20011279 Ver 1_Complete File_20010817

U-1
v1 12 9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. Easely P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
August 3, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund, M.S., PWS
NCDOT Coordinator
Lyndo Tippett
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Henderson County, Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 South Mills River
Road over South Fork Mills River; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1338(2);
State Project No. 8.2951201; TIP No. B-3191.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion project-
planning document prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 09, 1999. An
addendum to the attached Categorical Exclusion is also included, which was signed by
the FHWA on December 18, 2000. The addendum to the C.E. states a new preferred
alternative which is described in this permit application. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 6 over South Fork Mills River on SR 1338 on the existing
alignment, utilizing area roads to detour traffic during construction. The existing structure
is a one-span one-lane structure that consists of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing
surface on low steel truss and steel joints. The substructure consist of masonry abutments.
The overall length of the existing structure is 88 feet (26.8 meters) and the clear roadway
width is 17.9 feet (5.5 meters). The replacement structure will be 110 feet (33 meters)
long and 30 feet (9.2 meters) wide brid e that provides two 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately
433 feet (132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the structure.
The design speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide

Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Division
of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
There is one jurisdictional stream located in the project area. This is the South
Fork Mills River. The best usage classification for South Fork Mills River is "WS-II Tr".
WS-1I class indicates waters that are protected as water supplies. These waters are found
in predominantly undeveloped watersheds where point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0 104, Considerations in Assigning Water
Supply Classifications, and .0211, Fresh Surface Water Classifications and Standards, of
this subchapter; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge are
required; suitable for all class C uses. A class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
supplemental classification Tr (Trout Waters) refers to freshwaters protected for natural
trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed this project and there comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d). They commented that the South Mills River is not designated PMTW
at the project site; however, the stream supports a wild trout population. They prefered
that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure and no instream work
should be conducted between November 1 and April 15. This stream is located in the
French Broad River drainage, subbasin 04-03-03, federal hydrologic unit 06010105.
South Fork Mills River is approximately 30 feet (9 meters) wide and has a water depth of
1-2 feet (0.3-0.6 meters) at the bridge crossing. Since the replacement structure will be
a extended single span bridge placed on end bents at the existing location, there will
be no impacts to U.S. surface waters. There are no wetlands located within the
project area, therefore there will be no wetland impacts.
The following paragraph describes potential impacts from the demolition of
Bridge No. 06 to Waters of the United States during the construction of Project B-3191.
Bridge No. 06 is a one-span one-lane structure that consists of a timber deck with
an asphalt wearing surface on low steel truss and steel joists. The substructure consists of
masonry abutments. No components of the bridge will be dropped into Waters of the
United States during the demolition process. This bridge demolition has been classified as
a Case 1 Bridge Demolition. This is due to a moratorium being placed on instream
work between November 1 and April 15 by the NCWRC. In addition to the
moratorium potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best
management practices and the use of erosion and sediment control measures for
high quality waters as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment
Control Program.
There was one federally-protected species that had habitat within the project area;
the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana). The project area was visited three
times since October 1998 by NCDOT biologist, USFWS biologist, and NCWRC
biologist to survey for mussels. During these surveys the slippershell mussel
(Alasmidonta viridis) was the only species of mussel found in the project area. Given the
results of these surveys it can be concluded that the project construction will not
impact the protected species. Further documentation on these surveys is included in this
application.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Clay Willis at [phone], Extension 334.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. R.G. Watson,P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
. 'k
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE "- , /William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
UU Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE ` Nicholas L. Graf, PE
j` Division Administrator, FHWA
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2000
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
00%IIuuIrl
. SEAL
William T. Goodwin, PE D e 2107
Project Manager %00,0% ?i rC14
GO
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
f6 4 q4a??
Stacy B. H' is, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Resident Engineer and Roadway Design
Unit
No in-stream work will be conducted between November 1 and April 15 to avoid impacts on
trout reproduction.
Sedimentation and Erosion Controls Measures for Protection of High Quality Waters will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and a copy of the completed environmental document will be forwarded to
TVA for approval.
Green Sheet
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
December 2000
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved December 9, 1999. The
recommended alternative (Alternative 2) was to replace Bridge No. 6 on new alignment
approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing bridge. New information is
available that makes another alternative a more reasonable and feasible alternative. The new
recommended alternative (Alternative 3), replacing the bridge in-place with traffic detoured off-
site, was considered and rejected in the Categorical Exclusion because one of the detour roads
was unpaved. The Division has since taken steps to pave the road and work is scheduled to be
complete by the end of 2000.
