to
4
accommodate the detour traffic (including replacing a one lane bridge over Beaverdam Creek) and would
involve an at-grade railroad track crossing.
Although utilizing Detour A is considered a viable off-site traffic detour route, replacing Bridge No. 165 in its
existing location would require the relocation of one residence/business and at least part of an apartment
complex, both on the west side of SR 1674 and adjacent to the existing bridge. Also, this alternate would not
upgrade the existing capacity or improve safety of the US 25 intersection. Therefore, this alternate was
eliminated from further consideration.
Existing Location with On-Site Detour
Replacing Bridge No. 165 in its existing location would require the relocation of one residence/business and at
least part of an apartment complex, both on the west side of SR 1674 and adjacent to the existing bridge. Also,
this alternate would not upgrade the existing capacity or improve safety of the US 25 intersection. An on-site
detour on either side of the existing bridge will be cost prohibitive due to the cost of the temporary detour and
potential relocations. Based on these considerations, a replacement structure on existing alignment using an
on-site detour was eliminated from further study.
New Location with On-Site Detour - (Preferred Alternative)
The preferred alternative (Alternate A) involves replacing the existing bridge with multi-barrel culvert located
approximately 30 meters (100 ft) upstream of the existing structure. This alternative will intersect with US 25
directly across from Elkmont Drive and will improve the existing intersection with US 25.
A used auto sales business, once used as a gas station, will be relocated as a result of the preferred
alternative. No other relocations are anticipated for this alternative.
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed along with its
associated roadway approaches after construction is complete. Refer to Figure 2 for an illustration of the
preferred alternative.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of Alternate A, based on current 1997 dollars, is shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A
Preferred Alternative
Structure (proposed) $111,000
Roadway Approaches $213,900
Structure Removal (existing) $7,500
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $102,600
Engineering and Contingencies $65,000
Right-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $285,000
Total $785,000
The estimated cost of this project, based on current prices, is $785,000. This amount includes $500,000 for
construction and $285,000 for right-of-way, which includes $175,000 in utility costs. The estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $248,000 ($225,000 for construction and $23,000 for right-of-way).
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 165 will be replaced on new location (Alternate A) with a multi-barrel reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) on new location approximately 30 meters (100 ft) upstream of the existing structure. Refer to Figure 2
for illustration of Alternate A. The project will begin on SR 1674 approximately 137.2 meters (450 ft) south of
Bridge No. 165 and will extend northward, ending at US 25 (Merrimon Avenue) directly across from Elkmont
Drive. The new intersection of US 25 (Merrimon Avenue) and SR 1674 will be signalized.
SR 1674 will have two travel lanes at the beginning of the project, however, will transition to a three lane curb
and gutter facility to provide a northbound left turn lane at the intersection of US 25. The left turn lane will be
approximately 45.7 meters (150 ft) in length. The roadway within the curb and gutter cross section will provide
three - 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes. Right-of-way for the preferred alternative will be approximately 18.3 meters
(60 ft). Refer to Figure 7 for typical roadway cross section and design criteria.
The design speed of this project will be 65 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour).
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed along with its
associated roadway approaches after construction is complete. The existing traffic signal will be relocated, if
practicable, to the new intersection upon completion of the project.
In order to avoid any rise in 100-year base flood elevation, the grade of SR 1674 will be designed to overtop
during the 50- and 100-year design storms. The grade of SR 1674 over Beaverdam Creek will be set above the
25-year design storm elevation. No floodway modification is anticipated for this project. The existing FEMA
Floodway limits will be maintained.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The purpose of studying natural resources is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the immediate
area of potential project impact. Specifically, the tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of
biological features within the study corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species,
wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a
preliminary determination of permit needs.
Methods
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic mapping (Weaverville,
NC and Asheville, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural
Resources Conservation Service soils mapping (USDA unpublished), and recent aerial photography (scale
1:1200).
6
The site was visited on February 21, 1997. The entire study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. The study corridor is approximately 122 meters (400 ft) in length and 107 meters (350 ft) in
width. Impact calculations for Alternate A are based on a right-of-way width of approximately 18 meters (60 ft);
actual impacts will be limited to construction limits and will be less than those shown for right-of-way. Special
concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality
protection in Beaverdam Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to
better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). The
study corridor was evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional areas using the three parameter approach
(hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat,
and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et
al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (DEM 1989, DEM
1993, DEM 1994). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges that extend into Buncombe County was
obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of federal
or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation,
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Mountain physiographic province. Topography in the immediate project
vicinity is characterized by low, level relief typical of a floodplain terrace. Elevations average approximately 625
meters (2050 ft) above sea level in the vicinity of this project (USGS Weaverville, NC quadrangle). Noted
variations occur between northern and southern creek embankments; the northern embankments were
observed to be 3 to 4 meters (10 to 12 ft) above the level of the southern embankment. Fill placement
associated with initial development of the US 25 highway is the primary cause for this difference.
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by the Tate-Urban land complex (USDA unpublished). This mapping
unit typically occurs on alluvial fans, terraces, footslopes and benches, including the floodplain terrace of
Beaverdam Creek. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high, in spite of the fact that depth
to the seasonal high water table is generally more than 1.2 meters (4 ft). Soils belonging to the Hayesville-
Urban land complex characterize adjacent slopes. This map unit exhibits similar characteristics to the Tate-
Urban unit except for slightly elevated locations. Both soil types are subject to developmental pressures that
obscure soil characteristics and preclude other suitable uses.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 040302 of the French Broad River Basin (DEM 1994). This area
is part of USGS accounting unit 06010105 of the Tennessee River Region. Bridge No. 165 crosses Beaverdam
7
Creek approximately 2.7 kilometers (1.7 mi) from its confluence with the French Broad River. Beaverdam Creek
has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-82 by the DENR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Stream Characteristics
Beaverdam Creek is part of a second order, freshwater stream that drains into the French Broad River.
Drainage from Beaver Lake located immediately east of the project area serves as the principal source of water
for downstream portions of the creek which extend through the project area. Beaverdam Creek is a
channelized and highly urbanized creek system from its headwaters in the Elk Mountain area to its confluence
with the French Broad River. The creek is approximately 4.5 to 6 meters (15-20 ft) wide at the existing bridge,
but averages approximately 3 meters (10 ft) in width throughout most of the study corridor. Creek depth is
about 0.3 to 1 meters (1 to 3 ft). Bottom composition is rock and gravel with silt covering. Little or no rooted
aquatic vegetation is apparent in the creek channel, but some organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was
apparent. A small, first order tributary (unnamed), evident on USGS mapping, has been reduced to a piped
stormwater drain flowing into Beaverdam Creek from the east side of SR 1674 south of the bridge. The existing
bridge spans the open water of the creek.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North 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 Beaverdam Creek from the source to the confluence with the French Broad River (DEM 1993). 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 (0111W), WS I, or WS II Waters occur within 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. Beaverdam Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and
Scenic River, nor is it designated as a National Wild and Scenic River.
There are no permitted point source dischargers into this system in the immediate vicinity of the study corridor
(DEM 1989). No significant non-point discharges were noted in the study corridor.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). Species richness and
overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There is a BMAN sampling station in the
French Broad River at SR 1348 approximately 8 kilometers (5 mi) downstream from the project area. Water
quality at this site was rated Good/Fair from 1985 through the last reporting period in 1992 (DEM 1994).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from construction-
related activities. These impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters and the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Wafer Management Standard
Conditions, as practicable, during construction and by avoiding the use of floodplains or wetlands as staging
areas.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed improvements. The
