19981226 Ver 1_Complete File_19981210

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
4 00
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 17, 1998
McDowell County
WQC 401 Project # 981226
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 No. 70, 81
and 92 over Catawba River, as you described in your application dated December 10, 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 6 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 send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this 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.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
pSi,.nc ,
n How Iatd, Jr. P.E.
981226.1tr
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 9 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
?J? ?C l Z ? ;_-h ? D
,$
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. 11.0. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR December 02, 1998 SECRETARY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
_7j
k
Df=r I 0 ?ggg i
I
PS GROUP
??,iTER a I.ITV srcr ;,
SUBJECT: McDowell County. Replacement of Bridge No. 70. 81, and 92 over
Catawba River and overflows on US 221 Business; Federal Aid Project
No. BRSTP-221 B (1), State Project No. 8.1871401, TIP No. B-3206.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 17 December 1997. The
project involves replacing Bridges No. 75, 81, and 92 over the Catawba River and
overflows on U.S. Business 221. The three bridges will be replaced in their existing
location (Alternative C) one at a time, with a new two lane bridge (see Figure 2 of
referenced document). During project construction, traffic will be maintained using U.S.
70 and the U.S. 221 Bypass as the off-site detours. The planning document states that no
jurisdictional wetlands will be imp.?=d_ _y ct project.
As noted in e Categorical Exclusion (CE) epared for the subject project,
foundation investig tions will be needed f s project. It is anticipated that this activity
may be authorized uhter Nationwide Permit 6 (Survey Activities). This
work would not require notification if not for the fact that this project lies in a mountain
trout county. Contact was made by Phillip Todd with Mark Davis with the Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) about geotechnical surveys of the project. In that
conversation Mr. Davis stated that the (WRC) would issue a concurrence for a permit
based on the fact that the geotechnical surveys would not affect a trout stream.
0

These permits are necessary for survey work and bridge construction within
Catawba River and overflows. The DOT is also requesting that the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission provide comments to the Corps of Engineers concerning these
permit requests. The DOT understands that written concurrence from the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) for 401 Water Quality Certification (No. 3127) is not required for
the Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6 request. General conditions of this 401 Water
Quality Certification for Nationwide Permit 6 will be followed.
As noted, copies of the CE will be distributed with this applications. The DOT
hereby applies for a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 6, Nationwide Permit 23 and
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
Thank you for your attention to this project. If you have any questions or need
any additional information, please contact Mr. Jared Gray at [phone], extension
329.
Sincerely,