II. DISCUSSION
The three alternatives considered in the Categorical Exclusion involved a replacement structure
consisting of a bridge 110 feet (33 meters) long and 30 feet (9.2 meters) wide. The replacement
structure will require spill-through abutments at both ends. This structure will provide two 12-
foot (3.6-meter) lanes with a three-foot (1.0-meter) shoulder on each side.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 433 feet
(132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the structure. The design speed
is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will be required due to the poor
vertical alignment of the existing roadway. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during
the construction period north (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will
require a 90-foot (27-meter) bridge with a roadway grade approximately five feet (1.5 meters)
lower than the existing bridge deck. The on-site detour will be about 2,180 feet (665 meters) in
length.
Alternative 2 (Preferred in CE) involves replacement of the structure on new roadway
alignment approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing structure. The
new alignment will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour and will be
approximately 1,970 feet (600 meters) in length. The existing structure and approaches will serve
to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
Alternative 3 (New preferred) involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of
approximately 433 feet (132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the
structure. The design speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will
be required due to the poor vertical alignment of the existing roadway. During construction
traffic will be detoured off-site along existing area roads.
The estimated costs for the three alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Preferred
Structure S 234,500 $ 234,500 S 251,000
Roadway Approaches $ 210,900 $ 487,900 $ 210,400
Detour Structure and Approaches $ 655,000 -0- -0-
Structure Removal $ 12,600 $ 12,600 S 12,600
Misc. & Mob. $ 207,000 $ 332,000 $ 216,000
Eng. & Contingencies S 205,000 S 183,000 $ 110,000
Total Construction Cost $1,525,000 $1,250,000 S 800,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 70,000 $ 80,000 S 69,500
Total Project Cost $1,595,000 $1,330,000 $ 869,500
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the draft 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $1,330,000, including $80,000 for right-of-way and $1,250,000
for construction.
The table below details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat
type. Impacts to terrestrial plant communities are indicative of the relative abundance of each
community type in the study area. Estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed
right-of-way width. Project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore actual
impacts may be lower.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and A UATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 6
Replacement
Impacts Man-Dominated
Community
Acres (ha) Aquatic
Community
Acres (ha) Total

Acres (ha)
Alternative 1 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82,(0.32)
Temporary Detour 2.54(l.01) 0.07 (0.03) 2.61 (2.61)
Alternative 2 2.25 (2.25) 0.07 (0.03) 2.32 (2.32)
Alternative 3 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82 (0.32)
NOTES:
Impacts are based on 60.0 feet (18.3 meters) right-of-way width.
Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where
alternatives overlapped the existing alignment.
Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
One environmental consequence of the studied alternatives has changed since completion of the
Categorical Exclusion. The relocation of one residence is an unavoidable impact of Alternatives
1 and 3. Originally, it was thought that this impact could be avoided during the initial design of
Alternative 1. However, after further design work and consideration of Alternative 3, this
relocation is an unavoidable impact for these alternatives.
Other environmental consequences of the alternatives are considered to be approximately equal
and are limited in scope. These impacts are accurately described in the Categorical Exclusion.
Alternative 3 is essentially Alternative 1 without the on-site detour, therefore impacts attributable
to Alternative 3 are the same as those impacts attributed to the Alternative 1 bridge replacement.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the project on April 24, 2000 at the North and
South Mills Community Center. Approximately 40 local citizens attended the meeting. The
property owner impacted by Alternative 3 was among those in attendance. Citizens support
seemed to be nearly evenly split between the three alternatives. The Division Engineer concurs
with Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The Haywood County Fire Marshal was contacted
for comments on the detour and its possible effect on emergency response to the affected area.
By letter, dated September 13, 2000, he indicated that the advantages offered by replacement of
the bridge greatly outweigh any temporary inconveniences. [See appendix]
III. RECOMMENDATION
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 6 in-place as described by Alternative 3 above. Traffic will be
detoured along existing area roads during construction (see Figure 1).
142 4 ` 22 12+ 3
NE M N. ?. N .4 1496
I H 1.
14,13
I
/ 1.0 ?` %
1346 g-3191 s 131
•.9 1348 .7 -,
1347 19
N i'0 \ t7 13 5
? .2 g v .9
i- -? 11337 ` 2 9 2214
1345 3 ` 2020 1338 1
` 1343\ Mills River
BIG
KNOB 14z s 1339 , is ti .5 221 1 3 / .q
1328
1338-- 1498 9
e p C C t ` 1334 1332 31
a! 1335 13310
P
S `JC`i 0 3 1.0
0 - 1 °? 1 26
5
1333 2053
_?--? -
r\ ,:: ??? y y s 142? v h/ `? V
BUTTERMILK 1440
i_ MTN. ? 290 4
1316 i O
14 -1
--.\ `\..% ix, 1 ? ai o /.s 131 8 C'
148
1496 Q /!328 1318
?.? TAR t.
a? TN. / i 23'?i <'

1,- 3 at Cave
i
d •{``.... f lelc m 61 ?
f
T
MalYlt(tl r.wtla 6 la?
