20000183 Ver 1_Complete File_20000101

®o a 1 83 ay
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
February 15, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Project Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: Madig6n Count} Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 32 over Shelton
Laurel Creek on NC 212; State Project No. 8.1860801; Federal Aid
No. BRSTP 212(1); TIP No. B-2150.
Dear Mr. Lund:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCODT) requests
authorization from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under a Section 404
6nwide Permit (NWP) 23 to replace Bridge No. 32 over Shelton Laurel Creek on NC
212. A causeway will be needed to construct the bridge, and the NCDOT asks that this
action be authorized under a Section 404 NWP 33. The project has a let date of July
2000.
Bridge No. 32 over Shelton Laurel Creek on NC 212 will be replaced with a two
span bridge located on new location that is adjacent to and downstream of the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction and will be
removed after new bridge construction is completed.
The project has been described in a Categorical Exclusion (CE) Action
Classification Form signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on
November 6, 1997. The project is being processed by the FHWA as a CE in accordance
with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a
Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to proceed under a Section 404 NWP 23 in
accordance with 61 Federal Register 65874, 65916, issued December 13, 1996.
There have been no changes in the proposed project, except that the bridge will be
two spans instead of one as described in the CE. There will be no wetlands impacted by
1
the proposed project. As described in the CE, the NCDOT will construct a bridge instead
of a culvert.
A causeway is needed in order to construct the new bridge. The causeway will
result in a temporary impact to <0.02 acre (720 square feet) of surface waters and 27
cubic yards of material will be placed in the stream temporarily. Permit drawings of the
causeway are attached to this letter.
Shelton Laurel Creek has been designated by the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) as a Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Water. The
NCDOT commits to implementing Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds in addition
to its standard Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control. The
NCDOT asks that the NCWRC provide a letter of concurrence to USACE.
Written concurrence for 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the N. C.
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is not required for either the Section 404 NWP` 23
or 33. The NCDWQ is provided written notification of the proposed action by a copy of
this Section 404 NWP 23 permit application. The NCDOT will adhere to all conditions
of the general certification for Section 404 NWP 23 and 33 thereby not necessitating a
written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
In summary, the NCDOT requests authorization under a Section 404 NWP 23 to
replace Bridge No. 32 over Shelton Laurel Creek on NC 212 and under a Section 404
NWP 33 for the temporary causeway. The NCDOT asks that the NCWRC provide a
concurrence letter to the USACE for this project. The NCDOT will adhere to the general
conditions of the 401 WQC associated with these Section 404 NWPs, thereby not
requiring written notification from the NCDWQ.
If you have any questions or need any additional information concerning this
project, please contact Mr. Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,

W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
D Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/pct
TIP No. B-2150 February 15, 2000
Application for Section 404 NWP 23, 33 2 of 3

cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., TIP and Programming
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P. E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. W. D. Smart, P. E., Division 13 Engineer
TIP No. B-2150
Application for Section 404 NWP 23, 33
February 15, 2000
3 of 3
MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Bridge No. 32
N
O
s
Wlnltrock- .?
of o
MADISON Iv
Waloul
Mars Hill!
??Gf?+ r 1 11 ! O 1
:Q -lot S. Gad !r
? -?
1 . i +Ma/thall? 1 l0? i
2 Trust ti :s y!
l udl I I \
1c4 Q
9L . V1307 ? 2\J \ 1314
1434 ?/ V
`1306 ?:
g W ° 9
Wfih+rocic
J 1329
yf? v
12
3. 5 1317 1316 ' 0
b
9 cv"t to
1319.0 1316 J ? 1316
SCALE: Not-to-Scale
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY bIADISON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1860801 (B-2150)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 32 OVER
SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
SHEET / OF 1?0

CL I I z W a -W
C) F- °
Cl- 02 I / - w
m
L9
cf)
a Q01?
- W H
J
I u~. a ?
0 I I L, U a
N
C
F- L6
I I I I \ ?'
•? 1 I ? \ x
? c?? ? o- ? 1 1 11 ? o a H
3
W
\ ??,\ ?, 1 1\ 11 ova c
z
00 N > o
0- LLI LL, L) o
< CL C? CL
X000 ?O \\ \\ a- CL
CL -j F- L.LJ
V) CY
LLI
?° ?y \ \
V) -j
aoo \m \ \
I /III
HI o S
I? /III
?? / I? / III F ? ? w
I a x
-MEOW
'O - Iw / m III p 3 E-' go w
/ m \\ I / ? W o C M 04
? ?. \ \ ? ? ? l ? fs, ? o d
0 ml
z / "rs y, H w ,? H
c N (V
A? w
2?
a s j %{ U A a w
z I u 1- - ll z
8 F I / V'
lI I o-
a
IInn
_t m
MZ y
Ld V)
" i N.a I U
°? o ??
L-Li
LIJ F: V) -4
0 C0 V)
z
a? tau
? ?. can Cx7 x ? ? w
a ? ? M
H z
?--? , i ,? Q p a, z c iv) l
I ? I ? ? ?? ? A O ? a ao vii H
• O` O '? cn
I
I ! I hlc
Q. o
to
/ C
I?
I ?
I J ? I H
I z
m
I a
i

BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
NC 212 OVER SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 32)
MADISON COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-212 (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1860801
T.I.P. NO. B-2150
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DA E H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Hager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
a?
DA E Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
.
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
NC 212 OVER SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
(BRIDGE NO. 32)
MADISON COUNTY
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRSTP-212 (1)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1860801
T.I.P. NO. B-2150
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
-?cn Cy ?.c` ?4pF ESS/p?ti q ??+
r
Montell W. Irvin, P.E. 3 ei5
Project Manager o
/o/z8/97
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. it i es, P.E., Unit Head
Con Engineering Unit
Cy hia D. Sharer, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement
NC 212 over Shelton Laurel Creek
(Bridge No. 32)
Madison County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-212 (1)
State Project No. 8.1860801
T.I.P. No. B-2150
Bridge No. 32 in Madison County is listed in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP No. B-2150. The purpose of this project is to
replace Bridge No. 32 due to its poor condition and substandard width.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the
existing human and natural environment, it is concluded no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from the replacement of Bridge No. 32. Refer to Figures 1 through 4 for illustrations of the project
area and existing bridge location.
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 No. 32, all standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the Tennessee Valley
Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions will be implemented, as
applicable.
2. The location and installation of any required deck drains will be determined during
final design of the replacement structure. Direct discharge into the creek will be
avoided to the extent practicable.
3. The floodplain for Shelton Laurel Creek will not be used for a staging area.
4. Shelton Laurel Creek is designated as a Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout
Water; North Carolina regulations entitled Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
and NCDOT's Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina as incorporated into the Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Guidelines shall be implemented during the construction of
this project, as applicable. A letter of notification, with reference to impacts to
mountain trout water habitat, will be provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Asheville Regulatory Field Office and the DENR - Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) office prior to construction of the project.
5. NCDOT will incorporate sufficient measures and monitoring, in addition to those
listed below, to minimize aquatic impacts associated with construction of this project:
a. Riparian vegetation will be maintained wherever possible, especially large trees.
b. If riparian areas are disturbed, they will be revegetated with native species as
soon as possible after construction.
c. Stringent erosion control measures will be implemented during all construction
activities.
d. Construction will be accomplished so wet concrete does not contact water
entering or flowing in the stream.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 32 will be replaced with a single span bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft)
and a length of approximately 33.0 meters (108 ft) on new location adjacent to and downstream of the
existing bridge. The new bridge will be placed at approximately the same elevation as the existing
structure. Roadway approaches to the proposed structure will have a pavement width of 6.6 meters (22 ft)
with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders on each side.
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed along with
its associated roadway approaches after construction is complete.
The estimated cost of the preferred alternative (Alternate B) for this project, based on current prices, is
$699,500. This amount includes $550,000 for construction and $149,500 for right-of-way acquisition. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $440,000 ($400,000 for construction and
$40,000 for right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 32, over Shelton Laurel Creek, is located on NC 212 approximately 503 meters (1,650 ft) west
of SR 1316 in Madison County, North Carolina. Refer to Figure 1 for location of the existing bridge and
Figures 2 through 4 for illustrations of the bridge area.
BRIDGE INFORMATION
Bridge No. 32 was constructed in 1937 and was partially rehabilitated in 1987 to improve a void area under
the interior bent caused by scouring. Sand bags and grout were placed in the void at that time. Restriction
of the natural channel by the bridge abutments has resulted in scour under the upstream side of the
interior bent located in the middle of the creek. A footing of an old interior bent from a previous
reconstruction project still remains in the creek below the bridge.
2
The length of the two span steel girder structure is 24.9 meters (82 ft) and it has a clear roadway width of
5.8 meters (19.1 ft). The superstructure consists of a treated timber floor on steel I-beams with an asphalt
wearing surface, and wooden rails. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments with
wingwalls. The single interior bent is a solid concrete pier resting on a concrete footing.
According to the 1996 NCDOT Bridge Inspection Report, the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 47.9 out of a
possible 100.0 and is functionally obsolete. The bridge is currently posted for a weight limit of 25,401
kilograms (28 tons) for single vehicles and 28,123 kilograms (31 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST).
SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
Bridge No. 32 crosses Shelton Laurel Creek at a 70 degree skew in an area where the stream is basically
straight. There are sharp 90 degree meanders in the creek located approximately 110 meters (360 ft)
upstream and 40 meters (131 ft) downstream of the existing bridge. The bridge deck is approximately 3.6
meters (12 ft) above the creek bottom. Shelton Laurel Creek has a drainage area of approximately 83.2
square kilometers (32.2 square miles) at the bridge consisting of mostly mountainous terrain that is
predominately wooded.
Although Madison County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, Shelton Laurel Creek
(in the vicinity of Bridge No. 32) was not included in the Madison County FEMA Flood Insurance Study.
Design flows for this project were estimated using drainage areas calculated from USGS gauge and rural
regression equations from the USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 96-4085.
ROADWAY INFORMATION
NC 212, which primarily serves local traffic, is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. This roadway traverses mountainous terrain and has poor horizontal and
vertical alignment in the vicinity of the bridge. Sight distance is poor on the western approach to the bridge
due to a 140 meter radius (120 30') horizontal curve around a steep hill. This curve ends at the west end
of the bridge. The roadway is relatively flat and tangent on the eastern bridge approach. There are "Narrow
Bridge" signs posted on both bridge approaches.
NC 212 is a two lane highway that measures 5.5 meters (18.0 ft) in width and has variable width grassed
shoulders. Although there are no speed limit signs in the vicinity of the bridge, there is a school zone
advisory sign (30 kilometers per hour - 20 mph), for Laurel Elementary School, posted near the east end of
the bridge.
The estimated 1997 average daily traffic volume on NC 212 over Bridge No. 32 is 450 vehicles per day
(vpd) which includes one percent TTST vehicles and four percent dual-tired (Dual) vehicles. The projected
2017 design year average daily traffic volume over the bridge is 700 vpd.
3
GENERAL INFORMATION
According to school officials, Madison County school buses cross Bridge No. 32 eleven times on an
average day.
One accident was reported on NC 212 within the project area between July 1, 1993 and June 30, 1996.
This crash occurred in November 1993 when a vehicle traveling westbound on NC 212, ran off the right
side of the road just after crossing the bridge and crashed into Shelton Laurel Creek. There is currently no
guardrail on NC 212 at either end of the existing bridge.
There are no utilities located on Bridge No. 32. Utility impacts for this project are expected to be "low".
There are no U.S. Geological Survey geodetic survey markers located on or near Bridge No. 32.
Although this project is in the vicinity of the Pisgah National Forest (French Broad Ranger District), it is not
located in or adjacent to any National Park or National Forest property.
Land west of the bridge is primarily undeveloped due to the mountainous terrain of the region; east of the
bridge there are residential dwellings, a school, and an abandoned building (see Figure 2). The abandoned
building was once used as a store and gas station. Based on field reconnaissance, two UST's are still
located near the northeast corner of this building.
Laurel Elementary School property begins approximately 55 meters (180 ft) east of the bridge and extends
to its main entrance, approximately 244 meters (800 ft) from the east end of the bridge (see Figure 2).
According to the school principal, there are 100 students (K through 5) currently enrolled at the school.
Part of the school, originally built in 1951, was condemned and demolished in 1995 (see Figure 2).
According to the Madison County Planning Department, nothing is planned that would impact the historical
growth rates or travel patterns in the area of this project.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A "Do-Nothing" alternate, a "Rehabilitation" alternate, and two replacement alternatives were considered
for this project.
Due to the poor condition and substandard width of the existing structure, and the current restricted
channel opening, the "Do-Nothing" alternate and the "Rehabilitation" alternate were eliminated from further
study.
The nearest off-site detour route (see Figure 5) is approximately 0.63 kilometers (1 mile) longer for through
traffic on NC 212 than the existing travel route. However, due to the location of the Laurel Elementary
School, this detour route would add approximately 14.5 kilometers (9.0 miles) to some school bus travel