W.D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
wdg J g
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC, Asheville
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr.W. D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Ms. Cynthia Sharer, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
US 221 BUSINESS OVER CATAWBA RIVER AND OVERFLOWS
(BRIDGE NOS. 75,81 AND 92)
McDOWELL COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-221 B (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1871401
T.I.P. NO. B-3206
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DOE I
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE ?*rNicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
US 221 BUSINESS OVER CATAWBA RIVER AND OVERFLOWS
(BRIDGE NOS. 75,81 AND 92)
McDOWELL COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-221B (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1871401
T.I.P. NO. B-3206
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
••,1..16111.1,
•??IH CAA
EWlt
MonteII W. Irvin, P.E. SEAL
Project Manager
? tB?Sg
%.S-/9 7
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. 'I rime , E., Unit Head
Consultant En ' ering Unit
'tZ
Cy hia D. Sharer, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement
US 221 Business over Catawba River and Overflows
(Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92)
McDowell County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-221 B (1)
State Project No. 8.1871401
T.I.P. No. B-3206
The replacement of Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92 in McDowell County is listed in the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP No.
B-3206. The purpose of this project is to replace the three existing bridges due to their poor conditions and
substandard widths.
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 significant adverse environmental effects will
result from the replacement of Bddge Nos. 75, 81 and 92. Refer to Figures 1 through 5 for location and
illustrations of the project area and existing bridge locations.
All measurements contained in this report are in System International metric units. 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 Nos. 75, 81 and 92, all standard procedures and measures, including
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Protection of Surface Waters will
be implemented, as applicable.
2. The floodplain of the Catawba River and Overflows will not be used for a staging
area during construction.
Consultation with SHPO will be held following the completion of the preliminary
designs to determine the scope of archaeological surveys within the area of potential
effect. Any necessary surveys will be conducted prior to construction.
4. The North Carolina Geodetic Survey office will be contacted prior to construction to
relocate geodetic survey markers #MCD 20 located on Bridge No. 75 and #MCD 21
located on Bridge No. 92.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
US 221 Business will be temporarily closed during the replacement of the bridges. Traffic will be detoured
off-site during construction using US 70 and the US 221 Bypass. Bridge Nos. 75, 81, and 92 will be
replaced one at a time in order to maintain access to businesses and residences between the bridges.
The preferred alternative (Alternate C) for this project will replace each existing bridge with a new two-lane
bridge approximately 63 meters (206 ft) in length and 9.6 meters (32 ft) in width. The roadway approaches
will include two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes and 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders. Part of the shoulders (1.2
meters (4 ft)) will be paved. Each bridge will be designed to accommodate future widening of US 221
Business.
The estimated total cost of the preferred alternative (Alternate C), based on current prices, is $2,550,000.
This amount includes $2,350,000 for construction and $200,000 for right-of-way. The estimated cost of the
project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $2,475,000 ($2,250,000 for construction and $225,000 for right-
of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92 are located on US 221 Business between US 70 and the US 211 Bypass north
of the City of Marion in McDowell County, North Carolina. Bridge No. 75 spans the Catawba River and
Bridge Nos. 81 and 92 span overflows associated with the Catawba River. Refer to Figure 1 for the
existing bridge location and Figures 2 through 5 for illustrations of the project area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Bridge No. 75
This bridge was constructed over the Catawba River in 1938. It is a four span bridge measuring
approximately 63.7 meters (207 ft) in length and has a clear roadway width of 7.3 meters (24 ft). The
superstructure of the bridge consists of a reinforced concrete deck on steel I-Beams, an asphalt wearing
surface, and concrete rails. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete end bents with reinforced
concrete caps founded on pile footings. The three interior bents consist of reinforced concrete round nose
post and web piers founded on pile footings. The bottom of the bridge is approximately 6.7 meters (22 ft)
above the river bottom. Bridge No. 75 is on a horizontal tangent and is relatively flat.
According to the 1996 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 78.2 out of a
possible rating of 100.0. A recent change in the rating criteria and some minor rehabilitation has resulted
in the high (78.2) rating of the existing bridge. Prior to the new criteria the sufficiency rating of Bridge
No. 75 was 47.0 out of a possible rating of 100.0. The bridge is functionally obsolete because of its
substandard width. There are currently no restrictions on the bridge.
Bridge No. 81
This bridge was constructed over an overflow of the Catawba River in 1938 and is located approximately
107 meters (350 ft) north of Bridge No. 75. This bridge was reconstructed in 1941 after a flood at the end
of 1940 caused one end bent to fail and washed away part of the approach roadway of the original bridge.
2
Bridge No. 81 is an eight span bridge measuring approximately 57.3 meters (188 ft) in length and has a
clear roadway width of 7.3 meters (24 ft). The superstructure of the bridge consists of a reinforced concrete
deck on steel I-Beams, an asphalt wearing surface, and metal rails. The substructure has one end bent
and three interior bents that are constructed of timber piles with timber caps. The other end bent and four
of the seven interior bents consist of steel piles with reinforced concrete caps. The bottom of the bridge is
approximately 6.1 meters (20 ft) above the bottom of the overflow. Bridge No. 81 is on a horizontal tangent
and is relatively flat.
According to the 1996 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 62.9 out of a
possible rating of 100.0. A recent change in the rating criteria and some minor rehabilitation has resulted
in the high (62.9) rating of the existing bridge. Prior to the new criteria the sufficiency rating of Bridge
No. 81 was 37.7 out of a possible rating of 100.0. The bridge is functionally obsolete because of its
substandard width. There are currently no restrictions on the bridge.
Bridge No. 92
This bridge was constructed over an overflow of the Catawba River in 1938 and is located approximately
213 meters (700 ft) north of Bridge No. 81. This bridge was reconstructed in 1941 after a flood at the end
of 1940 caused one end bent and.two interior bents to fail, and washed away the south approach roadway
of the bridge.
Bridge No. 92 is an eight span bridge measuring approximately 57.6 meters (189 ft) in length and has a
clear roadway width of 7.3 meters (24 ft). The superstructure of the bridge consists of a reinforced concrete
deck on steel I-Beams, an asphalt wearing surface, and concrete rails. The substructure has one end bent
and three interior bents that are constructed of timber piles with timber caps. The other end bent and four
of the seven interior bents consist of steel piles with reinforced concrete caps. The bottom of the bridge is
approximately 4.0 meters (13 ft) above the bottom of the overflow. Bridge No. 92 is located at the end of a
1,397 meter radius horizontal curve in US 221 Business just south of a sharp horizontal curve that ties into
the US 221 Bypass. The grade over the bridge is relatively flat.
According to the 1996 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 59.1 out of a
possible rating of 100.0. A recent change in the rating criteria and some minor rehabilitation has resulted
in the high (59.1) rating of the existing bridge. Prior to the new criteria the sufficiency rating of Bridge No.
92 was 6.0 out of a possible rating of 100.0. The bridge is functionally obsolete because of its current
geometrics. Bridge No. 92 is currently posted for a weight limit of 27,215 kilograms (30 tons) for single
vehicles and 29,937 kilograms (33 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
CATAWBA RIVER AND OVERFLOWS
The Catawba River is generally straight in the vicinity of Bridge No. 75, however, there are sharp meanders
in the river up and downstream of the bridge. The drainage area of the Catawba River at Bridge No. 75 is
approximately 447 square kilometers (172 square miles) in size and consists of mostly wooded, steep,
terrain with scattered residential and commercial developments in the vicinity of the project. The river is
approximately 18 meters (55 ft) wide and is approximately 1.2 meters (4 ft) deep at Bridge No. 75.
Bridge Nos. 81 and 92 cross overflows of the Catawba River. These overflows provide relief for the