9 J Home
1 Ed ai
,
S
0 1,4
m
64 e i
tma • 14 lKock flat
dtrSOtiYll
3
ulal Hoc* 1 Sh
erros
a
a ZilflMlA
fd.K. s. c?..? t •at
tt o ibver 'fulled

LEGEND
Studied Dotour Route C? --3-v1-
North Carolina Department Of
Tran3portatlon
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1:338
(OVER SOUTH FORK MILLS GIVER
3--3191
0 tdlomotore 1•b Idlometara 3.2
9 mlleo LO mlloa ?•o
FIGURE 1

FIRE
NR3Nlr-
Sept. 13, 2000
HENDERSON COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE
101 East Allen Street
Hendersonville, NC 28792
[phone] FAX [phone]
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation
Rocky D. Hyder
Fire Marshall
1dNb f 3Q .3l?,,?,?0
my? ? rya d
9 d3s

Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over South Fork of Mills River,
. Henderson County, TIP No. B-3191
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
The Henderson County Fire Marshal's Office has investigated the proposed bridge
replacement on South Mills River Road (SR 1338). We found that the closing of the
bridge will add 3 minutes and 40 seconds response time and 2.3 miles of travel distance
to emergency responses in the areas beyond the bridge. This is an acceptable situation
with all concerned emergency agencies, including the Fire Marshal's Office, Henderson
County Emergency Medical Services, Mills River Fire and Rescue, and the Henderson
County Sheriffs Department. The advantages offered by replacement of the bridge
greatly outweigh any temporary inconveniences.
Sincerely,
by D. Hy #
Henderson County Fire Marshal
cc: Mills River Volunteer Fire Department
Henderson County EMS
'Henderson County Sheriffs Department
dM A???
.y
h.n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
James B. Hunt Jr.
Gov1:KNOR
Memorandum To
Attention:
From:
Subject:
Reference:
P.O. 13OX 25201, RALE1G11, N.C. 27611-5201
July 07, 1999
Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Unit
Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Project Manager
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
Environmental Unit
Protected species surveys for proposed replacement of bridge no.
6 over South Mills River on SR 1338; Henderson County;
TIP No. B-3191.
Natural Resources Technical Report for B-3191, prepared by
Resources Southeast, Ltd., December 1998.
David McCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 6 over the South
Mills River. The referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) gave a
Biological Conclusion of "Unresolved" for the federally Endangered Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana). Although this species is not listed by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) as occurring in Henderson County, the Mills River is within the
historic distribution of this species, and other rare mussel species have been recorded in
the river. Because of the high probability that the Appalachian elktoe occurred in the
Mills River at one time, the FWS recommended that NCDOT conduct surveys for mussel
fauna.
The Mills River subbasin was visited on three separate occasions:
1). NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge and Michael Wood visited the
subject project on October 13, 1998. Surveys for mussel fauna were conducted using
mask and snorkel in the vicinity of the bridge. No mussels were found in 2 man- hours of
surveying.
2). On December 11, 1998, various locations in the Mills River Subasin were
visited by Tim Savidge, NCDOT Specialist Shannon Simpson, US Fish and wildlife
Biologists Mark Cantrell and John Fridell, and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Biologist Scott Marsh. Mussel surveys were conducted at various locations including the
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
South Fork Mills River at SR 1338 (subject project area), North Fork Mills River SR
1345 and SR 1343, and Mills River at NC 191/280 and SR 1353. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets. The slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis)
was found in the Mills River at NC 191/280 (27) and SR 1353 (7). No mussel Fauna was
found at the subject project area.
The slippershell mussel is considered Endangered* in North Carolina. Plants or
animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC), are given some protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. However the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply
to NCDOT activities.
3). On May 25, 1999 Tim Savidge, NCDOT Environmental Specialist Logan
Williams and John Fridell canoed from the SR 1337 crossing of the South Mills River,
into the Mills River and then into the French Broad River, taking out at SR 1345. Mussel
surveys were conducted at various areas along this stretch of river. The slippershell
mussel was the only species found. This species appears to be distributed in the Mills
River from a short distance above NC 191/280 to below SR 1353. The hellbender
(Crytobranchus alleganiensis) a large aquatic salamander that is a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) and the American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) (considered
Threatened in North Carolina) were also observed to be common in the South Mills
River.
Biological Conclusion (Appalachian elktoe): No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the Appalachian elktoe does not occur
in the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this
species.
Recommendations: Because of the presence of the hellbender a FSC, the slippershell
mussel (Endangered in NC) and the American brook lamprey (Threatened in NC), as well
as the diverse aquatic fauna observed, the following recommendations are made: 1).