proposed replacement structure will allow for continuation of present flow, thereby protecting stream integrity.
Increased runoff from highway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing vegetated road shoulders and
through limited use of ditching.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Plant communities were visually evaluated during recent field investigations. The urbanized nature of the
project area has reduced the extent of natural vegetation. A zone of riparian hardwoods identified within the
study corridor represents the remnants of a natural community. The other community identified as
maintained/disturbed areas, results from some level of disturbance. The plant communities are described
below.
Hardwood Forest - this community pattern is relegated to the banks of Beaverdam Creek. Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis) and river birch (Betula nigra) are the primary canopy species, with growth of black locust
(Robinia pseudo-acacia), alder (Alnus serrulata) and privet (Ligustrum sinense) in the understory. Wild rose
(Rosa multiflora), pokeberry (Phytolacca americana), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), chickweed (Stellaria
media), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), and a number of grasses characterize the herb and ground cover layers.
Maintained/Disturbed areas - these communities are subject to varying degrees of urbanization and
disturbance. Immediately adjacent to the riparian creek fringe and extending into the recreational complex in
the southeast project quadrant is a stand of widely spaced, mature river birch. The understory is mowed and
maintained in a park-like setting. All other project quadrants support buildings and commercial structures with
only scattered grasses and herbs in a landscaped setting.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present
within the proposed alignment. Construction is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts to plant
communities in the study corridor. Most impacts will occur within maintained/disturbed areas. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(Hectares)
Plant Community Alternate A
Recommended
Hardwood Forest 0.01 0.02
Maintained/Disturbed 0.21 0.52
Total 0.22 0.54
Note: Acres shown in parentheses.
9
A minor amount of these potential impacts (0.01 hectares (0.02 ac)) infringes upon a strip of remnant hardwood
forest located within the floodplain of Beaverdam Creek; the remaining potential impacts are located in
maintained/disturbed areas.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor consists of maintained/disturbed areas. American robins (Turdus migratorius) and
blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) were observed during the field visit; other birds, such as house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) are expected within the maintained/disturbed areas of the
study corridor. The remnant riparian forest system bordering Beaverdam Creek is too limited in extent to
support most forms of wildlife typically found in unfragmented forests in the mountains of North Carolina. The
area is expected to be utilized by ecotonal species and species adapted to anthropogenic landscapes. In
addition to the birds observed in the maintained areas, species such as northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) are expected.
No mammals were noted during field investigations. However, opportunistic animals such as Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) are expected to visit the area. Due to the season in which
the fieldwork was conducted, no terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study
corridor.
Aquatic
Limited dip-netting within the study corridor did not yield any fish. Fish expected to inhabit the study corridor
include blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratus) and other species tolerant of silty conditions in moderate gradient
streams (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994). There are no anadromous fish within this system. Stream bank
surveys did not yield any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel presence at the project site.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting any salamanders in the stream. The stream provides suitable
habitat for a few semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as queen snake (Regina septemvittata) and
blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed replacement structure will not
result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations. Potential down-
stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will
be minimized by the implementation of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters and the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions, as practicable,
during construction.
10
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Beaverdam Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Beaverdam Creek within
the study corridor exhibits characteristics of riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently
flooded waters (R3UBH). Less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 ac) of open waters of Beaverdam Creek occur within
the project right-of-way. The maximum length of the stream within the right-of-way is approximately 20 meters
(65 ft).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the
presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). No jurisdictional wetlands occur within
the right-of-way for Alternative A or within the remainder of the study corridor,
Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the COE for CE's due to
expected minimal impact. DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However,
use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts
attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge
Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
Buncombe County is one of twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout waters. The COE has
implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide and general permits which authorize the
discharge of dredged or filled materials into North Carolina designated trout waters. Generally, projects
involving trout stream infringement, including waters upstream to and above their headwaters, can be
processed under General Bridge 031 or an Individual Permit. Projects in trout water counties require review by
the DENR, Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Beaverdam Creek has not been designated as Public
Mountain Trout Waters. Even so, a review by the WRC will be necessary as part of the permitting process.
Review of this project by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is required under Section 26a of the TVA Act.
The TVA will require the use of Best Management and Best Engineering Practices as outlined in its Water
Management Standard Conditions.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts. However,
utilization of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions, as practicable, is recommended in an effort
to minimize impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed (P) for such
listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The following federal protected species are listed for Buncombe County (May 2, 1997 FWS list):
Common Name
Bog Turtle
Spotfin chub
Peregrine falcon
Eastern cougar
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Gray bat
Appalachian elktoe
Spreading avens
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Virginia spiraea
Rock gnome lichen
Scientific Name Status
Clemmys muhlenburgii P
Hybopsis monacha T
Falco peregrinus E
Felis concolor couguar E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E
Myotis grisescens E
Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Geum radiatum E
Sagiffaria fasciculata E
Sarracenia jonesii E
Spiraea virginiana T
Gymnoderma lineare E
Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 8 to 10 centimeters (3 to 4
in). This otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange or yellow
blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al. 1980). The bog turtle has declined drastically within the
northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the FWS officially
proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 4229) to list 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 proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the northern population. The
proposed listing would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise
lawful activity.
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 (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North
Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP records
do not indicate that bog turtle has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project site.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T SIA). T SIA species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion is not required. However, there is no suitable marshy habitat for bog turtle within the study
corridor.
Spotfin Chub - The spotfin chub, sometimes placed in the genus Cyprinella, is a small, slender minnow that
may reach adult size of 5.5 to 9.0 centimeters (2.2 to 3.5 in) standard length. The spotfin chub has an inferior
mouth with small barbels at each corner, a large caudal spot, and dark posterior dorsal fin membrane. Breeding
males have blue sides with two large white bars anteriorly, olive or tan back, silvery cream belly, and blue fins
edged with white. The coloration of the breeding male leads to an alternative common name in usage for this
12
species, turquoise shiner. Adult females and non-breeding males are bright silver with tan, gray, or olive green
dorsal coloration, and have pale fins. Spawning is thought to begin in mid-May and extend into mid-August
(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
In North Carolina, the spotfin chub is presently restricted to the Little Tennessee River system, although it
formerly occurred in the French Broad River drainage basin as well (LeGrand and Hall 1995). Spotfin chub is
typically found in clear waters of medium-sized streams and rivers of moderate gradient. Spotfin chub do not
tolerate heavily silted conditions and are reported to prefer areas with moderate to swift flow over large bars and
beds of small to medium-sized gravel (Lee et al. 1980). Spotfin chub occasionally occur in sandy areas
(Burkhead and Jenkins 1991). NHP records do not indicate that spotfin chub has been documented within
3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect spotfin chub due to the
channelization, urbanization, and silted condition of Beaverdam Creek within the study corridor. In
addition, the spotfin chub is believed to be extirpated from the French Broad River drainage basin.
NO EFFECT
Peregrine Falcon - The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized falcon, reaching a length between 41 and 51
centimeters (16 to 20 in), or slightly larger than an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Adults have