Catawba River during flooding. A flood in late 1940 caused portions of both of these bridges and their
roadway approaches to collapse. According to a NCDOT Bridge Survey Report, this flood reached the
superstructures of the two bridges but did not overtop US 221. Based on conversations with residents in
3
the area, floodwaters have been high during certain periods since the 1940 flood but no storm has
overtopped the channel banks of the river or its overflows.
Fill material was placed in the floodplain in the vicinity of the two overflow bridges to develop the land on
both sides of US 221 Business. The development includes mobile home parks, restaurants, recreational
facilities and businesses. Many of these developments flood during heavy storms.
McDowell County is a participant in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. Although the Catawba River and overflows within the project area are
included in the detailed FEMA study, floodway boundaries are not designated. According to the FEMA
study the three bridges create a restriction in flow during flood events. The FEMA water surface profiles of
the base flood elevation are shown above the surface elevation of US 221 Business indicating the road
would overtop during the 100-year storm. Refer to Figure 6 for illustration of the 100-year floodplain
boundaries within the project area.
There was a USGS continuous recording gauge station located at southeast corner of Bridge No. 75. Data
was collected at this station from prior to 1940 to 1981, when it was removed from operation. The
reinforced concrete structure is still present. The potential historical significance of gauging station was
studied in detail. It was determined the structure is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with this finding (see Concurrence Form in
Appendix).
ROADWAY INFORMATION
US 221 Business is classified as a major collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
primarily serves local traffic traveling to and from the City of Marion central business district. In the project
area, this two-lane highway is approximately 6.6 meters (22.0 ft) in width with variable width unpaved
shoulders. US 221 Business was designated when the US 221 Bypass around the west side of the City of
Marion was completed. The posted speed limit on US 221 Business throughout the project area is 70
kilometers per hour (45 mph).
The estimated 1997 average daily traffic volume on US 221 Business over Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92 is
8,000 vehicles per day (vpd) which includes two percent TTST vehicles and four percent dual-tired (Dual)
vehicles. The 2017 design year average daily traffic volume over the bridge is projected to be 13,800 vpd.
US 221 Bypass is located on the west side of US 221 Business and bypasses the City of Marion as shown
in Figure 1. This four lane divided highway has two bridges located over the Catawba River just upstream
of the project area. The main bridge over the Catawba River (Bridge No. 355) on US 221 Bypass is located
approximately 360 meters (1,180 ft) upstream of Bridge No. 75 and the overflow bridge (Bridge No. 356) is
located approximately 210 meters (680 ft) upstream of Bridge No. 92 (see Figure 2).
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project is located in a commercially developed area of McDowell County known as Garden Creek.
Based on information obtained from the McDowell County Planning Board, land north and east of the
project is forecasted to have high to moderate growth over the next thirty years. Increases in residential
development will increase the traffic volume traveling to and from the Marion Central Business District.
4
According to school officials, school buses cross Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92 seventeen times on an
average day.
Four accidents were reported within the project area between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1996. One crash
was the result of a vehicle losing control while making a U-turn on US 221 Business and running into
Bridge No. 75, two crashes resulted from vehicles pulling out into US 221 Business and being struck by
through vehicles, and one was a rear end collision.
There are aerial electric and telephone services along the east side of US 221 Business throughout the
project area. There are no utilities attached to any of the three bridges. Utility impacts for this project are
expected to be "low".
There is one U.S. Geological Survey geodetic survey marker located on the southeast comer of
Bridge No. 75 (#MCD 20) and another located on southeast comer of Bridge No. 92 (#MCD 21).
No major developments or roadway improvements are planned that would impact the historical growth
rates or travel patterns in the area of this project.
A former gas station is located on the west side of US 221 Business approximately 61 meters (200 ft) north
of Bridge No. 81. This station was in operation from 1973 to 1983. The building is now occupied by three
different businesses (an appliance service center, an insurance company, and a bingo hall). According to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) records, three tanks were removed from the site in 1995. The former tank bed is located
approximately 38 meters (125 ft) west of the centerline of US 221 Business.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A "Do-Nothing" alternate was considered for this project, however, this alternative would eventually
necessitate closure of the roadway. Based on the heavy traffic volumes on US 221 Business, the "Do-
Nothing" alternate was eliminated from further consideration.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge was also considered. This alternative was eliminated from further
consideration due the deteriorated condition of the three bridges.
Three alternatives (A, B and C) were studied for replacing the three bridges. These alternatives are
illustrated in Figure 2 and are as follows:
ALTERNATE A - (Widening Alternate)
This alternate involves widening US 221 Business from its current two-lane cross section to a five-lane
curb and gutter facility from approximately 168 meters (550 ft) east of US 70 to the US 221 Bypass, a
distance of approximately 760 meters (2,500 ft). The new roadway would have two through lanes in each
direction and a continuous center left turn lane and would measure 19.2 meters (64 ft) face-to-face of
curbs. The existing facility would be used to maintain traffic while constructing the new roadway and
bridges. Traffic would be shifted to the new facility while the existing bridges were removed and the new
bridges were extended to accommodate the two existing travel lanes.
5
The estimated total cost of Alternate A, based on current prices, is $6,210,000. This amount includes
$5,400,000 for construction and $810,000 for right-of-way. Refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of the
estimated costs for Alternate A.
This alternative was considered to accommodate the amount of traffic predicted to travel US 221 Business
in the design year (13,800 vpd). However, based on the scope of this project and the cost associated with
widening the existing facility (see Table 1), this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
ALTERNATE B - (Two-lane Bridges with On-Site Detours)
This alternative would replace each of the three bridges in their existing location with a new two-lane
bridge and would provide temporary detours to maintain traffic on-site during construction. Because of the
close proximity of Bridge Nos. 75 and 81, one continuous detour on each side of the two bridges
(Temporary Detour B and C) was evaluated. The cost and environmental impact of each of the two detour
alternates are approximately the same. However, due to the impact to parking lots of numerous
businesses on the east side of US 221 Business, Temporary Detour B was eliminated from further
consideration. Only one detour (Temporary Detour D) was considered for the replacement of Bridge
No. 92.
US 221 Business, in the vicinity of each bridge, would provide two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes flanked by
2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders on each side of the roadway. Part of the shoulders (1.2 meters (4 ft)) will be
paved. The clear roadway width across each of the three bridges would be 9.6 meters (32 ft). Each bridge
would be designed to accommodate future widening.
The estimated total cost of Alternate B, based on current prices, is $3,835,200. This amount includes
$3,300,000 for construction (including $900,000 for temporary detours) and $535,200 for right-of-way.
Refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of the estimated costs for Alternate B.
Maintaining traffic on site while replacing each bridge can not be justified considering the location and
adequacy of a nearby off-site detour. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
ALTERNATE C - (Two-lane Bridges with Off-Site Detour - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This alternative involves replacing each of the three bridges in their existing location with a new two-lane
bridge using an off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction. In order to maintain access to
businesses and residences between the three bridges, Bridge Nos. 75, 81, and 92 will be replaced one at
a time. US 70 and the US 221 Bypass will be used as the off-site detour during construction.
US 221 Business, in the vicinity of each bridge, will provide two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes with 2.4 meter