Erosion control methods that go beyond standard BMPs should be adhered to and should
be in place prior to clearing and grubbing activities if possible. 2). If possible, project
letting should be scheduled so that clearing and grubbing be restricted between
November 15 to April 01. 3). Precaution should be taken to avoid substrate disturbance,
introduction of toxic compounds (hydraulic fluids, bridge runoff etc) and alteration of
flow.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
File: B-3191
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DA E William D. Gilmore, PE, M ager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE `eLNi olas L. Graf, PE
l Division Administrator, FHWA
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 1999
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
rp/e??oe

QJ /n ?f
,Zen ,. SSJOA,a.

4 i` Q` ? ? i
SEAL
c
Willis S. Hood, PE Date 1.9509 ?
Project Manager
4
.
gy'p?
//
o
•,L4(OS S NO ??•

For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G. s PE, Unit Head
Consul t ngineering Unit
Stacy B. s, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COM TfMENTS
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
Geotechnical Unit
A Section 6 Permit will be required for the foundation investigations necessary on this project.
The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as
obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
Resident Engineer and Roadway Design Unit
No in-stream work will be conducted between November 1 and April 15 to avoid impacts on
trout reproduction.
Sedimentation and Erosion Controls Measures for Protection of High Quality Waters will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Hydraulics Unit
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval.
Categorical Exclusion
December 1999
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 6 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 31.8 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient. The replacement
of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northwestern part of Henderson County approximately 1.9 miles (3.1
kilometers) west of the town of Mills River. The project is on the edge of the Pisgah National
Forest (see Figure 1). Development in the area is rural agricultural in nature.
SR 1338 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route and there is no
indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1338 has a 17-foot (5.2-meter) pavement width with 4-foot (1.2-
meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is a sag vertical curve through
the project area. The existing bridge is on a tangent that extends approximately 500 feet (152
meters) west and 200 feet (61 meters) from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately
15.3 feet (4.7 meters) above the rive: bed.
The current traffic volume of 1950 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2630 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
2 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit on this section of SR 1338 is 45 miles
(72 kilometers) per hour, but 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour curves exist east and west of the
site.
Bridge No. 6 is a one-span one-lane structure that consists of a timber deck with an asphalt
wearing surface on low steel truss and steel joists. The substructure consists of masonry
abutments. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1954 and is in fair condition.
The overall length of the structure is 88 feet (26.8 meters). The clear roadway width is 17.9 feet
(5.5 meters). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 16 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for
TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but power and telephone lines are
underground on both approaches and overhead as they cross South Fork Mills River on the
upstream side of the structure. An underground 20-inch waterline is located along the southside
shoulder of SR 1338. Also, the Mills River Volunteer Fire Department has a pump station and
hydrant under the east end of the structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to be moderate.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 6 during the period from September
1993 to August 1996
Four school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 110 feet (33 meters) long and 30
feet (9.2 meters) wide. The replacement structure will require a spill-through abutment on each
end. This structure will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-meter) shoulders
on each side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The final design of
the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-
year floodplain limits. The length of the new structure may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width, to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders on each side, in accordance with the
current NCDOT design Policy. Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are included
as Figure 4.
This project does not meet the requirements outlined in NCDOT's Guidelines for the Location
and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins. While South Fork Mills River is classified as WS-II Tr by
NCDWQ, SR 1338 is not classified as an arterial route and does not have unusually high truck
traffic therefore hazardous spill basins are not warranted at this site.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval. The TVA will also be included in the list of agencies receiving a
copy of this document for their records.
2
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 6 that were studied are described below.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 433
feet (132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the structure. The design
speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will be required due to
the poor vertical alignment of the existing roadway. A temporary on-site detour will be provided
during the construction period north (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary
detour will require a 90-foot (27-meter) bridge with a roadway grade approximately 5.0 feet (1.5
meters) lower than the existing bridge deck. The on-site detour will be about 2180 feet (665
meters) in length.
This alternative is not recommended because of the additional adverse impact on the ecosystem
due to the proposed on-site detour and the potential displacement of a residence. Also, the cost of
this alternative is more than Alternative 2 because it requires a temporary detour structure.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer does not prefer Alternative 1 because it may result in the
displacement of a residence immediately adjacent to the existing bridge. Also, it necessitates the
construction of a costly on-site detour.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment
approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing structure. The new
alignment will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour and will be
approximately 1,970 feet (600 meters) in length. The existing structure and approaches will serve
to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period (see Figure 2).
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
A third alternative was considered that closed the road, replaced the bridge in its existing
location, and maintained traffic with an off-site detour. The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer
rejected this alternative because the proposed off-site detour would require the use of soil and
gravel roads. Any other possible off-site detour in the project area was unacceptable due to its
length.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1338.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream of the existing
location as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2.