bluish-gray backs and wings, barring on the pale underparts, and a black nape and crown with a wide black
wedge extending below the eye. Immature peregrine falcons are dark brown above with a heavily streaked
breast, and a dark bar or wedge is present below the eye (NGS 1987). Peregrine falcons feed on medium-
sized birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and pigeons, which they strike in midair. Peregrine falcons migrate
in the fall, but over-wintering birds may be present along the North Carolina coast (Hamel 1992).
Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North Carolina, but have been
reintroduced to western North Carolina through a hacking program (captive-reared and released). Peregrine
falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas where a mixture of forests and extensive fields, marshes, or
water is present (Hamel 1992). NHP records do not indicate that peregrine falcon has been documented within
3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect peregrine due to the absence of
suitable nesting or foraging habitat within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
Eastern Cougar - The eastern cougar is a possibly extinct eastern subspecies of the widespread mountain lion
species. This species was believed to be extirpated from North Carolina by the late 1800s, although recent
sporadic sightings have been reported from remote areas of the mountains and coastal plain (Lee 1987).
Mountain lions are large, long-tailed cats; adult males may measure 2.1 to 2.7 meters (7 to 9 ft) total length
with females averaging 30 to 40 percent smaller (Handley 1991). Adult mountain lion tracks measure
approximately 9 centimeters (3.5 in) (Lee 1987).
Recent specimens of mountain lion taken in North Carolina and elsewhere in mid-Atlantic states have proved to
be individuals of other subspecies that have escaped or been released from captivity (Lee 1987, Handley
1991). The eastern cougar would require large tracts of relatively undisturbed habitat that support large
populations of white-tailed deer (Webster et al. 1985). NHP records do not indicate that eastern cougar has
been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
13
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect eastern cougar due to the
absence of suitable wilderness habitat within the urbanized study corridor. NO EFFECT
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel - The Carolina northern flying squirrel is an isolated, endangered
subspecies of the more wide-ranging northern flying squirrel. Flying squirrels are nocturnal and have a loose,
fully furred fold of skin on each side of the body between the wrists and the ankles that enable the squirrels to
glide from trees to other trees or to the ground for foraging. Carolina northern flying squirrel can be
distinguished from the similar southern flying squirrel (G. volans) by larger size (ranging from 26.0 to 30.5
centimeters (10.2 to 12.0 in) total length) and by having gray rather than white bases of the ventral hairs (Weigl
1987).
The Carolina northern flying squirrel typically occurs in spruce-fir forests and mature hardwood forest adjacent
to spruce-fir forests at elevations above 1200 meters (4000 ft) (Weigl 1987). Endemic to the Appalachians of
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, this subspecies is known from the Great Smoky Mountains,
Roan Mountain, and Mount Mitchell, NHP records do not indicate that Carolina northern flying squirrel has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Carolina northern flying squirrel
due to the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 625 meters (2050 ft)),
urbanized study corridor. NO EFFECT
Gray Bat - The gray bat is a small to medium-sized bat, measuring 8.0 to 9.9 centimeters (3.1 to 3.8 in) total
length, with unbanded gray, dusky, or reddish brown dorsal hairs and hairs frosted with white on the belly. The
gray bat is distinguished from other eastern bats by the attachment of the wing membrane to the ankle rather
than to the base of the toe (Webster et al. 1985).
Gray bats roost in large limestone caves year-round, but migrate from summer maternity colonies and bachelor
roosts in late summer to caves used for hibernation. Roosts are located near large permanent water bodies,
such as rivers and reservoirs, over which gray bats forage. North Carolina is on the periphery of the range for
gray bat and in North Carolina this species is known from a single individual which had been tagged in
Tennessee and probably represents a vagrant (Webster et al. 1985). NHP records do not indicate that gray bat
has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect gray bat due to the absence of a
suitable roosting cave or foraging habitat within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
Appalachian Elktoe - Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate to kidney-shaped freshwater mussel (Clarke
1981). The shell is thin, but not fragile, and exhibits slight inflation along the posterior ridge near the center of
the shell. Beaks project only slightly above the hinge line. Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum
(outer shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in adults. The nacre (shell interior) is shiny, blue to bluish white
with salmon, pinkish, or brownish coloring in the central portion of the shell and beak cavity. Appalachian elktoe
is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of western North Carolina and eastern
Tennessee. In North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to the Little Tennessee and Nolichucky
drainages (LeGrand and Hall 1995). Habitat typically supporting Appalachian elktoe include riffle areas with
gravel and cobble substrate (TSCFTM 1990). NHP records do not indicate that Appalachian elktoe has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect Appalachian elktoe due to lack of
suitable habitat caused by silty conditions of the stream and impacts on water quality in an urban
setting. Extensive surveys indicate the mussel fauna has been entirely extirpated from the French
Broad River drainage basin. NO EFFECT
Spreading Avens - Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb to 50 centimeters (20 in) tall. A
basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves is produced from a horizontal rhizome. These leaves are long
stalked and terminated by a large kidney-shaped lobe; tiny leaflets are usually present below the terminal lobe
(Kral 1983). Bright yellow, five-petaled flowers approximately 6 to 8 centimeters (2.4 to 3.1 in) across are
produced from June to August; these are followed between July and October by hairy achenes with a
persistent, straight style approximately 1 centimeters (0.2 in) long (Massey et al 1983). Vegetative parts may
emerge in May and persist through October.
Spreading avens usually occurs at elevations greater than 1524 meters (5000 ft) in mountain grass balds or in
grassy clearings in heath balds as well as in crevices of granitic rock; this species cannot tolerate shading or
crowding (Kral 1983). Spreading avens is found in a few northwestern counties of North Carolina, and in nearby
counties of Tennessee. NHP records do not indicate that spreading avens has been documented within 3.2
kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect spreading avens due to the
absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 625 meters (2050 meters)),
urbanized study corridor. NO EFFECT
Bunched Arrowhead - Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 35 centimeters
(14 in) in height with simple, basal leaves. Two leaf forms are produced: phyllodes (blade-less) early in the
season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the season (Kral 1983). Unisexual flowers are borne
on an erect flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each whorl subtended by three bracts fused at the base.
Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large, distinctively crested achenes. Flowering has been reported as
occurring in May and June (Kral 1983) to as late as July (Massey et al. 1983), with fruits present from May
through September. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through September
(Massey et al. 1983). Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish streams
flowing through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983). Typical substrate is reported to be siliceous and
micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral 1983). The current distribution is restricted to
Buncombe and Henderson Counties in the mountains of North Carolina (Amoroso and Weakley 1995) and
Greenville County in the upper Piedmont of South Carolina. NHP records do not indicate that bunched
arrowhead has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect bunched arrowhead due to the
flow characteristics of Beaverdam Creek (moderate flow) and the lack of suitable substrate.
NO EFFECT
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant - Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial, hydrophytic herb
growing to 73 centimeters (29 in) in height with hollow, trumpet-shaped leaves. Solitary flowers are produced
on erect flowering stems. Petals are dark red to maroon on the outside, with the inner surface often yellow-
green tinged with red. Flowering has been reported from April to June with fruits formed by August. Vegetative
portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through August (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain sweet
15
pitcher plant is sometimes treated as a variety or subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S.
rubra).
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and along streams. The current distribution is restricted
to Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in the mountains of North Carolina (Amoroso and
Weakley 1995) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South Carolina. NHP records do not indicate
that mountain sweet pitcher plant has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect mountain sweet pitcher plant due
to the urbanized nature of the immediate stream corridor and the lack of suitable habitat.
NO EFFECT
Virginia Spiraea - Virginia spiraea is a deciduous, colonial shrub that averages 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10 ft) in
height, but may reach heights of 4 meters (13 ft). Its short-stalked leaves are alternate, nearly toothless, and
narrowly elliptic with a pointed tip (Radford et al. 1968). Numerous small, white, 5-petaled flowers are produced
on terminal clusters in June to July. Dried corymbs often persist through winter. Seed production is reported to
be sporadic and most colonies are believed to arise from downstream dispersal and establishment of fragments
of horizontal rootstock (Porter and Wieboldt 1991).
Endemic to the southern Appalachians, Virginia spiraea is restricted to disturbance-prone riverine areas,
specifically along scoured banks of high gradient streams, meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, and