routes. Based on discussions with the principal of Laurel Elementary, closing NC 212 would add
approximately 30 minutes of travel time to a number of students, who are already on some buses over 1.5
hours. Considering the impact this off-site detour route would have on school bus travel currently crossing
4
the existing bridge, traffic will be maintained on-site during construction. All alternatives involving an off-
site detour were eliminated from further study.
Sight distance is poor on the west approach to the bridge due to a steep, nearly vertical, rock wall on the
inside of an existing horizontal curve. Based on inadequate existing sight distance and the cost providing a
temporary on-site detour, replacing the Bridge No. 32 in its existing location is not practicable, therefore,
this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
Two alternatives (A and B) were studied to replace Bridge No. 32 while maintaining traffic on-site using the
existing bridge. These alternatives are illustrated in Figure 2 and are as follows:
ALTERNATE A - (Upstream Relocation)
This alternate involves replacing the existing bridge with a single span bridge located adjacent to and
upstream of the existing bridge. The new structure would have a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft)
and a length of approximately 33.0 meters (108 ft). The bridge would be placed at approximately the same
elevation as the existing structure. Refer to Figure 6 for the typical sections of this alternative.
This alternate will require major excavation due to a steep hill adjacent to and south of NC 212 immediately
west of the existing bridge. It will also require the removal of the abandoned building adjacent to and south
of NC 212, immediately east of the existing bridge. This building was once used as a gas station; and
based on field reconnaissance, two UST's are still present at the site.
The estimated total cost of Alternate A, based on current prices, is $984,500. This amount includes
$925,000 for construction and $59,500 for right-of-way acquisition. Refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of the
estimated costs of this alternative.
ALTERNATE B - (Downstream Relocation) - Preferred Alternative
This alternate involves replacing the existing bridge with a single span bridge located adjacent to and
downstream of the existing bridge. The new structure will have a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft)
and a length of approximately 33.0 meters (108 ft) and will be placed at approximately the same elevation
as the existing structure. Refer to Figure 6 for the typical sections of this alternative.
This alternate will require the relocation of one residence located adjacent to and north of NC 212,
immediately east of the existing bridge.
The estimated total cost of Alternate B, based on current prices, is $699,500. This amount includes
$550,000 for construction and $149,500 for right-of-way acquisition. Refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of
the estimated costs of this alternative.
Box culverts are not recommended as a replacement for the existing bridge for either of the two alternates
(A or B) because of potential upstream flooding near the bridge caused by the large drainage area
upstream of this project. The drainage area at Bridge No. 32 is approximately 83.4 square kilometers (32.2
square miles).
5
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs of Alternates A and B, based on current 1997 dollars, are shown below:
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Alternate A Alternate B
Preferred Alternative
Structure (proposed) $ 214,300 $ 214,300
Roadway Approaches $ 386,300 $128,850
Structure Removal (existing) $ 12,400 $ 12,400
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $ 184,000 $ 106,450
Engineering and Contingencies $ 128,000 $ 88,000
Rig ht-of-Way/Easement and Utilities $ 59,500 $ 149,500
Total $ 984,500 $ 699,500
The estimated cost of the preferred alternative (Alternate B) for this project, based on current prices, is
$699,500. This amount includes $550,000 for construction and $149,500 for right-of-way acquisition. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1998-2004 TIP, is $440,000 ($400,000 for construction and
$40,000 for right-of-way).
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Based on the substantial cost savings and the reduced environmental impacts, Alternate B is the preferred
alternative for this project. Refer to Figure 2 for illustration of the preferred alternative.
The replacement structure will be a single span bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft)
and a length of approximately 33.0 meters (108 ft). It will be placed at approximately the same elevation
as the existing structure.
Roadway approaches to the proposed structure will have a pavement width of 6.6 meters (22 ft) with 1.8
meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders on each side. Refer to Figure 6 for the proposed typical sections. Roadway
approach work will begin approximately 167 meters (550 ft) west of the new structure and will end
approximately 122 meters (400 ft) east of the new bridge. See Figure 2 for project limits.
The existing bridge will remain in place to maintain traffic during construction. It will be removed along with
its associated roadway approaches after construction is complete. For construction purposes, the minimum
distance between the old and new bridge will be approximately 3 meters (10 ft).
Right-of-way for the preferred alternative will vary between 18.3 meters (60 ft) and 24.4 meters (80 ft).
The length of the new bridge will be longer than the existing bridge length in order to provide a larger
hydraulic opening and to prevent the end bents from intruding into the natural channel banks. The
structure will be single span in order to eliminate the need for an interior bent and to reduce the
environmental impacts to the stream. The size of the proposed structure may be increased or decreased
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydraulic studies.
One residence will be relocated by the preferred alternative.
A small portion of right-of-way, or easement, will be required from Laurel Elementary School. Although the
property is publicly owned, the specific area needed is not used by the general public.
VII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
There are no regulatory speed limit signs posted in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the speed
limit on NC 212 in the vicinity of the existing bridge is regulated by the State's statutory speed limit of 80
kilometers per hour (55 mph).
Due to the existing horizontal curvature along NC 212 in the vicinity of Bridge No. 32, the existing design
speed of the highway is estimated to be 65 kilometers per hour (40 mph). Although the preferred
alternative will improve existing conditions within the project limits, providing a design speed of 100
kilometers per hour (60 mph) is not justified. Therefore, a design exception will be needed for this project.
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 were derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle mapping (White Rock,
NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping, Natural Resources
Conservation Service draft soils mapping (USDA unpublished), and recent aerial photography (scale
1:1200).
The site was visited on February 6, 1997. The entire study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
important features. The study corridor is approximately 145 by 46 meters (475 by 150 ft); however,
calculations for potential impacts are based on right-of-way width which varies from approximately 18
meters to 58 meters (60 ft to 190 ft) for Alternate A, and approximately 24.4 meters (80 ft) for Alternate B.
Actual impacts will be limited to construction limits; and will be less than those shown for right-of-way.
7
Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water
quality protection in Shelton Laurel Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968). 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
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 derived from the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) (DEM 1989, DEM 1993, DEM 1994). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data.
The most current FWS listing of federal protected species with ranges which extend into Madison County
was obtained prior to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence of
federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Mountain physiographic province. Topography is characterized by
strongly sloping to very steep uplands with narrow floodplains along drainages. Elevations in the study
corridor range from approximately 550 meters (1800 ft) above sea level along the creek to approximately
585 meters (1920 ft) along the slope along the southern edge of the study corridor (USGS White Rock, NC
quadrangle).
Soils in the study corridor consist predominantly of the Tate-French loams (2 to 15 percent slope) and
Saluda soils and Rock Outcrops (40 to 90 percent slopes) mapping units (USDA unpublished). The
French series (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), a non-hydric series found in floodplains, characteristically
consists of moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soils on 0 to 5 percent slopes. French loam
mapping units may contain hydric inclusions of the Hatboro (Typic Fluvaquents) or Nikwasi (Cumulic
Humaquepts) series in floodplain depressions and drains. The Tate series (Typic Hapludulfs), a non-hydric
series found on benches, fans, and toe slopes, characteristically consists of well drained, moderately
permeable soils on 2 to 50 percent slopes. The Saluda series (Typic Hapludults) is a nonhydric series
consisting of shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils on slopes.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 040304 of the French Broad River Basin (DEM 1994). This
area is part of USGS accounting unit 060101 of the Tennessee River Region. Bridge No. 32 crosses
Shelton Laurel Creek approximately 10.5 kilometers (6.5 mi) from its confluence with the Big Laurel Creek.
8
Big Laurel Creek continues in a southwesterly direction for approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 mi) before
entering the French Broad River. Shelton Laurel Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-112-
26 by the DENR, Division of Water Quality.
Stream Characteristics
Shelton Laurel Creek is a mountain stream with swift current over rocky substrate. Water clarity was
exceptionally high during the field visit; no turbidity was noted. Shelton Laurel Creek originates in Madison
County with much of the watershed lying in undeveloped lands within the Pisgah National Forest. The