This alternative is preferred because it is the least costly, allows traffic to be maintained on-site,
has a minimal impact on adjacent properties, and is less disruptive to the natural environment in
the vicinity of the project.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternative 2 as the
preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Preferred
Structure $ 234,500 $ 234,500
Roadway Approaches $ 210,900 $ 487,900
Detour Structure and Approaches $ 655,000 -0-
Structure Removal $ 12,600 $ 12,600
Misc. & Mob. $ 207,000 $ 332,000
Eng. & Contingencies $ 205,000 $ 183,000
Total Construction Cost $1,525,000 $1,250,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 70,000 $ 80,000
otal Project Cost $1,595,000 $1,330,000
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), is $538,000, including $33,000 for right-of-way, $420,000 for construction and
$85,000 spent in prior years.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 19, 1998 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed
bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1) search
for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and
5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed
bridge replacement.
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Skyland, NC 7.5 minute series
topographic map (1991); Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of
Henderson County, NC (1980); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory map (Skyland, NC, 1995); USFWS Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (May, 1998); North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database of rare species and unique habitats (January,
1998); and NCDOT aerial photography of the study area. Research using these resources was
conducted prior to the field investigation.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows.
Impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 60.0 feet (18.3 meters)
wide right-of-way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should
be less, but without specific replacement structure design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the
worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Mountain Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. The topography of the project vicinity can
be characterized as nearly level to steeply sloped. Elevation in the vicinity ranges from
approximately 2120 to 2500 feet (646 to 762 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation
in the project area is about 2120 to 2140 feet (646 to 652 meters) above msl. Current land use in
the project vicinity is predominantly a mixture of rural residential, agricultural, and undeveloped
properties.
The Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina indicates that Hayesville-Bradson is the
general soil association found in the project area. This association consists of gently sloping to
moderately steep well drained soils that have a loamy and clayey subsoil. The Hayesville-
Bradson soil association includes the following soils in the project vicinity.
Fannin silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes is mapped by the soil survey as occurring at the
western end of the project limit. Fannin silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes is mapped as occurring
on both sides of the northeastern approach. These soils are well drained and moderately
permeable. Fannin silt loam is not listed as a hydric soil. Field conditions generally conform to
soil survey mapping of the proposed project area, with the exception that soils adjacent to the
river at the northeast approach are more consistent with Rosman loam, which is also mapped on
both sides of the southwest approach.
Rosman loam is a well drained and moderately well drained alluvial soil commonly found
adjacent to streams on wide floodplains. Upon field investigation of the soils in the agricultural
fields on both sides of the southwest bridge approach mapped as Rosman loam, a massive
subsurface layer was found at a depth of about 8 inches (20 centimeters). This massive layer is
compatible with the Rosman classification. Rosman loam is not listed as hydric.
5
Evard soils, 25 to 45 percent slopes occur mid-slope along the western approach to the bridge.
These well drained soils are typically found on the sides of mountains. These soils are not listed
as hydric.
Brevard loam soils, 7 to 15 percent slopes, occur on smooth foot slopes or benches at the base
of high Appalachian Mountains. These well drained soils are found at the eastern end of the
eastern approach to the bridge. Brevard loam soils are not listed as hydric.
C. Water Resources
1. Stream Characteristics
The proposed project falls within the French Broad River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
FRB3 (04-03-03) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of French Broad-06010105. The
South Fork Mills River flows northwest through the proposed project area with a width of
approximately 30 feet (9 meters) at Bridge No. 6. The depth of the river was approximately 1.0
to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meters) on the day of the investigation. The South Fork Mills River has a
Class WS-II Tr rating from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). Class WS-II indicates waters protected as water supplies. These waters
are found in predominantly undeveloped watersheds where point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0 104, Considerations in Assigning Water Supply
Classifications, and .0211, Fresh Surface Water Classifications and Standards, of this subchapter;
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge are required; suitable for all
Class C uses. A Class C designation indicates the river's suitability for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental
classification, Tr, following the Class WS-II designation indicates the river is suitable for natural
trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. The Classification Date and Index for this
portion of the river is 8/3/92, 6-54-3 (17.5).
Point-source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within the project vicinity,
[0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers)] was conducted for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitted discharges and none were found.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from SR 1338 as well as
the agricultural fields may cause water quality degradation.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data as
a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out
approximately six years ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol.
Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling
stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical and
physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), as
another method to determine general water quality in the basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a
modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et
al. (1986). The IBI method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by
examining the structure and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information
about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition.