braided features of lower stream reaches (Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Disturbance is required for removal of
woody competitors and to aid in establishment of colonies. NHP records do not indicate that Virginia spiraea
has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Field investigations were performed by Dr. Jerry McCrain of
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) on February 21, 1997. These investigations failed to find remnant
evidence of this species (dried corymbs or plant parts) along the creek banks. This project is not
expected to affect Virginia spiraea. NO EFFECT
Rock Gnome Lichen - The rock gnome lichen is a small, squamulose (strap-like) lichen in the reindeer moss
(lichen) family. This species differs from other lichens by having blackened lobe bases. The lichen grows
nearly parallel to the rock surface to which it is attached, but the tips curl up to a near vertical orientation.
Reproduction appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally. Rock gnome lichen is typically found
growing in association with a distinctively colored, reddish-brown moss (Andreaea) (Murdock 1993).
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. Most populations occur
above approximately 1525 meters (5000 ft) in elevation in areas subject to frequent fog cover, but the species
has been found at lower elevations in deep gorges where a similarly high humidity regime is present. Rock
gnome lichen typically occurs on vertical rock faces subject to intermittent seepage (Murdock 1993). NHP
records do not indicate that rock gnome lichen has been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the
project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect rock gnome lichen due to absence
of suitable habitat within the relatively lower elevations (approximately 625 meters (2050 ft)) of the
project, and the urbanized nature of the study corridor. NO EFFECT
16
Federal species of concern - The May 2, 1997 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as
"Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the
species listed. Although the TVA's heritage database indicates some species of concern in the general region,
NHP files do not document any FSC within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor. The following are listed
as FSC for Buncombe County:
Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii No
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea No
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii No
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia No
Longhead darter Percina macrocephala No
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula No
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus No
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus No
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus Yes
Tawny crescent Phycoides batesii No
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana No
Fraser fir Abies fraseri No
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla No
Cain's reedgrass Calamagrostis cainii No
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea No
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta No
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis No
Butternut Juglans cinerea No
Gray's lily Lilium grayi No
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri No
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata No
Pinnate-lobed black-eyed susan Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatoloba No
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana No
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium No
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata No
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-
331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.).
NHP records indicate that no state-listed E, T, or SC species have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0
mi) of the study corridor. Based on available information, no impacts to state-listed species are anticipated.
17
National Forest Lands
The study corridor is not located within established National Forest boundaries. No National Forest Lands will
be affected.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted
project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to comment. Pursuant to Section 106, comments were
requested from the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and were received on March 3, 1997
(see Appendix).
Based on comments received from the SHPO, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project. Therefore, no
archaeological investigations will be conducted for this project.
There are no structures of historic or architectural importance located within the area of potential effect of this
project (see Concurrence Form in Appendix).
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 165 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment. The project should have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing conditions.
The replacement structure and associated roadway approaches should provide for safer traffic operations in the
project area.
This project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change in land
use is expected to result from replacement of Bridge No. 165.
A used auto sales business, once used as a gas station, will be relocated as a result of the preferred
alternative. No other relocations are anticipated for this alternative.
Right-of-way will be required from the northwest corner of the Newbridge Baptist Church property. This land is
vacant and may be used periodically by the church for recreational activities such as soccer.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated with the implementation of the preferred alternative
(Alternate A).
This project will not have an adverse effect on any prime, important or unique farmlands, therefore it is exempt
from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
18
No publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local
significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected as a result of this project. This project is an air quality "neutral"
project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a project level
CO analysis is not required. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
air quality, no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project, however this increase will be only
temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic volumes after
this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise levels. Noise
receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway noise setforth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are required.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the existing
human and natural environment, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effect will result from
the replacement of Bridge No. 165.
19
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Burkhead, N.M., and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp. 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's Endangered
Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Va.
672 pp.
Clarke, A.H. 1991. The Tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and
Arcidens. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 326. 101 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1.
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review, 1983-1987. N.C. DEHNR, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document:
French Broad River Basin. N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 198 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to
the Waters of the French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp + amendments through 4-1-96.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern
Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's Endangered Species:
Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Va. 672 pp.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plants of the
South. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Technical
Publication R8-TP 2. 1305 pp.
Lee, D.S. 1987. Felis concolor True, Panther. Pp. 15-18 in M.K. Clark (ed.), Endangered, Threatened, and
Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the Mammals. Occasional Papers of the North
Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E, Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North
American Freshwater Fishes. Publication No. 1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey. 867 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
20
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the CarolinE
and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Massey, J.R., D.K.S. Otte, T.A. Atkinson, and R.D. Whetstone. 1983. An Atlas and Illustrated Guide to th
Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. Southeastei
Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife ResourcE
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Murdock, N. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Endangered Status fc
Gymnoderma Lineare. Federal Register 58 (247): 68623-68627.
National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
Porter, D.M., and T.F. Wieboldt. 1991, Vascular Plants. Pp.51-171 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia,
Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the Conservation
Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. 283 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Draft Soil Survey of Buncombe County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
Weigl, P.D. 1987. Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Handley), Northern Flying Squirrel. Pp. 12-15 in: M.K. Clark
(ed.), Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I. A Re-evaluation of the Mammals.
Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 52 pp.
21
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
\< B UantS N^
1
Leicester
Bridge No.
rdsvrl
SCALE: Not-to-Scale
S
ON SR 1674 LOOKING NORTH AT BRIDGE #165
ON SR 1674 LOOKING SOUTH AT BRIDGE #165
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 4
ON SR 1674 LOOKING NORTH AT BRIDGE #165 APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH ON SR 1674 WHERE NEW LOCATION IS TO BEGIN
Federal Emergency Management Agency
?O
?O
ZONE X
?p
10
ZONE X
Cr
W VALLEY
PARK
ROAD
¢
w
w
a
Beauerdom
Creek
ZONE' 4??
AE ? BONE X
BRIDGE NO. 165
T2062
-"X2064 2088
00 FEMA FLOODWAY 20?
20
?c IIALC N
w ZONE X 11 DR Dam
ALTERNATE "A"
? a
0
2
w M()RANCE 0
Q ALLESARN a AJENUE a
ROAD ¢
PARKWA
w ROSANNE
¢ PARKWAY
JARNAUL AVENUE F-100-3
ZONE X
MAP NUMBER
m Z 37021CO189 C
ROAp r pKESµpRE
APPROXIMATE SCALE EFFECTIVE DATE
??sr 500 ° 500 FEET MAY 6,1996
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
B-3118
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1-/
ROSS
VIEW ST
J`
P 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE
qq
K
of q?
o-2066 n
SECONDARY
ROAD PINEACRE
3 2082
?076 p BOULEVARD
RM
38
25
WEAVERVILLE
0
0
FIGURE 5
208 4
2061-
New
Bridge
WOODFIN
POP. 3,260
1684
OMEN="
i
12081
DGE NO. 165