creek is approximately 15 meters (50 ft) wide at the existing bridge and exhibits signs of scouring. The
channel is split by a small gravel bar which is present in the middle of the stream beginning at the bridge
and extending a short distance downstream. Shelton Laurel Creek narrows to a width of approximately 9
meters (30 ft) a short distance upstream and downstream of the bridge. Creek depth is dependent on
hydrologic conditions, and appears to be about 0.2 to 0.6 meters (0.5 to 2 ft). Little or no rooted aquatic
vegetation is apparent in the creek channel, but some organic debris (i.e., branches, leaves) was apparent.
The existing bridge spans the open water of the creek.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated
best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage classification of C Tr
has been assigned to Shelton Laurel Creek from its source to the confluence with the Big Laurel Creek
(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. The Tr designation is used for Trout waters
characterized as waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORR, WS I, or WS II Waters occur within
1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the study corridor. Shelton Laurel Creek is not designated as a North Carolina
Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a national Wild and Scenic River.
There are no major permitted point source dischargers within or upstream from the study corridor (DEM
1994). No significant non-point source discharges were noted in the study corridor.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long-term trends in water quality at
fixed monitoring sites by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). Species richness
and overall biomass are considered to be reflections of water quality. There is a long-term benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling site located on Shelton Laurel Creek approximately 6 kilometers (4 mi)
downstream from the study corridor. This site received Excellent to Good bioclassifications in 1990 and
1992 (DEM 1994). Three additional special study sites on Hickory Fork and tributaries, located
approximately 5 kilometers (3 mi) upstream from the study corridor, received Excellent ratings in 1990.
Another measure of water quality being used is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which
assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community. There is a NCIBI station
on Shelton Laurel Creek at NC 212. This site received a rating of Excellent-Good in 1992 (DEM 1994).
9
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. These impacts will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water; North Carolina regulations entitled Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds; the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard
Conditions; and the NCDOT's Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or
Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina as incorporated into the Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Guidelines; as applicable, during construction of this project.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from proposed improvements.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present stream flow, thereby protecting
stream integrity.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Three plant communities were identified within the study corridor. The Mixed Forest and Rocky Bar and
Shore communities represent natural communities. The Maintained/Disturbed community results from
some level of disturbance. These plant communities are described below.
Mixed Forest
The Mixed Forest community is found on the steep hillside above the highway and in narrow bands along
the creek. The canopy is a mixture of deciduous and evergreen species including Eastern hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), red maple (Acer rubrum), white pine (Pinus strobus),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sweet birch (Betula lenta), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Subcanopy trees include black cherry (Prunus serotina), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
and canopy species. Shrubs include rosebay (Rhododendron maximum), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea
arborescens), dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum), and grape (Vitis sp.). Herbs were confined to
several species of ferns including Christmas fem (Polystichum acrostichoides), marginal woodfern
(Dryopteris marginalis), fancy fern (D. intermedia), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
Several species of moss were also present.
Rocky Bar and Shore
This community is characterized by the rock and gravel bar that grades from the stream to the forest edge.
Frequent flooding prevents trees from becoming established, but some biennials or perennials can become
temporarily established. Observed species include asters (Aster spp.), evening primrose (Oenothera
biennis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trigda), tick-trefoil (Desmodium sp.), bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta),
winter cress (Barbarea sp.), and various grasses.
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
The Maintained/Disturbed community includes road shoulders, mowed lawns, and commercial business
frontages. Plant species dominance depends on maintenance frequency. Asters, blackberry (Rubus sp.),
foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), jimson
10
weed (Datura stramonium), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), bittercress, chickweed (Stellaria media),
and horse nettle (Solanum carolinense) were observed in this community during the site visit.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the amount of each plant community
present within the right-of-way for the proposed alternates; actual impacts will be restricted to construction
limits and will be less than those calculated within the proposed right-of-way. Construction is not expected
to result in substantial adverse impacts to plant communities in the study corridor. A summary of potential
plant community impacts is presented below.
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED PLANT COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(Hectares)
Plant Community Alternate A Alternate B
Preferred Alternative
Mixed Forest 0.8(2.0) 0.3(0.7)
Rock Bar and Shore < 0.005 <0.01 < 0.05 <0.1
Maintained/Disturbed 0.2(0.5) 0.3(0.7)
Total 1.0 2.5 0.6(1.4)
Note: Acres shown in parentheses.
A majority of the potential impacts for Alternate A (approximately 0.7 hectares (1.7 ac)) shown for mixed
forest is located on the hillside southwest of the bridge within projected right-of-way limits (refer to
Figure 2). The projected right-of-way within this area may extend off the existing road 46 to 61 meters
(150 to 200 ft) into the mixed forest; this acreage represents the maximum which may be affected by
approach improvements. Alternate B reduces impacts to mixed forest by 0.5 hectares (1.3 ac), but slightly
increases impacts to rocky bar and shore, and maintained/disturbed communities.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
The study corridor is divided among three communities. Despite good conditions during field work, no
terrestrial animals or their signs were observed. However, birds, such as American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), wood thrush (Catharus mustelinus), acadian
flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), eastern
pheobe (Sayornis pheobe), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and
song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) would be expected to occupy the ecotonal woodland in the area.
No mammals were observed on site; however, the landowner adjacent to the bridge reported sightings of
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and coyote (Canis latrans) within the portion of his property included in the study corridor.
Other mammals expected to occur as transients through the study corridor include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Due to the season in which the field work was
conducted, no terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor.
Aquatic
Shelton Laurel Creek contains recreational fisheries for trout. Limited dip-netting within the study corridor
yielded creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). Additional fish that may be expected to inhabit the study
corridor include central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis),
northern hogsucker (Hypentilium nigricans), redline darter (Etheostoma rultlineatum), and greenfin darter
(Etheostoma chlorobranchium) (Menhinick 1991, Rohde et al. 1994). There are no anadromous fish within
this system. Aquatic macroinvertebrates observed in the stream include mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies,
and others. Stream bank surveys did not yield any shell fragments which could indicate freshwater mussel
presence at the bridge site.
Limited surveys resulted in documenting shovelnose salamanders (Leurognathus marmoratus) in the
stream. The stream provides suitable habitat for few amphibians other than the shovel nose and blackbelly
salamander (Desmognathus quadromaculatus).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations. Potential
down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the stream system to maintain regular
flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment
during construction will be minimized by implementing the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Water; North Carolina regulations entitled Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds; the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions; and the
NCDOT's Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in
North Carolina as incorporated into the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Guidelines; as applicable,
during construction of this project.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Shelton Laurel Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Shelton Laurel
Creek within the study corridor exhibits characteristics of riverine, upper perennial, unconsolidated bottom,
permanently flooded waters (R3UBH). Approximately 0.03 hectares (<0.1 ac) of open waters of Shelton
Laurel Creek occurs within the project right-of-way for both alternates. The maximum length of stream
within the right-of-way for both alternates is approximately 27 meters (90 ft). Bridge replacement with a
single span structure should negate the need for direct encroachment into open waters of Shelton Laurel
Creek.
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
12
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. Two small, palustrine,
emergent wetland (PEM) seeps were identified within the study corridor: one seep, approximately 46