(8 ft) shoulders on each side of the roadway. Part of the shoulders (1.2 meters (4 ft)) will be paved. The
clear roadway width across each of the three bridges will be 9.6 meters (32 ft). Each bridge will be
designed and constructed to accommodate potential future widening. Refer to Figure 7 for illustration of the
typical roadway and bridge cross section and design criteria for Alternate C.
The estimated total cost of Alternate C, based on current prices, is $2,550,000. This amount includes
$2,350,000 for construction and $200,000 for right-of-way. Refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of the
estimated costs for Alternate C.
6
Based on the cost savings associated with maintaining traffic off-site during construction, Alternate C was
selected as the preferred alternative.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of Alternates A, B and C, based on current 1997 dollars, are shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Preferred Alternative
Structure (proposed) $2,660,000 $1,217,400 $1,217,400
Roadway Approaches $823,000 $299,200 $244,100
Structure Removal (existing) $90,800 $84,300 $84,300
Temporary Detour $0 $900,000 $0
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $1,076,200 $484,100 $454,200
Engineering and Contingencies $750,000 $315,000 $350,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities $810,000 $535,200 $200,000
Total $6,210,000 $3,835,200 $2,550,000
The estimated total cost of the preferred alternative (Alternate C) for this project, based on current prices,
is $2,550,000. This amount includes $2,350,000 for construction and $200,000 for right-of-way. The
estimated total cost of the project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $2,475,000 ($2,250,000 for
construction and $225,000 for right-of-way).
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
US 221 Business will be temporarily closed to through traffic during the replacement of all three bridges.
Traffic will be detoured off-site using US 70 and the US 221 Bypass. Bridge Nos. 75, 81, and 92 will be
replaced one at a time in order to maintain access to numerous businesses and residences between the
bridges.
Alternate C is the preferred alternative for this project. This alternative will replace each existing bridge with
a new two-lane bridge approximately 63 meters (206 ft) in length and 9.6 meters (32 ft) in width. The
roadway approaches will include two 3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes and 2.4 meter (8 ft) shoulders. Part of
the shoulders (1.2 meters (4 ft)) will be paved. Each bridge will be designed to accommodate future
widening of US 221 Business.
Based on the lack of pedestrian traffic along US 221 Business and conversations with the City of Marion,
sidewalks are not recommended for this project.
The length of the proposed structures may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows as determined by further hydraulic studies. This project will comply with local floodplain regulations.
7
VII. TEMPORARY TRAFFIC DETOUR (OFF-SITE)
US 221 Business will be closed for approximately 36 months to through traffic to replace the three existing
bridges. Traffic will be detoured along US 221 Bypass and US 70 during the construction period. Refer to
Figure 8 for illustration of the temporary detour route.
US 221 Business will remain open on each side of the bridge under construction to allow for access to
numerous residential and commercial developments between the bridges. The proposed detour route will
be approximately 0.39 kilometers (0.24 miles) longer than the existing route for through traffic on US 221
Business. The detour roadway and bridges will adequately accommodate the addition of the detour traffic
during the construction period.
US 70 between US 221 Business and US 221 Bypass is currently being widened from a two-lane roadway
to a five-lane curb and gutter facility. This widening project should be complete by the end of 1997.
VIII. 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 (Marion
West, NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources
Conservation Service soils mapping (USDA 1995), and recent aerial photography (scale 1:1200).
The site was visited on February 5, 1997. The entire study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. The study corridor is approximately 570 meters (1870 ft) in length, and tapers from
122 meters (400 ft) wide to 61 (200 ft) wide. However, impact calculations for Alternate A and the
temporary detours for Alternate B are based on right-of-way width; actual impacts will be limited to
construction limits and will be less than those shown for right-of-way. Right-of-way width for Alternate A is
approximately 24.4 meters (80 ft). The additional area required to build the temporary detours for
Alternate B is approximately 12.2 meters (40 ft) for Temporary Detour B, 2.4 meters (8 ft) for Temporary
Detour C, and 3.7 meters (12 ft) for Temporary Detour D. Special concerns evaluated in the field include
potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in the Catawba River and
overflows.
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 of al. (1968). Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
8
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). 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 delved 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 which extend into McDowell 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 Piedmont physiographic province. Topography is characterized by a
wide, nearly level floodplain and gently sloping to strongly sloping stream terraces along the Catawba
River (USDA 1995). Elevations in the study corridor range just below approximately 380 meters (1240 ft)
(USGS Marion West, NC quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor are dominated by loamy Udorthents. Frequently flooded Udifluvents and lotla
sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slope) mapping units occur along the southern and northern overflows
respectively, while the land along the Catawba River is mapped as Urban land. Udorthents consist of well
drained areas where natural soil has been altered by excavation or covered by fill material. Udifluvents
consist of well drained soils on floodplains where the natural soil has ben altered by excavation or covered
by fill material during sand and gravel mining. The lotla series (Aquic Udifluvents) consists of somewhat
poorly drained soils formed in recent stream sediments on floodplains. Extensive excavation and shaping
has occurred within the study corridor within the area mapped as lotla, resulting in much of the area better
mapped as Udifluvents. These are all non-hydric soils; however, hydre inclusions may be present in
depressions and deep excavations in the Udifluvents, and in depressions and along drainageways in the
lotla mapping unit.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 030830 of the Catawba River Basin (DEM 1989). This area
is part of USGS accounting unit 030501 of the Santee-Edisto River Region. The Catawba River section
flowing through the study corridor has been assigned Stream Index Number 11-(8) by the DENR, Division
of Water Quality (DWQ).
Stream Characteristics
The Catawba River is a brownwater system originating along the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge
Mountains in the western part of McDowell County. The Catawba River is approximately 18 meters (60 ft)
wide at Bridge No.75, but narrows upstream and downstream within the study corridor. Turbidity within the
stream is very high, with a swift current over sandy and rocky substrate and evidence of bank scouring.
Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent in the creek channel, but some trees were sloughing off
the banks. The existing bridge spans the open water of the creek.
9
The southernmost overflow (Bridge No. 81) is a tributary with flowing water that appears to be draining
from a naturalized excavation area west of the study corridor. The stream channel splits just upstream
from the bridge, with a main channel approximately 8 meters (25 ft) wide and 2 meters (6 ft) deep, and a
smaller side channel approximately 2.5 meters (8 ft) wide. Turbidity within the stream is very high, with a
swift current over a sandy substrate. Little or no rooted aquatic vegetation is apparent in either channel,
but trees and branches are sloughing into the main channel. The south bank of the main channel exhibits
evidence of scouring.
The northernmost overflow (Bridge No. 92) appears to have been extensively modified within the study
corridor by the excavation of small ponds to the east and west of the bridge. The ponds do not appear on
the USGS topographic map (Marion West, photo revised 1990) or county soils map (1976 aerial
photography base), but are presented on the NWI map (1995) with an "excavated" special modifier. The
channel is approximately (9 ft) wide and less than (1 ft) deep, with heavy turbidity and no flow visible during
the site visit. This system appears to drain to the west. The channel substrate is clayey with an
accumulation of leaves and some rooted emergent herbaceous vegetation present. The ponds have
emergent vegetation present on the fringes. The eastern fringe of the pond west of US 221 Business is
within the proposed right-of-way for Alternate A and Temporary Detour D of Alternate B.
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 the Catawba River from the dam at the Old Fort Finishing Plant Water Supply Intake to
the North Fork of the Catawba 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 (ORW), WS I, or WS II Waters occur within