The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal
communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
The DWQ has a sampling station located at SR 1340, upstream of the project study area on the
South Fork Mills River. This station was last sampled in June of 1993, with a DWQ sampling
identification number of 6193. The NCIBI rating of the South Fork Mills River at this location
was determined to be Excellent.
Although outside the project area, Clearwater Branch, which is located approximately [0.9 miles
(1.4 kilometers)] southeast of the bridge, is another water resource of note because of its
classification. Clearwater Branch has a WS-II Tr ORW rating from the NCDENR. The WS-II
rating indicates waters protected as water supplies, and the Tr indicates suitability for natural
trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. The ORW indicates Outstanding Resource
Waters, which are unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or
ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses.
2. Anticipated Impacts
Aside from the South Fork Mills River and Clearwater Branch, no other High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
project study area. The aquatic community in the study area exists within the South Fork Mills
River. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.07 acres
(0.03 hectares) of stream bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance may
be less). The new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase
sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation could be harmful
to local populations of invertebrates, which are an important part of the aquatic food chain.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best management practices and the
use of High Quality Waters erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-
approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the
NCDWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters and additional guidelines for the protection of
waters designated as High Quality Waters by NCDWQ. The following are examples of standard
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• Strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project.
• Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies.
• Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
• Minimization of clearing and grubbing along the riverbank.
The following are examples of the guidelines that have been developed to further protect High
Quality Waters:
• A maximum has been set for the amount of uncovered disturbed area allowed at the site
at any given time. This maximum is twenty acres.
• All flood control measures will be designed to protect for the 25-year storm, instead of
the ten-year storm used for standard measures.
• Sedimentation basins have efficiency criteria set at catching 70% of 40-micron size soil
particles in a two-year storm.
• Ground cover should be re-established in 15 working days or 60 calendar days.
3. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project study area. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities
is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular
plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information
is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
D. Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is Man-Dominated. The
northern quadrant of the northeastern approach contains remnants of a forested community,
however the area has been disturbed and the surrounding landscape is dissected into residential
and agricultural areas to the extent that the original community that was once within the project
area cannot be determined. Further discussion of the Man-Dominated community, along with
associated fauna, is given below.
1. Man-Dominated Community
The man influenced community within the project area includes road shoulders, agricultural
fields, residential properties, and areas that exhibit remnants of previously forested communities.
On both sides of the southwest approach, the road shoulders are approximately 3.0 to 4.0 feet
(0.9 to 1.2 metes) wide, grading into steep embankments which descend to agricultural fields.
Vegetation on the shoulders and embankments includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), white clover
(Trifolium repens), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and planted regularly maintained grass. A
culvert extends under the road in the vicinity of the agricultural fields.
A residential property is located on the south side of the northeast approach near the corner of the
bridge. The property owner maintains grass to the edge of the river. There are additional
residential properties with maintained lawns along the south side of the northeast approach, and
the road shoulders in this area are a mixture of dandelion (Taraxacum off cinale), plantain
(Plantago sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), and planted grass.
A private road with a gate is located on the north side of the northeast approach, along with
beehives kept by the property owner south of the road. Vegetation in this area has been disturbed
in the past and trash has been dumped near the corner of the bridge. The soils are well drained
and the topography is sloping in this quadrant of the project area. This area appears to possibly
be the remains of a Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, however there are several open areas with
weedy vegetation such as blackberry and rose (Rosa sp.). Additional species in this area include
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Corpus
Florida), red mulberry (Morus rubra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). A very thin
buffer of vegetation with similar species separates the agricultural fields from the river on both
growing in the buffer strip on the north side of the southwest approach.
2. Wildlife
Wildlife noted in the Man-Dominated community on the day of the site investigation included
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus) scat was also observed. Other species that frequent disturbed areas could utilize this
community as well. The racoon (Procyon lotor) might be seen here and the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) could be found here looking for insects, snails, and earthworms to eat.
Five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) might utilize this habitat to lay eggs in rotten wood or
under a rock, and the brown snake (Storeria dekayi) may be found here searching for slugs and
earthworms. Several species of birds that are adaptable to disturbed areas could also find habitat
in the Man-Dominated community.
E. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the South Fork Mills River. Within
the project study area of Bridge No: 6, the South Fork Mills River flows west to northwest and is
approximately 30 feet (9 meters) wide. The South Fork Mills River and SR 1338 cross at this
location perpendicular to each other. On the day of the field investigation the river was very clear
and the flow was moderate. The depth of the river ranged from about 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6
meters). The river substrate consisted of cobble and gravel and the banks were slightly undercut.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussels. No federally protected
mussels are known to exist in the area and no evidence of mollusks was observed. Dip netting
along the riverbank yielded several unidentified juvenile fish approximately 0.4 inches (1.0
centimeter) in length. The property owner adjacent to the bridge stated that he often fishes for
trout in the river.