meters (150 ft) by less than 1 meters (3 ft) occurs adjacent to the toe of the hillside slope southwest of the
bridge; and the other seep covers an area approximately 3 by 3 meters (10 by 10 ft) along the roadside
southwest of the bridge. These seeps are characterized by hydric soil development and surface saturation.
Vegetation within these small seeps is dominated by Christmas fern.
Minor wetland impacts are anticipated as a result of this project for Alternate A; no wetland impacts are
anticipated for Alternate B. Impacts to palustrine wetlands as a result of bridge replacement and
improvements for Alternate A will total approximately 0.005 ha (0.01 ac). These impacts are restricted to
small seeps adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments.
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 DWQ. In
the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District. Notification to the Wilmington COE office is required if this general permit is utilized.
Madison County is one of twenty-five mountain counties designated as having trout waters. The COE has
implemented discretionary authority to override certain nationwide and general permits which authorize the
discharge of dredged or 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 DENR, Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Shelton Laurel Creek is designated
by the DENR, Wildlife Resources Commission as Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters from
its headwaters to the NC 208 bridge downstream from the study corridor.
Review of this project by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is required under Section 26a of the TVA
Act. The TVA will require the use of Best Management and Best Engineering Practices as outlined in its
Water Management Standard Conditions.
If foundation test borings are required, this work should be approved under General 401 Certification
Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the WRC and the
COE will be required.
Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Water, North
Carolina regulations entitled Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds; the Tennessee Valley Authority's
(TVA) Water Management Standard Conditions; and the NCDOT's Guidelines for Construction of Highway
Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina as incorporated into the Erosion and
13
Sedimentation Control Guidelines; will be accomplished, as applicable, during construction of this project in
an effort to minimize impacts.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal
protected species are listed for Madison County (May 2, 1997 FWS list):
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha T
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E
Spotfin Chub - The spotfin chub, sometimes placed in the genus Cyprinella, is a small, slender minnow
that may reach adult size of 5.5 to 9.0 centimeters (2.2 to 3.5 in) standard length. The spotfin chub has an
inferior mouth with small barbels at each corner, a large caudal spot, and dark posterior dorsal fin
membrane. Breeding males have blue sides with two large white bars anteriorly, olive or tan back, silvery
cream belly, and blue fins edged with white. The coloration of the breeding male leads to an alternative
common name in usage for this species, turquoise shiner. Adult females and non-breeding males are
bright silver with tan, gray, or olive green dorsal coloration, and have pale fins. Spawning is thought to
begin in mid-May and extend into mid-August (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
In North Carolina, the spotfin chub is presently restricted to the Little Tennessee River system, although it
formerly occurred in the French Broad River drainage basin as well (LeGrand and Hall 1995). FWS and
NHP records indicate that this species has not been documented in Madison County in more than 20
years. Spotfin chub is typically found in clear waters of medium-sized streams and rivers of moderate
gradient. Spotfin chub do not tolerate heavily silted conditions and are reported to prefer areas with
moderate to swift flow over large bars and beds of small to medium-sized gravel (Lee et al. 1980), but may
occasionally occur in sandy areas (Burkhead and Jenkins 1991).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat for spotfin chub appears to be present in Shelton
Laurel Creek; however, this project is not expected to affect spotfin chub due to the apparent
extirpation of this species from the French Broad River drainage basin. NO EFFECT
Peregrine Falcon - The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized falcon, reaching a length between 41 and 51
centimeters (16 to 20 in), or slightly larger than an American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Adults have
bluish-gray backs and wings, barring on the pale underparts, and a black nape and crown with a wide
black wedge extending below the eye. Immature peregrine falcons are dark brown above with a heavily
streaked breast, and a dark bar or wedge is present below the eye (NGS 1987). Peregrine falcons feed on
medium-sized birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and pigeons, which they strike in midair. Peregrine
falcons migrate in the fall, but over-wintering birds may be present along the North Carolina coast (Hamel
1992).
14
Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North Carolina, but have been
reintroduced to western North Carolina through a hacking program (captive-reared and released).
Peregrine falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas where a mixture of forests and extensive fields,
marshes, or water is present (Hamel 1992). NHP records do not indicate that peregrine falcon has been
documented within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the project bridge.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This project is not expected to affect peregrine falcons due to the
absence of suitable nesting habitat (remote cliffs) within the study corridor. NO EFFECT
Federal species of concern - The May 2, 1997 FWS list also includes a category of species designated
as "Federal species of concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. Although the TVA's heritage database indicates some species of concern in
the general region, NHP files do not document any FSC within 3.2 kilometers (2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
The presence of potential habitat within the study corridor has been evaluated for the following FSC
species listed for Madison County:
Common Name
Lake sturgeon
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Olive darter
Paddlefish
Sculpted supercoil
Piratebush
Glade spurge
Butternut
Carolina saxifrage
Mountain catchfly
Scientific Name Potential Habitat
Acipenser fulvescens No
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Yes
Percina squamata Yes
Polyodon spathula No
Paravitrea ternaria Yes
Buckleya distichophylla Yes
Euphorbia purpurea Yes
Juglans cinerea No
Saxifraga caroliniana No
Silene ovata No
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202 et seq.).
NHP records indicate that no state-listed E, T, or SC species have been documented within 3.2 kilometers
(2.0 mi) of the study corridor.
National Forest Lands
The study corridor is located on private holdings within established boundaries of the Pisgah National
Forest. No National Forest Lands will be affected.
15
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).
Based on comments received from the SHPO, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project.
Therefore, no archaeological investigations will be conducted for this project.
There are no structures of historic or architectural importance located within the area of potential effect of
this project (see Concurrence Form in Appendix).
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 32 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment. The project should have an overall positive impact due to the improvement of existing poor
bridge conditions and a substandard bridge width.
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 No. 32.
One residence will be relocated by the preferred alternative.
A small portion of right-of-way, or easement, will be required from Laurel Elementary School.
No business will be relocated by the preferred alternative.
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.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected as a result of this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a
project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it
shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State
16
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for air quality, no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project, however this increase will be
only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic
volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise
levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway noise setforth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
This project is being processed as a Federal Categorical Exclusion. Based on the assessment of the
existing human and natural environment, no significant adverse environmental effect will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 32.
17
XI. REFERENCES
Burkhead, N.M., and R.E. Jenkins. 1991. Fishes. Pp. 321-409 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's
Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company,
Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS -79/31. 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. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 193 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp + amendments through 4-1-96.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1994. Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document:
French Broad River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 198 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.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAlliste, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of
North American Freshwater Fishes. Publication No. 1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey. 867
PP.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 67 pp.
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.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Geographic Society (NGS). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition.
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. 464 pp.
18
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina;
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Unpublished. Draft Soil Survey of Madison County, North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19
MADISON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Bridge No. 32