1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. The Catawba River is not designated as a North Carolina
Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River.
There is one major permitted point source discharger upstream from the study corridor (DEM 1989). The
Old Fort WWTP (NPDES #NC0021229), which is located on Curtiss Creek more than 16 kilometers (10 mi)
upstream from the study corridor has a permitted flow of 0.8 MGD.
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 are BMAN stations located
upstream and downstream from the study corridor on the Catawba River. The nearest BMAN station is
located approximately 5.0 kilometers (3.1 mi) upstream at SR 1221 near Pleasant Gardens in McDowell
County. This site received Good-Fair bioclassifications between 1983 and 1988, with an improvement to
Good in 1990 an 1992, following the cessation of discharges from the Old Fort Finishing plant (DEM 1994).
The nearest BMAN station downstream is located more than 24 kilometers (15 mi) downstream at SR 1147
in Burke County below Lake James. This site received a Good bioclassification rating in 1988 (DEM
1991).
10
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. Impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for Protection of Surface Waters, as practicable, during construction and by avoiding the
use of wetlands and floodplains as staging areas.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the proposed improvements.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for the continuation of present flow, thereby protecting stream
integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three general plant communities were identified within the study corridor. The area has been greatly
altered from natural conditions, these communities are highly disturbed and do not represent mature
natural communities. These communities, Hardwood Forest, Urban/Disturbed Areas, and Marsh Complex,
are described below.
Hardwood Forest
This community type is found along the steep banks and floodplains of the Catawba River and overflows.
Much of the natural community structure has been altered. Trees include American sycamore (Platanus
americana), sweet birch (Betula lenta), ash-leaved maple (Acer negundo), and black walnut (Juglans
nigra). Wild grape (Vitis sp.) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) were common in this community.
Urban/Disturbed Areas
This community dominates the study corridor with businesses, car lots, and various other commercial
establishments. Annual and perennial herbs dominate this community. Species include chickweed
(Stellaria media), wingstem (Verbesina altemifolia), kudzu (Puerada lobata), goldenrods (Solidago spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), broomsedge (Andropogon
sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), climbing false buckwheat (Polygonum scandens), and henbit
(Lamium amplexicaule). Tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) is also found scattered throughout this
community.
Marsh Complex
The marsh complex consists of a mosaic of shallow ponds and emergent herbaceous vegetation with
some shrubby vegetation becoming established. This community appears to be of recent origin, with the
shallow ponds resulting from fairly recent excavation and grading activities. The banks above the water
level are dominated by a dense cover of kudzu. Herbaceous aquatic species include cattail (Typha
latifolia), arrow-leaved tearthumb (Polygonum sagitatum), and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus). Willows
(Salix sp.), American sycamore, and cottonwood (Populus sp.) are becoming established in portions of this
community.
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 and temporary detour. Construction is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts to plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of potential plant
community impacts is presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(Hectares)
Plant Community Alternate A Alternate B
Temp. Detour B Temp. Detour C Temp. Detour D
Hardwood Forest 0.05 0.13 0 0.01 0.03 0
Urban/Disturbed 1.25 3.10 0.34 0.83 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08
Marsh Complex 0.02 0.06 0 0 0.01 0.02
Total 1.32 (3.29) 0.34 (0.83) 0.04 (0.11) 0.04 (0.10)
Note: Acres shown in parentheses.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of in-place bridge replacements are restricted to
narrow strips immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Approximately
95 percent of the potential 1.32 hectare (3.29 ac) impact to plant communities for Alternate A occurs in
urban/disturbed areas. Impacts associated with temporary on-site detour alternatives of Alternate B are
limited to fringe areas adjacent to the right of way of the existing roadway. Alternate C will utilize an off-site
detour to replace each bridge in their existing location, therefore, should not have any impact to plant
communities. Impacts to communities will be short-term.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Most of the study corridor is highly urbanized and disturbed. However, the presence of water and forested
communities nearby provide habitat for some wildlife adapted to ecotonal and anthropogenic habitats.
Birds observed in the area include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and common starling
(Sturnus vulgaris). Other likely species expected include birds with similar habitat tolerances, including
blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird (Mimis polyglottos), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Evidence of mammals within the corridor includes gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor) tracks, and rodent tracks. Other expected mammals may include Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and various rodents. Due to
the season in which the field work 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 species such as common carp (Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and tessellated darter
(Etheostoma olmsted?) (Menhinick 1991). There are no anadromous fish within this system. Few aquatic
12
macroinvertebrates were observed in the stream, Stream bank surveys did not yield any shell fragments
which could indicate freshwater mussel presence at the bridge site.
Limited surveys did not result in documenting salamanders in the stream. The stream provides suitable
habitat for a few semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians such as northern watersnake (Nerodia sipedon),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and green frog (Rana clamitans).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in significant 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 (BMP's)
for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of the Catawba River and overflows are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3).
The waters of the Catawba River (Bridge No. 75) and the southernmost overflow (Bridge No. 81) within the
study corridor exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently
flooded waters (R2UBH). Approximately 0.1 hectares (0.2 ac) of open waters of the Catawba River and
the southernmost overflow occur within the right-of-way for Alternate A; the maximum length of each
stream within the right-of-way is approximately 24A meters (80 ft). Approximately 0.04 hectares (0.1 ac) of
open waters of the Catawba River and the southernmost overflow occur within the right-of-way for
Temporary Detour B; and less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 ac) of open waters occur within the right-of-way for
Temporary Detour C. The maximum length of each stream within the right-of-way for Temporary Detour B
is approximately 12.2 meters (40 ft), and for Temporary Detour C is approximately 2.4 meters (8 ft). Bridge
replacement and use of bridges for the temporary on-site detours should negate the need for direct
encroachment into open waters (R2UBH) of the Catawba River and the southernmost overflow.
The northernmost overflow (Bridge No.92) exhibits characteristics of intermittent or ephemeral flow, and is
vegetated by hydrophytic, emergent herbaceous vegetation; this overflow within the study corridor is
considered to be a wetland rather than a surface water and is discussed with wetlands and wetland
impacts. The interior portions of the excavated ponds at Bridge No. 92 exhibit characteristics of palustrine,
unconsolidated bottom, semi-permanently flooded waters resulting from excavation (PUBFx). The interior
open water portions of the ponds are not within the right-of-way for Alternate A or Temporary Detour D.
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). Based on the three
parameter approach, limited jurisdictional wetlands occur within the study corridor.
No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the study corridor along the Catawba River at Bridge No. 75.
The southernmost overflow at Bridge No. 81 contains a small area (approximately 12 by 6 meters (40 by
13
20 ft)) of jurisdictional floodplain along the western end of the island formed by the split channel, and a
small drain, approximately 0.6 meters (2 ft) wide, that drains from the northwest side of the bridge. The
jurisdictional floodplain wetland within the study corridor at Bridge No. 81 is located outside of the right-of-
way for Alternate A and temporary detours. This wetland is vegetated by river birch, has hydric soil
characteristics (i.e., low chroma), has surface saturation and exhibits evidence of surface inundation; this