?oe4
7,06
v, 12081

New 1q .? .•....,.:.:.:.::::•..
Bridge 1712?

WOODFIN BRIDGE NO. 165
POP. 3,260 ,? ?. .;.;....

3 ? AU 25
95

1684

1668
?? }I :16;
X ?p
i 8
I 3
f,4U ac
51 1668 ok
Side
1674
0
O OFF-SITE DETOUR B

OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTES
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. B-3118
BRIDGE NO. 165 ON SR 1674 OVER BEAVERDAM CREEK
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 6
O OFF-SITE DETOUR A
O
W
N
U)
Ix
Q
O
J
a
a

Y
W
W
U
Q
Q?
W
m z
0
00
> U
M mm
I ? C
M co 0
U
'^ Z
U) D
Z m
0
'w
V
m
O
O C)
ch

E?
O O
co N
E
?o
c- N

O
'o U
o J

J
O
0
? v v U C7
t > > -,g z z o
O O N
Q

J

II
E
Y O O

'- m J
O
O
E
co M r O
N1
0

iz?
E
cD
o
7t
N
E Z I
CD O
M
r
E
? o
u
E
O°
ri o
7?1 F
0
z
o
o 0
z
O
I- F-

°' r? U LU

U
1- 04

p N U)
H U) U) Z
C) _j
? Q ? U ? p 0
p
w p p
Q
J

w
? o W
w ?
65 z ? z Z)
w w = LU _
p U p o t
i F
- fA
Y
3
a?
.N
c?
0
mcu
?-0
_cu
H O
c
f0
c
w :3
O
J ?
CL 0
w
o
w t
IM tf
c
c
O
F- N
w -v
?_ rn
c
co N
L
rn
7
O
L
O
3
F-
ti
w
tD
LL
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
ffll!?WA
Health and Natural Resources 0 •
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B Hunt, Governor C) E H N F=1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Cindy Sharer, P.E., NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality Ci L,:-6-
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 10, 1997, in which you requested preliminary comments
concerning nine bridge replacement projects. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following generic environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge
replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation treasures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50/6 recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Cindy Sharer Memo
February 26, 1997
Page 2
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
L If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A
NCAC 21-1.0506 (h)(2)).
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying die systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2150.DOC
rn
a
c'
M
cc:
Z
W
0
o o
?.o o
r.o o 0
a ?
ol?

SC9
? ?' a
c o
N S
? •Q 3:
3

E
m 3
w
Q
m
a s 0
m a
Z
?.G 3 z C
c a o N E y y c
V E E 3 3
Z E
Z m Z 3 Z 3 3
3
C 0
0 o
a

c a

Z

U a_
Z
(J V
Q LL U ll
E cc
°
?
V?1
~
U
Z
U
U >
Z
O U (
ul
m
U
E

111!???? p
- Z cc
N

n
N

Q

n

N n

f0

Q
N d n z cD t!? Z
n n
o - -

C v
)

E
d
3 $

E
m
Y 8
O

o
coo m
L
$
$ $
c
U ?} m m _
E

E

U

z

0 Y

?
co
o
Z m ¢ C
E Q
E p
c fi ro Q
m m c

L 0
Z Q
i? m = 0
Cf)
Cl)

z
CL
CL
CL
CL

¢

¢

Q
CL
Q
¢
Q
¢

9

N
N

l)
a

LV

V

n
t0 N
C
N
7

b

0 U
z pC
to
rn t
¢
(n ¢
U) o
n cC
cn
D

?
M
N
M r
N
.
r
m
Z O r
C\l S ? N °'w
d N
Cb N
co N
ab M
f? _
m
c6
a6
m

rn
c3
a
N
N
CY)
m
a
Cc
z
w
C)

ar
t
c
N
ld c
N
a

P A
Z 3 Z ;
O
?
L
U
C
m
LL
?
U U
o

m _
cb u
u -
o
N m
3
? UY

Y ?
Z 3
o

c
(n 19

CL m
Q Q
a
N
cc
m
U U
Z N Z
N
U)
D
N
n
p
O O?
W

N
N 1
p
10

M
Ch N
m
Eb
A?ST?u
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 6"-id /GJ
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XII, Bridge #164 on SR 1674
over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County,
B-3118, ER 97-8508
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. We look forward to meeting
with an architectural historian from the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
review the aerial and photographs of the project area so we can make our survey
recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Asheville-Buncombe County Historic Resources Commission
71 n
Fcdcral Aid rc ?iFtStP 1614 ?2l TIP it b' 311b County CIE-
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description Wt A.? VRto(rE No• WE oN tilt tu"14 .rte P1eavE2pAM C.Ar-E4.
(bfZtpGE (rfloKp y-Ill
On AFT-IL, 17 1101,11 , representatives of the
? Norh Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHNvA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed t`.e subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph revic%\, session/consultation
Odhcr
All pariics present agreed
thcrc are no properties over fifty Fears old within the prcicct's area of potc:itial cc-,-,s. thc.c arc no properties less than fim• years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G Nvithin the projects area of potential cffccts.
tl;crc arc properties over fim N'cars old (list attached) within the project's area of potc itial effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each prooc zy, properics
identified as ??'r»+?r) PKefi Oil 9tahrr-, arc considered not eligible
fcr National Rester and no furher e•:aluation of them is ncccssar.•.
t.`.crc are no National Register-;istcd properies \\•i thin the projects area of potcntial c:cccs.
SiQncd:
? 17 ?l
Rcprescn tiv , CDOT Date

FH\vA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Representativ , SHPO Date

late Historic Preservation Officer
If a sun•e-, report is preparcd, 3 111131 copy of this fonn and the at-shed list will be included.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

449 ? ?