2 Trust
Luck
y 63
\J

11 - ?
t ?}
? 208 21
'- ?
Whiterock`"'t ;x-
b 6
of pri S' -austi
?? =?, '6 lr 19 N
MADISON
Walnut p
21 Mars Hill
3 l 21
Joe Spt ng-Creek
ti ?Mar ha 112 1 15
701 .?
?.\ 13137 12 1314
1434 V
`1306 • g ?W v \ 9 r
Wh}tstock
s
0 1329
12 y` n
v?
1316 0
3.5 1317 (o
A Gunt.rtown
13
1319.4 •1318 0N
i r 1 •1318

SCALE: Not-to-Scale
t??g North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-2150
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 32 ON NC 212 OVER
SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1

ON NC 212 LOOKING WEST AT BRIDGE #32
FIGURE 3
LOOKING EAST ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF EXISTING BRIDGE
FIGURE 4
ON NC 212 LOOKING EAST IN FRONT OF LAUREL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEMPORARY DETOUR ROUTE STUDIED
LEGEND
O OFF-SITE DETOUR ROUTE
(AN North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
TIP PROJECT NO. B-2150
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 32 ON NC 212 OVER
SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SCALE: Not to Scale FIGURE 5
0
P
LU
U)
U)
w
al
Li.
J
Q
0
CL
F-
Y
w
U
J
g
0
J
W Z O = D
LO U) O
U
N W Z
CO O 0
N D
N
Z
0
N
M
0
0
m
i Q
Q
iZ
0
O CD