wetland is characterized as a palustrine forested wetland (PFO). The northernmost overflow channel and
associated vegetated pond fringe west of Bridge No. 92 are dominated by cattail and tearthumb and are
subject to prolonged surface inundation; the pond fringe of the pond east of Bridge No. 92 is also
dominated by cattail in the inundated areas with willow and cottonwood colonizing topographically higher
areas which exhibit surface saturation and evidence of periodic surface inundation. These wetlands are
best characterized as palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM).
No wetland impacts are anticipated at either Bridge No. 75 or Bridge No. 81 as a result of Alternate A, B,
C, or the temporary detours. Minor impacts to palustrine wetlands at Bridge No. 92 may result from
Alternate A and Temporary Detour D. Approximately 0.02 hectares (0.06 ac) of palustrine emergent
wetlands, which consist of shallow, vegetated areas fringing the excavated ponds, occur within the right-of-
way for Alternate A at Bridge No. 92 and less than 0.01 hectares (0.02 ac) of palustrine emergent wetlands
occur within the right-of-way for temporary detour D. Actual impacts will be limited to construction limits
and will be less than the amount shown for right-of-way. Impacts associated with the on-site detour
alignments will be temporary; these impacted wetlands will be restored following project completion.
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
CEs due to expected minimal impact. The DENR, Division of Water Quality has issued a General 401
Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use of this permit will require written notice to DEM. 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.
McDowell County is one of twenty-five North Carolina 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 fill materials into North Carolina designated trout waters. Generally,
projects involving trout stream infringement, including all waters upstream to and above their headwaters,
can be processed under either General Bridge Permit 031 or Individual Permit. Projects in trout water
counties require review by the Wildlife Resources Commission. Neither the Catawba River and associated
overflows nor the receiving waters of Lake James and the Catawba River are designated by the DENR,
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as Public Mountain Trout Waters.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, the NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Protection of Surface Waters, will be
implemented, as applicable, in an effort to minimize impacts.
14
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or officially proposed for such
listing (P), are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
at seq.). Only two federal protected species are listed for McDowell County (November 4, 1997 FWS list):
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergh) (P) and mountain golden heather (Hudsonia montana) (T).
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 northem 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
area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T S/A). T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological
conclusion is not required. This project is not expected to affect bog turtle due to the disturbance
and origin of marshy habitat within the study corridor resulting from recent excavation and grading.
Mountain Golden Heather - Mountain golden heather is a low spreading, freely branched shrub to about
40 centimeters (16 in) tall. The leaves are mostly evergreen, crowded, and needle shaped, to about 0.8
centimeters (0.3 in) long. Flowers are small, solitary, pale yellow, 5-petaled, and have numerous stamens.
Sepals are 0.6 to 0.7 centimeters (0.2 to 0.3 in) long and petals may be slightly longer to twice as long as
the sepals. Flowers are produced at the end of the branches from May through July, with fruiting occurring
from July through September. Mountain golden heather can be distinguished from similar species by sepal
length and shape, and leaf size (Massey et al. 1983).
A North Carolina endemic, mountain golden heather has only been found in a few counties on high peaks
and ridges where it inhabits quartzitic ledges and cliffs in heath bald clearings. Mountain golden heather
typically is found in depressions or rock cracks where a shallow, acidic, sandy or stony soil is present and
the plant receives full sun (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain golden heather is reported to occur at elevations
between 850 and 1200 meters. NHP records do not indicate that mountain golden heather has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect mountain golden heather due
to the absence of suitable habitat within the low elevation (approximately 380 meters (1240 ft])
study corridor. NO EFFECT
15
Federal species of concern - The November 4, 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. The following are listed as FSC for McDowell County:
Common Name
Olive-sided flycatcher
Cerulean warbler
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater
Diana fritillary butterfly
Roan sedge
Tall larkspur
Rocky shoal spider lily
Butternut
Gray's lily
Sweet pinesap
Northern oconee-bells
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Contopus borealis No
Dendroica cerulea No
Neotoma floridana haematoreia No
Caecidotea carolinensis No
Speyeria diana No
Carex roanensis Yes
Delphinium exaltatum No
Hymenocallis coronaria No
Juglans cinerea No
Lilium grayi No
Monotropsis odorata No
Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla No
NHP files do not document any FSC within the study corridor. One FSC species, northern oconee-bells,
has been documented within approximately 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) north of the study corridor. No suitable
habitat for this species was found in the study corridor.
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 FSC species, other than the northern oconnee-bells
(state listed E-SC) have been documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
National Forest Lands
Portions of the study corridor north of US 70 and west of US 221 Business are located on private holdings
within established boundaries of the Pisgah National Forest. No National Forest lands will be affected by
this project.
IX. 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).
16
There are numerous archaeological sites located along the Catawba River in the Marion area. According
to the SHPO, there is a high likelihood for the presence of significant archaeological resources in this
project area. Consultation with SHPO will be held following the completion of the preliminary design phase
of this project to determine the scope of archaeological surveys within the area of potential effect. Any
necessary surveys will be conducted prior to construction.
There was a USGS continuous recording gauge station located at southeast comer of Bridge No. 75. Data
was collected at this station from prior to 1940 to 1981, when it was removed from operation. The
reinforced concrete structure is still present. The potential historical significance of this structure was
studied in detail. It was determined the structure is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO concurred with this finding (see Concurrence Form in Appendix).
There are no structures of historic or architectural importance located within the area of potential effect of
this project.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment if current NCDOT standards and specifications are implemented. The project should
have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor bridge conditions and substandard
widths.
This project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant change in
land use is expected to result from replacement of Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92:
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated with the implementation of the preferred
alternative (Alternate C). No relocatees are expected with implementation of Alternate C.
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.
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.
Two 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
17
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 no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from the replacement of Bridge Nos. 75, 81 and 92.
18
XI. REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWSIOBS -79131, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. 103 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. NCDEHNR, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Catawba River Basin. DEHNR, Raleigh. 31 pp + amendments through 7-1-
95.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Support
Document: Catawba River Basin. NCDEHNR, Raleigh. 234 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas 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
the Threatened and Endangered Vascular Plants of the Mountains of North Carolina and Virginia.
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 218 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. NC Wildlife Resources Commission,
Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 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, NCDEHNR, Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of McDowell County, North Carolina. USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 175 pp.
19
MCDOWELL COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Bridges No. 75, 81, & 92
«,
Llttl wrtzeri '
26 1 i
Wood wn 1 I \ \
McD EL
Lake
T 1%- 22 ebo?
0