The District 9 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
indicated the river in the project area is considered to be of high quality and has been
recommended for Wild and Scenic Status, although he was unsure if the designation had been
implemented. The NCDENR, Division of Water Resources was consulted regarding the
designation of the river. They said that the South Fork Mills River is not currently designated as
Wild and Scenic. The Biologist said that this is a good site for trout fishing and that downstream
in the French Broad River, the NCWRC manages for a musky (Esox sp.) fishery. He stated that
musky may breed in the tributaries, but he was unsure of reproduction times or when limitations
should be required.
1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
2. Terrestrial Communities
Alternative 2 will result in more long-term impacts to terrestrial communities; however, in the
short term Alternative 1 will have a larger impact due to the temporary detour. Table 2 details the
anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type. .
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 6 Man-Dominated Aquatic Total
Replacement Community Community
Impacts acres (ha) acres (ha) acres (ha)
Alternative 1 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82 (0.32)
Temporary Detour 2.54(l.01) 0.07 (0.03) 2.61 (2.61)
Alternative 2 2.25 (2.25) 0.07 (0.03) 2.32 (2.32)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 60.0 feet (18.3 meters) right-of-way width.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where
alternatives overlapped the existing alignment.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the South Fork Mills River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 60 feet (18.3 meters) linear or 0.07
acres (0.03 hectares) of stream bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual
disturbance may be less). The new replacement structure construction and approach work will
likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation
10
could be harmful to local populations of invertebrates, which are an important part of the aquatic
food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best management
practices and the use of erosion and sediment control measures for high quality waters as
specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and NCDWQ. Up to
60 feet of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 6.
a. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Since no significant impacts are expected from this project, a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) level study was conducted. Categorical Exclusions are subject to the
provisions of Nationwide Permit 23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency. It states that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. The CE report is submitted to the
USACE to document that the terms and conditions of the Nationwide Permit 23 are met.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since
Henderson County is a North Carolina trout county, concurrence with the nationwide permit will
also be required from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
If filling from a proposed project will impact wetlands or surface waters, a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. North
Carolina has developed General Certifications (GC) that will satisfy Section 401 of the CWA and
correspond to the USACE's Nationwide Permits. An application will be made for the impacts to
"Waters of the United States".
b. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation will not be required by the USACE.
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 feet is generally not required by the
USACE or NCDWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the
USACE and NCDWQ.
2. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due to
natural forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
Henderson County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists five federally protected species for Henderson County as of September 15,
1999. These species are listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status
*Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) Threatened
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Threatened
Sagittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead) Endangered
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii (S. jonesii)
(mountain sweet pitcher plant) Endangered
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) Endangered
NOTES:
* This species is not listed by USFWS for Henderson County; however, USFWS
has requested that it be included with the species for this project. See Biological
Conclusion under species description for more information.
Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.)
12
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (S/A) to other rare species. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 protection.
Species: Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to 3 inches (8.0
centimeters). Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juvenile
have a yellowish-brown color.
Known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina in the Nolichucky River
(including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), the Tuckaseegee, the South
Toe, and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been reported
from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well-oxygenated, moderate to
fast flowing water. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed
with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse, sandy
substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area has been visited three times since October 1998 by NCDOT
Environmental Specialists, US Fish and Wildlife Biologists, and/or NC Wildlife Resources
Commission Biologists to survey for mussels and other rare plant and animal species in
area rivers. The slippershell mussel (alasmidonta viridis) was the only species of mussel
found in the project area. Given the results of these surveys, it is apparent that the
Appalachian elktoe does not occur in the project area. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact this species.
Species: Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle)
The bog turtle is a small reptile, 3.0 to 4.5 inches (7.5 to 11.5 centimeters), with a conspicuous
yellow, orange, or reddish blotch on each side of its head. The carapace is light brown to
mahogany in color, weakly keeled, and becomes rougher with age. A light brown or orange
sunburst pattern may be present on large scutes. Bog turtles reach sexual maturity in 5 to 7 years.
This species eats mostly insects, but will also consume worms, snails, amphibians, and seeds.
Mountain habitat in North Carolina consists of sunlit marshy meadows, spring seepages, wet cow
pastures, and bogs. Narrow, shallow, slow-moving rivulets are preferred. According to the May
14, 1998 USFWS rare species list, the northern population of the bog turtle, which includes New
York south to Maryland, is listed as threatened. The southern population, which includes
Virginia south to Georgia, is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance. This bans the
collection and trade of bog turtles from the southern population, but makes no special land
management requirements upon private land owners in North Carolina. Since the southern
population is not biologically threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation, a
biological conclusion is not needed.