Subject: Notification of start of study and request for project input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina), TIP Numbers B-2150, B-2848, B-2927, B-3000,
B-3118, B-3121, B-3189, B-3205, B-3206.
This is the response of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to your letter of February 10,
1997, requesting input for the subject bridge replacement projects. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential impacts the proposed projects could
have on federally listed species and on Federal species of concern and the potential impacts to
stream and wetland ecosystems within the area.
The Service concurs with the decision to prepare categorical exclusion documents for bridge
replacement projects B-2150, B-2927, B-3000, B-3118, B-3121, B-3189, B-3205, B-3206,
provided the following measures are implemented to minimize impacts to aquatic resources:
(1) riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever possible, especially large trees; (2) if any
riparian areas are disturbed, they should be revegetated with native species as soon as possible
after construction in order to minimize runoff and lessen the impacts associated with "bare
banks" (decrease in nutrient input, temperature changes, flow changes, sediment filtration, etc.);
(3) stringent erosion control measures should be implemented during all construction activities in
order to minimize downstream effects; and (4) construction should be accomplished so that wet
concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the stream. These measures will reduce
the likelihood of aquatic impacts associated with the bridge construction.
The Service does not agree that bridge replacement project B-2848 should be categorically
excluded from further environmental study due to the fact that the endangered Appalachian
elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is known to occur in the North Toe River in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation should work
closely with the Service to incorporate sufficient measures and monitoring, in addition to those
already mentioned, to avoid impacts to this endangered mussel. Otherwise, if it is determined
that the proposed project may affect the Appalachian elktoe, formal consultation, as directed by
the Act, would have to be initiated with our office.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate possible
impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern:
Virginia spirea (Spirea virginiana) (Threatened) - This plant species is found
along streams on sandbars and stream banks.
Olive darter (Percina squamata) (Federal species of concern) - This small fish is
found in deep swift rapids and runs near boulders.
Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) (Federal species of concern) - This
amphibian inhabits clear-flowing water areas with large flat rocks.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact area should be
addressed in any environmental document prepared for this project. Please note that the legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard to
federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the
Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal species of concern are not
legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response in order to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) any proposed temporary bridges or structures associated
with the bridge replacements; (2) any special measures proposed to minimize sedimentation
during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to minimize impacts to fish
and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you keep us
informed as to the progress of these projects. In any future correspondence concerning this
matter, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-077.
Sincerely,
f
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
IVA
I
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
March 5, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Enviirorimcntal Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?Gf- I V?
Q
MAR ? ? ?qql
9
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XII (WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), NCDOT TIP
NUMBERS B-2150, B-2848, B-3118, AND B-3205, FRENCH BROAD RIVER TRIBUTARIES
AND NORTH TOE RIVER, BUNCOMBE, MADISON, MITCHELL, AND YANCEY
COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the scoping notice for the proposed bridge replacement projects in western
North Carolina. Approvals under Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required for the following
bridges:
• B-2150, NC 212, Bridge 432 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
• B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge #143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge #165 over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3205, NC 209, Bridge #30 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Attached are typical conditions that TVA attaches to Section 26a approvals for bridges.
The other bridges do not cross tributaries of the Tennessee River and would not require Section
26a approval:
• B-2927, US 19-23-74 Bridge #123 over Southern Railroad, Buncombe County
• B-3000, SR 1407 Bridge #304 over Mill Creek, McDowell County
• B-3121, US 70 Business Bridge #52 over Hunting Creek, Burke County
• B-3189, SR 1643 Bridge 4272 over Southern Railroad, Haywood County
• B-3206, US 221 Business/NC 226 Bridges #81, #92, and #75 over Catawba River and
overflows.
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
March 5, 1997
Following completion of the environmental review, please send a copy of the Categorical Exclusion
documentation, along with a Section 26a application, to the following addresses:
• For TIP Project Number B-2848 (North Toe River), please send the application to TVA Upper
Holston Reservoir Land Management Office, 4105 Fort Henry Drive, Suite 218, Kingsport,
Tennessee 37663; telephone [phone].
4 For TIP Projec*. Numbers B-2150 B-31 18, and B-3205, please send the application to TVA
Cherokee-Douglas Land Management Office, 2611 West Andrew Johnson Highway,
Morristown, Tennessee 37814-3295; telephone [phone].
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
. Lo y, Manage
AlEnvironmental ?%? /
Management
Enclosure
Appendix F
WATER MANAGEMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS
For all off-reservoir requests, a condition should be placed in any general permit or letter of no jurisdiction to
inform the applicant of the need to comply with local floodplain regulations that may be in effect. The condition
should read:
You should contact your local government official(s) to ensure that this facility complies with all applicable
local floodplain regulations.
The following conditions should be used for all bridge and culvert approvals:
Best Management and Best Engineering Practices will be used to prevent the introduction of soil or any
other pollutants into surface or groundwaters, including but not limited to the following:
a. Installing cofferdams and/or silt control structures between construction areas and the streams prior
to any soil-disturbing demolition/construction activity, and clarifying all water that is trapped or
accumulates behind these devices to meet water quality criteria before it is returned to the stream.
Cofferdams must be used wherever construction activity is at or below water elevation.
b. Removing demolition products and construction by-products from the site for recycling, if practicable,
or proper disposal outside of a 100-year floodplain.
C. Minimizing removal of vegetation.
d. Keeping equipment out of streams (i.e., performing work "in the dry').
e. Keeping equipment off stream banks to the degree practicable.
f. Using erosion control structures around any material stockpile areas.
g. Removing, redistributing, and stabilizing (with vegetation) all sediment which accumulates behind
cofferdams and silt control structures.
h. Using vegetation (versus shot rock or riprap) wherever practicable and sustainable, to stabilize
streambanks and floodplain areas. These areas will be stabilized as soon as practicable, using
either an appropriate seed mixture that includes an annual (quick cover) as well as 1 or 2 perennial
legumes and 1 or 2 perennial grasses, or equivalent sod. In certain periods of the year, this will
require initial planting of a quick cover annual only, to be followed by subsequent establishment of
the perennials. Seed and soil will be protected as appropriate with erosion control netting and/or
mulch, and provided adequate moisture. Streambank and floodplain areas will also be permanently
stabilized with native woody plants, to include trees wherever practicable and sustainable and
consistent with other regulatory agency specifications.
i. Applying clean/shaken dprap or shot rock (where needed at water/bank interface) over a water
permeable/soil impermeable fabric or geotextile and in such a manner as to avoid stream
sedimentation or disturbance.
j. Avoiding spilling concrete, or other substances or materials; into the streams.
k. Designing/constructing any instream piers in such a manner as to discourage river scouring or
sediment deposition.
1. Bank, shoreline.. and floodplain stabilization will be permanently maintained in order to prevent
erosion, protect water quality, and preserve aquatic habitat.
m. Culverts are constructed in phases, and adequate streambank protection measures are employed,
such that the diverted streamflow is handled without creating streambank or streambed
erosionisedimentation and without preventing fish passage.
32
Appendix F
2. Concrete box culverts and pipe culverts (and their extensions) must create/maintain velocities and flow
patters which offer refuge for fish and other aquatic life, and allow passage of indigenous fish species,
under all flow conditions. Culvert floor slabs and pipe bottoms must be buried at least one foot below
streambed elevation, and filled with naturally-occumng streambed materials. If geologic conditions do not
allow burying the floor, it must be otherwise designed to allow passage of indigenous fish species under all
flow conditions.
3. All natural stream values (including equivalent energy dissipation, elevations, and velocities; riparian
vegetation; riffle/pool sequencing; habitat suitable for fish and other aquatic life) must be provided at all
stream modification sites. This must be accomplished using a combination of rock and bioengineering,
and is not accomplished using solid, homogeneous riprap from bank to bank.
33
NA
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
April 23, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
c? OR 2 1997
`z
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XII (WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), NCDOT TIP
NUMBERS B-2150, B-2848, B-2927, B-3000, B-3118, B-3189, AND B-3205, FRENCH
BROAD RIVER TRIBUTARIES AND NORTH TOE RIVER, BUNCOMBE, HAYWOOD,
MADISON, MCDOWELL, MITCHELL, AND YANCEY COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
As a follow-up to my letter of March 5, 1997, on the proposed bridge replacement projects in
western North Carolina, I wish to transmit the following additional information obtained through a
search of TVA's heritage database. No information was available for bridges not listed.
Information is listed by bridge and represents species that may be in appropriate habitats in the
vicinity of the bridge listed.
B-2150, NC 212, Bridge #32 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens State Threatened (ST)
river carpsucker Carpiodes carpio State Special Concern (SPCO)
banded sculpin Cottus carolinae ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus
American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus
logperch Percina caprodes
longhead darter Percina macrocephala
dusky darter Percina sclera
olive darter Percina squamata
paddlefish Polyodon spatula
Plants
clinton lily
mapleleaf alumroot
Virginia waterleaf
SPCO
ST
SPCO
ST
SPCO
State Endangered (SE)
SPCO
SE
Clintonia borealis SPCO
Heuchera longitlora SPCO
var. aceroides
Hydrophyllum virginianum ST
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
April 23, 1997
• B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge # 143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Federal Endangered
(FE)
sharphead darter Etheostoma acuticeps ST
wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola SPCO
striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus ST
stonecat Noturus flavus SE
tangerine darter Percina aurantiaca State in Need of
Management (NMGT)
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
Plants
Virginia spiraea
Terrestrial Animals
common hellbender
Spiraea virginiana Federal Threatened
(FT)
Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis SPCO
• B-2927, US 19-23-74, Bridge # 123 over Southern Railway, Buncombe County
Aquatic Animals
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
longhead darter Percina macrocephala SPCO
paddlefish Polyodon spathula SE
Plants
ginseng Panax quinquefolius ST
Terrestrial Animals
black vuiture Coragyps stratus SPCO
• B-3000, SR 1407, Bridge #304 over Mill Creek and Southern Railroad, McDowell County
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian disc Anguispira mordax State-Listed, Status Undetermined,
Uncertain, or Poorly Known (STUN)
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus Watch List (WATC)
Carolina seep scud Stygobromus carolinensis ST
Terrestrial Animals
Diana Speyeria diana SPCO
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 3
April 23, 1997
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge # 165 over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County
Aquatic Animals
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
paddlefish Polyodon spathula SE
Wetlands In the Construction Location:
PSS1A (pa!ustrine/scrub-shrub/broad-leaved deciduous/ temporarily flooded)
• B-3189, SR 1643, Bridge #272 over Southern Railroad, Haywood County
No Sensitive resources or wetlands records for the vicinity of this project.
B-3205, NC 209, Bridge 430 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens ST
banded sculpin Cottus carolinae ST
barrens topminnow Fundulus julisia ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus SPCO
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus SPCO
logperch Percina caprodes ST
dusky darter Percina sciera SE
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon n M. Lon4Mager
Environmental Management
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 2, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
M4Y c
Z
,? HIGHV
ON:
This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1997, subject, "Notification of
Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group XII (Western
North Carolina." The bridge replacement projects are located in various Western North
Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Roger Milstead
River System Operations
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
May 2, 1997
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for those in Burke and McDowell Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District.
These bridges are located within counties which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), it
appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved. (Detail
study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and [generally] a
floodway defined). A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm

32 NC 212 Madison Shelton Laurel Ck. Approx 9/82
143 SR 1304 MitchellNancey North Toe River Approx 9/88
123 US 19-23 Buncombe None (So. RR) None 5196
304 SR 1407 McDowell Mill Ck./So. RR Approx 2/97
164 SR 1674 Buncombe Beaver Dam Ck. Detail 5/96
52 US 70 Bus. Burke Hunting Ck. Detail 2/87
272 SR 1643 Haywood None (So. RR) None 1182 **
30 NC 209 Madison Spring Ck. Detail*** 9/82
81/92 US 221 McDowell Catawba River Detail *** * 7188
* Map is City of Morganton FIRM.
Map is Town of Canton FIRM.
*"* Detailed study limit is downstream side of road.
'"'** No floodway computed.
May 2, 1997
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
Reference is made the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
"Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory
Floodways", copies of which have been provided previously to your office. The project
should be designed to meet the requiraments of the NIF-IF', administered by FEMA, and
be in compliance with all local ordinances. The engineering point of contact for the
NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who may be reached at [phone].
Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or developments
should be referred to the local building official.
All of the affected counties, except for Burke and McDowell Counties, are within
the planning jurisdiction of the USACE, Nashville District, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or development involving the flood
plains. The Nashville District does not currently have projects that would be affected by
the proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may be contacted at [phone] for further
information and comments from the Nashville District. Flood plain concerns are
normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a permitting process. A 26a permit is
required for all construction or development involving streams or flood plains in the
Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at [phone] should be
contacted for information on the TVA 26a permitting process.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Asheville Field Office, Regulatory Branch
(Individual POC's are listed following the comments.
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
May 2, 1997
Page 3 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that, prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation should provide a letter of notification to the Asheville Regulatory Field
Office and the appropriate North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission office with
reference to impacts to mountain trout water habitat. The mountain trout designation
carries discretionary authority for the utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any
jurisdictional impacts associated with temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams,
or other dewatering structures should be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion
documentation in order to be authorized by Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If
such information is not contained within the Categorical Exclusion documentation, then
other DA permits may be required prior to construction activities.
Where possible, the bridges should be replaced with bridges, and impacts to the
channel and wetlands should be avoided and/or minimized. Although these projects
may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the project planning report should
contain sufficient information to document that the proposed activity does not have
more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the aquatic environment.
Accordingly, we offer the following comments and recommendations to be addressed in
the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 2, 1997
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address pctential impacts to anadrornous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
David Baker at [phone] for Buncombe, Haywood, Madison,
Mitchell, and Yancey Counties
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Burke and McDowell Counties
RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR [:] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
MANAGER OF
PROJECT: 8.2843401 COUNTY Buncombe Alternate 1 ernate
1. D. NO.: B-3118 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace existing Bridge #165 over Beaverdam Creek w' new
l
i
t
i
l stream of existin
OF WAY BRAPdrN
1
000 f
t
ma
e
on a rox
ocat up
g
,
ee
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOM •
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0
KA
- AFL of I&
""i?
Businesses 0 1 1 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M so-150
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 2040m 150-250 20-40M 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 250-400 40.70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600
70-100M n
O
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 100 UP 600 UP
6.U
P
displacement? TOTAL
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project? 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. Bailey's Auto Sales
employees, minorities, etc. 1,000 square feet. Two employees. No minorities.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Used car lot.
N/A 6. Source for available housing (list).
N/A 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 14. Beverly-Hanks Realty, Asheville, NC.
N/A 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Multiple listing book and local newspaper.
N/A 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
N/A 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
N/A 11. Is public housing available?
N/A 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
N/A 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are sultable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCA1100 3 MONTHS