4
?
1
Glenwood
1
8 Dysartsvlll
221
10
., ---
Ridgecres
?' Sugar Hill
\ Bridge No. 92
$, ridge No. 81
a GAFMM CR=
.1
a?i ro?. i.ul
Bridge No. 75
04
n
1219 1510
` ? ? `?\ ? 19_09 6.??
ce
SCALE: Not-to-Scale
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3206
REPLACE BRIDGES NO.75, 81, & 92 ON US 221 BUS.
OVER CATAWBA RIVER AND OVERFLOWS
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
y ,i,. ? I - -? A 7 16. J1

FIGURE 3

., A
i ?
t
't
i
f
ON US 221 BUS. LOOKING SOUTH AT BRIDGE #92
FIjGURE 5
O
U
U)
I.L
a
O
Q
V
a

0
LL
w
O
0
z
Q
m
Q ?-
Z
U z)
o w
CO >O J
m w
U) M O
W Q
T- U
N
N
U)
D
O
N
CF)
00
L
ti
w
/V
0
co
J
Q Z
O CD
? O
E c) E c,4
? S cD
N M
EZ
vO
N 00

.
E. F

v
. N O O?I

E o

CD 0
crj N N

E o of
t0
v
04
M N
L4J
N.I. O S?
EE 7
vo
N 00

E
5
'5wo ?
r (D
•o r
N T
N C T
O m N
t .2
O N 0 r
N C C
U a L
O
m ? N Q a;
a ° N ? fO
d
(0
r0. N ? r
U) N E N h
a Z
? J
?i Z Z
O CD
w
O
U
W
J
J
O
? U
n ?
E O
Q 0
o
? o.
t o> o Z Z o
o v ZI E u
Y o0 0 _ Q CO m -j C:)
O c
C6 W O Ln
00 00 o E
N :) W N 00 N
Z
O
r H
_rn U W
?- N LL ~
Q
H W Z
J
0
O Q Q D O
U ? Q F
a w w
co >- z -i
Z
U_' of U C O W
W
U) H Z It Z Q W
0 U 0 o LL 2 cn
EZ
N d.
`.
l Z
J 0

t
'
t
F
W
CO
C0
CO
O
w
E E L)
ON N v
0)
'^
G

m
J
a
+ L)
E?
N ?
ti
W
LL
TEMPORARY OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTE
LEGEND
O OFF-SITE DETOUR
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-3206
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.75, 81, & 92 ON US 221 Bus.
OVER CATAWBA RIVER AND OVERFLOWS
McDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I Figure Not to Scale I FIGURE 8 1
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / Xv?_?VA •
Division of Water Quality
James & Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p F= N F1
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 C.,L'
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. It
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 tish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Adion Employer 501% recyde&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.
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 115A
NCAC 21-1.0506 (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
B 2150. DOC
rn
(D
N

c0
cr
z
w
0

2 2, v
i CD

c
o 2
o
a 3.1 2
a
o
o (D
3
E CL r
A Q r
A rd
N O
O O

Q

E N
m E N
m 3
z N
CD
m 3 CL
G
z
U E E c E v E v N
E m
z z 3 z 3 z 3 Z X

c ` 0 0
m 0
05 tb Q Q
c c Z c U Z
PD CJ ID
Q LL LL LL
O
10
>
N C F' F- Q F U Q
U U Z U 3 Z
3
? U
E
Z W
N
f?
1?
N
N f( .- N Q ? tp M Q
V Z n u z
3 u
p - u

° V

m (D

E
_
3
m
n
E

m

c
N
C
U
p tf
U ) }
m U .
m m m
S
E
w
d CD
I
Y

co
E
m U ?
Fr ° o

`
g ¢ v $
c E U ¢
E J F
m c
d
Y p C
d
b c >

fA

L 0
01
U

4
>
_
7
0
c4 = m

c
0
o

m

m

ro

?
p V 2 a
ct) ?. d a a n
.

d v
O
ar
(r
¢
¢
¢ (D
rL
¢

C

N

O

O

r N
N
C
N
10 N r) N .
7 - W 7 W
Z ? ¢ ¢ p ¢
U) f`
In

0)
0) C;
Z
M
O

10
N
N
n

m m N
Z 1°n CO N O W
N
W
d _
N N N 1?7 M 17 17
F LD m LD m m m co
r`
rn
N
a
N
N
m
ca
a
cc:
z
L 1J
0
o
S 0 s
•

CL
3
0
N m
N m
A
E v E v
3 a 3 a
Z ; Z 3
'O
m
0

m
LL
~ U
U
o

ao _
°D
? II
c a)
o
m ?
U

Y
Z 3
[L c
C
>
U) O

G/ m
cc

) N
N
m
c
N
O
N N
7 CV
m
U ? U
Z N Z
N
to

N
r
O
(7 N
rn
cc
N
N ?D
O

? N
M
m m
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:
? T
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,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
'NA
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
March 5, 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:
Q
MAR ? ? ?qql
`? FNV? iO4
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 #32 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.
Fhe 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 #272 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].
For TIP Project Numbers B-2150. B-31 18, and B-3205, please send the arplic.3tion 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,
Jon M. Lo y, Manage
Environmental 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 strearnflow is handled without creating streambank or streambed
erosion/sedimentation 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-occurring 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
Q'? C !
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:
%4,
1991
z?
LCP fti
???' purr
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 SPCO
American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix ST
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus SPCO
logperch Percina caprodes ST
longhead darter Percina macrocephala SPCO
dusky darter Percina sclera State Endangered (SE)
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
paddlefish Polyodon spatula SE
Plants
clinton lily Clintonia borealis SPCO
mapleleaf alumroot Heuchera longiflora SPCO
var. aceroides
Virginia waterleaf 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 auranriaca 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 4123 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 atrarus 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 rebun-us 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 #30 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens ST
banded sculpin Coitus carolinae ST
barrens topminnow Fundulus julisia ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus SPCO
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus SPCO
logperch Percina caprodes ST
dusky darter Percina sclera SE
olive darter Percina squamata SPCO
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
hmdraper(a?tva.gov.
Sincerely,
Jon M. Loney4Mager
Environmental Management
\I I, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 r?
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO May 2, 1997 ANY
V
Special Studies and p1v
Flood Plain Services Section HrGHI^
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:
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,
W. V
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 (USAGE), 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 5/96
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 1/82 **
30 NC 209 Madiso^ Spring Ck.. Detail*** 9/82
81/92 US 221 McDowell Catawba River Detail **** 7/88
* 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 Nir--!P, 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)J as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please he reminded that, prior to utilizaticn of nation"ride 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 tc anadromous 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
STA7£
3
'4y a?1rpr'
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 Z;y FRO
M: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer ?SUBJECT: Bridge Group XII, Bridges #81, 92, and 75 on
US 221 over Catawba River, McDowell
County, B-3206, ER 97-8512
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 maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Joseph McDowell House (Pleasant Garden), north side of US 70, 0.1 mile west of
junction with US 221, Pleasant Gardens community. This property was placed on
the state study list in 1973, but was determined not eligible because of alterations
in May, 1994.
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.
Numerous archaeological sites are located along the Catawba River in the Marion area. We
consider the project area to have a high likelihood for the presence of significant
archaeological resources and recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted prior
to construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
?, 7I n
Fcdcral Aid n t:iRhTP I 6 TIP "' ?,I- "?LOGI
County W&D•4E'-c-
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description RtrPt.AcE PlQ?DCrG?i 40. 75 _ !i %QV 'I2 70 ue, ZZI b/ac. 22(?
OVER. GATAWIA rtJVM AND 'V"4,0VA/ F?R10f4F U I?LUY
On JtA ? z4 reorescatativcs of the
I
North Carolina Dcoa, Lmcnt of Transportation (NCDO T )
Federal Hisltv,-ay Administration (FHNvA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
rcvic%vcd the subject project at
A scoping meeting
,i Historic architectural resources photograph rcv'cNv session/consultaiion
Other
All parties present agreed
there arc no properties over fift?,• }cars old within tic proiccts area of potential c; ecti.
? there arc no propc;,ics less dtan firft-?• years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the projects area of potentiai c.;ccts.
thcro arc propc„ics ovcr f;f y ycars old (list artachcd) within the proiccts area of potc; ial cfF:.cts,
but based on the historical information available and the ohctcuraohs of each preoe:,:, oroocmes
identiticd as b? x '19 6.. ?'bt 's 12-" MAAM Sh4i arc considered rot 6L, ble
for National RL- to and no rlic. e•: uation of them is n c. are .
? ti.c.c are no NZ6cnLI Re_ister-'istcd proocniCs within ;kc prcicc; s area of ;.orcntial C 2e;S.
Siencd:
?? M
Rcprescn ati c, CDOT
/ 1.4 , . i/, 11 /J _ t
FHwA,,f0r tic Division Administrator, or of
24 I°???
Federal Agenc.. Date
112. 1 1-1
Rcprescmativc,?SHPO
tale Historic Preservation Officer Date
Ira sun•ev region is err ;irc!, a final copy of tliis Conn oral the attrchcd list .gill be included
f\'lHl\hl]Lf1 Ur
%WAY PRANCN
RELOCATION REPORT
0 1997
North Carolina Department of Transportation
! AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
El E.I.S. CORRIDOR 0 DESIGN ??,?, ?s?, iii ?e;1t1T ?i ?ailet??
PROJECT: 8.1871401 COUNTY McDowell Alternate A of 3 Alternate
I.D. No.: B-3206 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge Nos. 75, 81
and 92 on US 221 Business Over Catawba
,
River and Catawba River Overflows
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 e 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0 0-20M 0 $ o-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-260 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. F 0 250-400 0 40-70M 0 260-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M
0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 0 600 E0 100 up 0 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL
x '3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. (a) One-story frame building, Chowtime, Pizza, Italian-
x 5 Will relocation cause a housing shortage? American Restaurant, 2,200 SF, 2 employees,-no
na 6. Source for available housing (list). minorities.
na 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
na 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? (b) One-story masonry building, Catawba Car Care