Cl z
E° EN
ro (D ,Q
CV cf) Q

0?
a° "E 0
M O m
Ch
!- C7
GJ ,I
E o oI
cY) v
cyi
E I c1
C.
w
O
F-
0
w
J
J
O
?. U
E O =
? O
o Q Z
v Q o
L ? C \° ~ O
I
E > J °v E I M U-)
In w O o = (D O E
O v ti
Z
O
M co
_rn t? U w
O Li Q
v
A E
N _
T3 - 0 7 Q Q J Q w z
(D 5 k= Er
€ c y N v w Q Q J o O
o J o ?a
° ?
Q Oc W
m c 3 T U) Z ?- O C _.J
N 0 m 2 Z LJ Z ?- Z? W
co, E f U Q? (7 U) 1=
0 a.
N a c 7) F5 z [f
w w
a m a& D U p 10 I=i U)
o o,
a o N _. o
a?
? DLO-. N O1
? ? ? O of
N
a 'o E N o
w m
i aZ
« E
O (h
1 00
i-
W
U)
U)
0
(V U
(Poo co
oo N (D N LU
co
i J Q
Q?
Z
O U
o w E -?
0
I'-
LNU
?.L
0
u.
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 .:° o
Division of Water Quality
Ja mes & Hunt, Jr., G ove mor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ® R?
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 (?(?1
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated February 10, 1997, in which you requested preliminary comments
concerning nine bridge replacement projects. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following generic environmental commitments for design and construction of bridge
replacements:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards
in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction for this
project in the area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr
(Trout Water) classifications to protect existing uses.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour is necessary, remediation measures in accordance with DWQ requirements for
General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream
classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be
determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
directly flowing into the stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ if impacts exceed one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recyclod/10% post Sumer paper
Ms. Cindy Sharer Memo
February 26, 1997
Page 2
H. If foundation test borings will be required, this should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for
Survey Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If this project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, NCDOT is reminded that mitigation will
be required if wetland impacts exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A
NCAC 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
N
a
m
m
!c?u
li
cr
z
w
0

o m
o m
o m
o m
` a
(3 m
c ? c'o c'o a
c m c`s
3 CD
L CD 3 Q
L 3 a
L 3(
O m 3 u
0
C
61 N O C
N Q c
N
G cd N O 0 0 Q
E
E a CL a 3 Z a
a 3 m
8
o o_ a o
c Z
o co
E N co N
E a N
E a E N ci
U a a Z E u
z z 3 Z 3 m
i z

e
0 a
o
m m Q m Q
U U Z V Z
d ? c V
LL LL LL
A O
` c
`
N F
- Q
z
U U Z

Q N U U
5
'y m
o U
E cO

m p
.?. Z
N
C\j _

n
n
N
O
c0

Q
N N
n ¢
Z -

-
Z
0 9 (b 11 II - .
's c u - - II

c

c
N a m

.0
E -

(D
3 m

.0
E

D
O
U ?
C-1 >
z c
c m 2
co
m

m
`
co m Y
m
U m
?
¢
2
o m o
z = cc a' E U
E E O c c
w

c

{
Q1
r
,

m
Q

m

c
b
N °
z ,
c m
U > 2 0
t n m
rn

cl
o
a` q (x
cr CL
cc
cc CL
¢ CL
cc CL

O

N

O
V

C)

n N
CD

H

o J U
Z cc
U) °i
(A Q
(n ct
U) o
n
(Q
U)
D
m
OI
Z

N
Cl)
f7

M
'Q
N
N
7
( N
m
Z N co
N
S
.2
N
co
a N co N M C?
m in m co [D co m
H
n
rn
N
a
N
N
m
c9
CL
cc
z
W
cl
o m o

o a o a
L C L C
N N 4
m m n 3 m
co E
co } =
Z 3 Z CD
co
co

m
LL
? U
U
o

Cb _

°D
? u
u -
o m
o
O p

x
CD
N
Co Z 3
U Q 0
tm
C co CD
d >
Q

A
a
CD a
CU
Q Q

T N
N
CD
co
N
N (
m N
U ? U
Z N Z
N

N
n
O
co CV
Q1
Ca
O O
N
C7 N
C?
fD m
SIATr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 3, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation/ /
FROM: David Brook ?d t L -?" `1ev
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XII, Bridge #32 over Shelton
Laurel Creek on NC 212, Madison County, B-
2150, ER 97-8504
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of February 10, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. We look forward to meeting
with an architectural historian from the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
review the aerial and photographs of the project area so we can make our survey
recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
r>?'n
Federal Aid R V(44cP -'IZ TIP n 2t`+o County .? &PI-+tJ
CONCURRENCE FORIVI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-r-f LKCr- vKtD(rE ao• 1i2 ?N '?? 2t2 o?EC SFIEt.TorJ
t,Wax-L- e4lr ?P>R-tot. sue )M *?
On kML, 1-1 Mqi representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT )
Federal Highway Administration (FHNvA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Ocher
rcvic%vcd tee subject project at
A scoping meeting
-7_ Histcric architectural resourccs photograph rcvic%v session/consultation
Odhcr
All parties present aQrccd
there arc no properties over fifty N•cars old within the project's arca of pot"ttial c cc:s.
thc:c arc no properties less than fii;y years old which are considc.cd to mcct Criterion
Ccnsidcration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? thcrc arc properties over fifty }cars old (list attached) vithin the project's arca of potential erects,
but based on the historical info rmnation available and the phctceraehs of each preocr,- , prcce.,ics
id-In:ificd as 6aaoc? 't' ?Z- G.wwr ?,. 6.utAlaG "D b&,,7-4 arc considered not chizible
for Naticral Roister and no Erzltcr evaluation of them is rcccss--r;.
tl crc are no National Mister-listed properties within the project's arca of potential c.:cc:s.
Signed:
Rcprc
CDOT
4-Im/-1i
FH%vlr the Divis?(Yn Administrator, or other Federal Aecncr• Date
'11" 1, 11 'A I
Representative, HPO 1 D tc
fate Historic Preservation Officer Date
Ira sunk;: report is prepared, a Imol copy of this funn acd the attaclle-l list gill tk ineluded.
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:

of

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 allegaiiiensis) (Federal species of concern) - This
amphibian inhabits clear-flowing water areas with large flat rocks.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact area should be
addressed in any environmental document prepared for this project. Please note that the legal
responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard to
federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the
Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal species of concern are not
legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response in order to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) any proposed temporary bridges or structures associated
with the bridge replacements; (2) any special measures proposed to minimize sedimentation
during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to minimize impacts to fish
and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you keep us
informed as to the progress of these projects. In any future correspondence concerning this
matter, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-077.
Sincerely,
f
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
March 5, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager
Plaiining and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?G?I?FC
E?1AR ? ? 1991
`? ENv? i0'ti
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GROUP XII (WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA), NCDOT TIP
NUMBERS B-2150, B-2848, B-3118, AND B-3205, FRENCH BROAD RIVER TRIBUTARIES
AND NORTH TOE RIVER, BUNCOMBE, MADISON, MITCHELL, AND YANCEY
COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the scoping notice for the proposed bridge replacement projects in western
North Carolina. Approvals under Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required for the following
bridges:
• B-2150, NC 212, Bridge 432 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
• B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge #143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge #165 over Beaver Dam Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3205, NC 209, Bridge 430 over Spring Creek, Madison County
Attached are typical conditions that TVA attaches to Section 26a approvals for bridges.
The other bridges do not cross tributaries of the Tennessee River and would not require Section
26a approval:
• B-2927, US 19-23-74 Bridge #123 over Southern Railroad, Buncombe County
• B-3000, SR 1407 Bridge 4304 over Mill Creek, McDowell County
• B-3121, US 70 Business Bridge 452 over Hunting Creek, Burke County
• B-3189, SR 1643 Bridge 4272 over Southern Railroad, Haywood County
• B-3206, US 221 Business/NC 226 Bridges 481, 492, and #75 over Catawba River and
overflows.
Pn?w „? .wy?w? n,rw
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-311$, and B-3205, please send the anplir.ation 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. ILoy, 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:
1. 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 riprap or shot rock (where needed at waterlbank interface) over a water
permeable/scil impermeable fabric or geotextile and in such a manner as to avoid stream
sedimentation or disturbance.
j. Avoiding spilling concrete, or other substances or materials; into the streams.
k. Designing/constructing any instream piers in such a manner as to discourage river scouring or
sediment deposition.
1. Bank, shoreline. and floodplain stabilization will be permanently maintained in order to prevent
erosion, protect water quality, and preserve aquatic habitat.
m. Culverts are constructed in phases, and adequate streambank protection measures are employed,
such that the diverted streamflow is handled without creating streambank or streambed
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.
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

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:
.>a
APR 2 R 1997
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 432 over Shelton Laurel Creek, Madison County
Aquatic Animals
freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens State Threatened (ST)
river carpsucker Carpiodes carpio State Special Concern (SPCO)
banded sculpin Cottus carolinae ST
mooneye Hiodon tergisus
American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix
mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus
logperch Percina caprodes
longhead darter Percina macrocephala
dusky darter Percina sciera
olive darter Percina squamata
paddlefish Polyodon spatula
Plants
clinton lily
mapleleaf alumroot
Virginia waterleaf
SPCO
ST
SPCO
ST
SPCO
State Endangered (SE)
SPCO
SE
Clintonia borealis SPCO
Heuchera longiflora SPCO
var. aceroides
Hydrophyllum virginianum ST
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 2
April 23, 1997
B-2848, SR 1304, Bridge # 143 over North Toe River, Mitchell and Yancey Counties
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Federal Endangered
(FE)
sharphead darter Etheostoma acuticeps ST
wavy-rayed lampmussel Lampsilis fasciola SPCO
striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus ST
stonecat Noturus flavus SE
tangerine darter Percina auranriaca State in Need of
blotchside logperch
logperch
olive darter
Plants
Virginia spiraea
Terrestrial Animals
common hellbender
Percina burtoni
Percina caprodes
Percina squamata
Spiraea virginiana
Management (NMGT)
SE
ST
SPCO
Federal Threatened
(FT)
Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis SPCO
B-2927, US 19-23-74, Bridge # 123 over Southern Railway, Buncombe County
Aquatic Animals
blotchside logperch Percina burtoni SE
logperch Percina caprodes ST
longhead darter Percina macrocephala SPCO
paddlefish Polyodon spathula SE
Plants
ginseng Panax quinquefolius ST
Terrestrial Animals
biack vuiture Coragyps atratus SPCO
B-3000, SR 1407, Bridge 4304 over Mill Creek and Southern Railroad, McDowell County
Aquatic Animals
Appalachian disc Anguispira mordax State-Listed, Status Undetermined,
Uncertain, or Poorly Known (STUN)
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus Watch List (WATC)
Carolina seep scud Stygobromus carolinensis ST
Terrestrial Animals
Diana Speyeria diana SPCO
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Page 3
April 23, 1997
• B-3118, SR 1674, Bridge 4165 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;ustdne/scrub-shrublbroad-leaved deciduous/ temporarily flooded)
• B-3189, SR 1643, Bridge 4272 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 Cottus 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
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
M. 4ney,ger Jon
YEnvironmental Management
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
May 2, 1997
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Amy u I' 'z:7
kpc HIGHL^- i f
'9ONi:
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.
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Roger Milstead
River System Operations
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
May 2, 1997
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Notification of Start of Study and Request for Project Input, Bridge Replacement Group
XII (Western North Carolina"
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for those in Burke and McDowell Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Nashville District.
These bridges are located within counties which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), it
appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved. (Detail
study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and [generally] a
floodway defined). A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm

32 NC 212 Madison Shelton Laurel Ck. Approx 9/82
143 SR 1304 Mitchell/Yancey 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 Madison 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 requirements of the NFIP, 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(x)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that, prior to utilizaticn of nation-,vide 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 a ±dress pctential impacts to anadror sous fisih 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
&2E9.OC61'B`ION REPORT
?x E.I.S. [-] CORRIDOR E] DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE

PROJECT:
8.1860801
COUNTY -- Qr
Madison Alternate A ?? nate
1. D. NO.: B-2150 F.A. PROJECT N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace existing Bridge #32 on NC 212 over Shelton Lau k
fM ? e2
1997
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOMEW
V?
?
-tn
Type of .?+.... . ?. ....,..
r „
Dis lacees 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 0 0 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 0-201a $ also o-20M $ 0-150
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20.401a 150-250 20-401A 150-250
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-I01a 250.400 40-701A 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7o-1001A 400-600 70-10010- 400-600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP
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, 6 thru 15 - It appears that no residential or business
indicate size, type, estimated number of displacees are involved on this project.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
N/A 6. Source for available housing (list). There may be a small miscellaneous move involved with
N/A 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? this project.
N/A 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
N/A 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
N/A 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
N/A 11. Is public housing available?
N/A 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
N/A 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
N/A 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? N/A
Y ?? 5/20/97 Xx-
RaylPatrick Whitaker, Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
rorm M4 Hevnsoa U".) a unginal is 1 Dopy: atate Helocatlon Agent
/??? 2 Copy Area Relocation Office