/ s / 7 S,

to
Relocation Agent
Approved b Date
FOrM 1b.4 HeVISea Wbit, a
vngmar * r wpy: Main nGrVI:aUUrr Nyttrn
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
.& At
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, ATIK?FA
Health and Natural Resources Zwo • •
Division of Water Quality James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p FE N 1=?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 26, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Cindy Sharer, P.E., NCDOT, Planning & Environmental
From: Cyndi Bell, NC Division of Water Quality Ci I 'A
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 10, 1997, in which you requested preliminary comments
concerning nine bridge replacement projects. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following generic environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge
replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 500% recycle&10% post consumer paper

Ms. Cindy Sharer Memo
February 26, 1997
Page 2
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2)).
The attached table has been prepared by DWQ for your assistance in studying the systems involved in
these bridge replacements. This information includes the DWQ Index Number, DWQ Stream
Classification, river basin, and preliminary comments for each crossing. Please note that National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) map references are not to be replaced by onsite wetland determinations by
qualified biologists.
Thank you for your request for DWQ input. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfaction of water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not lost or degraded. Questions regarding the 401 Certification or other water
quality issues should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
cc: Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
B2150.DOC
rn
a
C)
c0
(^ L
cc
z
w
0
(d

°c

.?

c Cd

? co
v
?o
m

C
30
L •?
$
C
L a
o
C
L
0
•? (D to

;

61
N

d ,

v
{
?

Q ,

H i m L

"
a ,?

L °

Q
E
E N
$
s i
y
tl N l0
z
N N to CL
(0
C 0.
N
C
z
V •
Ev f
E Ev •
Ev y
j
N
?

Z co
z
z c
«
E m

?
3
;
z
r
3 u

z 25.

S
v
to
m 0
ch 0
a 0
m
a

> ` () N (?
aC LL U LL
C
O
>
cA C
Q y ~
U H
U Q
z ~
U U Q
z

? U
E
O
Z ?o
N

^
O
??-' ? N _Q

Z _ ? tD Q
z
O

o _ n

N v
J+
d _
d
D
C a O Q 7
m
U =

E
m

z
v v 1
?
Q
E cr
E E
a c c
b J
9
0 ? ? > 7
U L z O U 2 O
U U ?

CL a a a a a Q.
CL g cr (r a) cc cr cr Q a:

O

N

r)

h

t N
d

C

h
A N
p U
Z a` T Q ac p M
J U U U cn h U
D cn

d
V
N
Cl)
cr)
N
$
N
U
N
N
m cq 04
O
z
N
v
N
N
d N
m N
m N
m c7
m co
m co
m
H co
BRIDGI
v
b
J
u
L
X?
v
11 a ?
V U S
b
() a 4
O
1v ?C
r ?
? S
av?
M r
B•2848 ?
\\

0

lour
ill •• Grwrr ??

`
LUL
? 111
`
1
_ .
5ioux
e ?
J.
S ; FOREST
J 1,5 14AA
Q1

Iv •?e
r ?
S ' Ra?ya.n
f
UL4

q1 YANCEY
C COUNTY

C SR QC4 GRID(
MITCHELL & Y)
RE?LACE EIRIC
TCE RIVER.

C
P
SR 1643. BRIDGI
HAYWOOD COU
BRIDGE OVER S
RAILROAD.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 9lsc/F?r
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
February 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branc
SUBJECT: Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input,
Bridge Replacement Group XII (Western North Carolina)
The Planning and Environmental Branch is preparing Categorical Exclusion (CE)
documents for the following bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina:
NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT COUNTY
TIP NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

B-2150 NC 212, Bridge #32 over Madison
Shelton Laurel Creek
B-2848 SR 1304, Bridge #143 over Mitchell & Yancey
North Toe River
B-2927 US 19-23-74, Bridge #123 over Buncombe
? Southern Railroad
B-3000 SR 1407, Bridge #304 over McDowell
Mill Creek and Southern Railroad
B-3118 SR 1674, Bridge #164 over Buncombe
? Beaver Dam Creek
B-3121? US 70 Bus., Bridge #52 over Burke
Hunting Creek
B-3189 SR 1643, Bridge #272 over Haywood
? Southern Railroad
B-3205 NC 209, Bridge #30 over Madison
Spring Creek
B-3206 ? US 221 Bus./NC 226, Bridges #81, #92 McDowell
& #75 over Catawba River and overflows
OQ
2
We would appreciate any information you might have that would help the NCDOT
in evaluating potential environmental impacts that may be caused by any of these
mentioned bridge replacement projects. Your information will be used in the preparation
of a Categorical Exclusion document for each bridge project.
All of the projects in Bridge Group XII are located in western North Carolina. We
are providing a map to aid you in identifying the location of each bridge project.
In order to include your comments in the study of each bridge, it is our goal to
receive your input by March 12, 1997. We greatly appreciate your input.
If you need additional information, please contact Cindy Sharer, P. E. at
[phone], extension 268.
HFV/cs