na 9
Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. ,
Auto Detail Shop, 1,200 SF, 1 employee, no
families? minorities.
na 10 Will public housing be needed for project?
na 11. Is public housing available? 14. Brooks & Broadwell Realty, Marion, N. C., local
na 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing newspaper and vacant business properties in project
available during relocation period? area.
na 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14 Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15, Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 4 Months

7 (2 -7
•?1?
9
6-;2 3
'
-
elocation A t D Approved b Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
El E.I.S. [__J CORRIDOR F-] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1871401 COUNTY McDowell Alternate B of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-3206 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge Nos. 75, 81, and 92 on US 221 Business Over Catawba
River and Catawba River Overflows
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 ,2 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 $ 0-150 0 0.20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTI ONS 20-40M 0 160-260 0 20-40M 0 150-260 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 0 250.400 0
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-600 0
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 up
0
displacement? TOTAL
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. (a) One-story frame building, Chowtime, Pizza, Italian-
_ x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? American Restaurant, 2,200 SF, 2 employees,
no
na 6. Source for available housing (list). ,
minorities.
na 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
na 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? (b) One-story masonry building, Catawba Car Care,
na 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Auto Detail Shop, 1,200 SF, 1 employee, no
families? minorities.
- na 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
na 11. Is public housing available? 14. Brooks & Broadwell Realty, Marion, N. C., local
na 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing newspaper and vacant business properties in project
available during relocation period? area.
na 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 4 Months
G
Rel ati n A e Date Approved b Date
arm 10.4 Revised 02/,95 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT
IE E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1871401 COUNTY McDowell Alternate C of 3 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-3206 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge Nos. 75, 81, and 92 on US 221 Business Over Catawba
River and Catawba River Overflows
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 150-2 2040M 150-25
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40,70m 0'400 40-70M ..d-400
1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 400-600 70-100M 400-600
2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 600 UP 100
9, 600 UP
displacement? OTAL -
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number)
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so, NO RELOCATION ON ALTERNATE "C"
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
_ 11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?

Relocation A e Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 d
Original 8 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

State of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Admomombmdw
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID F= N F1
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 (?, L16
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 27261Nationwide 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 Attirmalive Action Employer 500% recycled/10% post consumer paper
f ,.
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.
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 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
r^ \
rn
cc
N
a
N
c0
CL
Z
W
0

O
c
O m
c •o
O
c •o
O m
c? i
m
`
m

o u
A

c
o a
3 c
o
3

d
E .
?'o
u
a
U);9
?
g
w? Cd _
°
$
3 s

a
E ,
CL •G 'A •- r
?
($ H N Z H •- m
w
CL
C
A
0-
H

Z
V Ev E E Ea C
`$m
z z z z
; 3 3 z

c

d U Z U Z
m m U m CJ
LL LL IL.
E o
?t >
N E"' H Q
Z F. U Q
Q y U U U 3 Z
3 ?
G U
E
Z <c
N _
^
h
N n
N x

d N

h Q

Z co
M
Q

Z
C ?D II II II
3 II
? II
c ? a m a Q
O c?9 L U p ov Y
U ) j
m _
?
C

0 Y
2!
cj
m
O
o CD
7
Y
m
t0
o

Z 0

2 U)

4 U Q

Q
E c
C ?i L m m m c

cn O O
Z 7
p m
U >
2 7
.C I U)

?' a m
U
a a a a a a
" in.
a Q ¢ ? cr ¢ ¢ rL

O

N

O

C.)

O

n N
N
C
i0 N Cl)
Q>
m ;o
p U

Z Q cc cr
p
cC
J cn cn w co f? cn
D N

d
co
v
M
-T

L
cv
N
m
O
co
N
O
?
N
a N N N M _
r7 t) (7
m m m m m cb m

r-
Cn
Za
a
CV
O
CT
m
d
cx:
Z
W
0
o ? o
c .?.
3 o
b a
C ? ?
C
L
N ? m _
N ? m
E E
'0
?
sS z
Z ;

m ?
ii
~
U U

? u
c

U

Y
2 N
O
Q
U

a
d
d
Q Q

p
N N
N
C NN
N
Z m
N Z
N
D
uo
n
O
m CV
rn
co
o
N N
GROUP X11
rr N
MITCHELL COUNTY
> f_ &
t Munrtlal?'
'.i?trlf i 1.7 ;?z
14? v
11?_ fA1 ?
• 11! a !, ? s - C_v /
137.7. `3!4 ? ? T
n
3.
COUNTIES.
)VEn NCFTH

,- -S

t
F y

IN
J

fy

• WWAY .. 1

S.
'M1.?Yti.r•1 Z

YWOOD COUNTY%, I J

10
G

REPLACE
ERN

,?2?
c
^l /
W
I
1
v s
C ?
a
ff
O
O
1

e
,,. sw=s
AFB
IN STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA F'1 s.
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
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 lwi
Planning and Environmental Bran
c
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 V/ 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
L B-3206 ? US 221 Bus./NC 226, Bridges #81, #92 McDowell
& #75 over Catawba River and overflows
JQ
It
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