13
Species: Helonias bullata (swamp pink)
Swamp pink is a perennial, which is one of the first wildflowers to bloom in the spring. It
possesses fragrant, pink flowers that occur in clusters of 30 to 50. Its dark evergreen, lance-
shaped, and parallel-veined leaves form a basal rosette which arises from a stout stem which can
extend to a height of 8 to 35 inches (20 to 90 centimeters) during flowering. This plant tends to
reproduce by clonal root growth and grow in clumps close to the parent plants. Due to this, plant
populations can be extremely dense with some populations in the southern Appalachians having
plant densities of 56 plants per 10.7 feet (1.0 meter) square. Flowers are present from March to
May.
In North Carolina, the largest populations of swamp pink are found in the Pisgah National Forest
in the "Pink Beds" area. Seven other populations occur in Jackson, Henderson and Transylvania
counties. Swamp pink occurs in numerous wetland habitats including Atlantic white-cedar
swamps, Blue Ridge swamps, swampy forested wetlands which border small streams, meadows
and spring seepage areas. The species requires habitat, which is saturated with water, but not
flooded. Swamp pink ranges over seven states, and is often associated with evergreen trees such
as Atlantic white cedar, pitch pine, American larch and black spruce. Swamp pink is somewhat
shade tolerant and needs enough canopy to minimize competition with other more aggressive
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the swamp pink due to a lack of wetlands in
the area. A search of the NCNHP database showed no reported occurrences of this species
in the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the swamp pink.
Species: Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia)
Flowers Present: mid-May to mid-June
The small-whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem
3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25.0 centimeters) tall. The stem terminates in a whorl of 5 or 6 light
green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and measure up to 3.2 x 1.6 inches (8.0 x 4.0
centimeters). A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the stem, however,
individual plants may not flower every year. Extended dormancy, although not scientifically
documented, is purported to occur under certain conditions.
Twenty-three populations of the small-whorled pogonia occur in the southeastern United States.
These populations are known from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Five populations occur in North Carolina. Most Southeastern populations of this plant number
less than 25 plants. Habitat for the small-whorled pogonia usually occurs in open, dry deciduous
woods with acid soils. This species also occurs in areas with relatively high shrub coverage or
high-density saplings, however flowering appears to be inhibited in these situations.
14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for this species does not occur within the project area. There are not deciduous
woods or rich cove hardwoods within the project area. In addition, the NCNHP showed no
reported occurrences of the small-whorled pogonia within the project vicinity. This project
will not affect the small-whorled pogonia.
Species: Sagittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead)
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has spatulate-shaped basal leaves.
The erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on it, the male being above the
female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are present from April to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs with a slow, continuous flow of
cool, clean water, underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water temperatures are variable, soil
and water pHs are between 4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant. These plants occur
naturally in shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas and have smaller, less
vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as sandy loam below a muck layer ranging in depth from
10 to 24 inches (25 to 60 centimeters).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project area for the bunched arrowhead. The soils are not of the
correct type and there are no bogs present. There are no reported occurrences of this plant
by the NCNHP within the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the bunched
arrowhead.
Species: Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii (S. jonseir) (mountain sweet pitcher plant)
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this
plant grow erect and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet shaped, almost
tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately
veined with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers are hairy and usually partially filled with
liquid and decaying insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are borne singly on erect scapes
and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present from April to June and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitch-plant is found in bogs and streams in southwestern North Carolina and
northwestern South Carolina. This habitat is characterized by deep, poorly drained wetlands with
soils that are combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic content and medium to
high acidic pH. Sites are intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant is an early successional
plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its
habitat.
15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species since there are no wetlands
present. There were no pitcher plants of any type within the project area at the time of the
investigation, and the NCNHP showed no reported occurrences of the mountain sweet
pitcher plant in the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the mountain sweet
pitcher plant.
Species: Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette)
White irisette is a perennial herb that grows with a dichotomous, branching pattern and reaches
heights of approximately 4 to 8 inches (11 to 20 centimeters). The basal leaves, usually pale to
bluish green, are from one-third to one-half the height of the plant. The fruit is a round, pale to
medium brown capsule containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds. Tiny white flowers
appear in four to six clusters at the ends of winged stems. The dichotomous branching pattern
and white flowers combine to distinguish this herb from other species within the genus. Flowers
are present from May to July.
White irisette is endemic to the upper Piedmont of North and South Carolina with four known
populations occurring in North Carolina and one population occurring in South Carolina. North
Carolina's populations occur in Polk, Henderson and Rutherford counties. This species has
apparently always been a narrow endemic, limited to an area in the Carolinas bounded by White
Oak Mountain, Sugerloaf Mountain, Chimney Rock and Melrose Mountain. This species occurs
on rich, basic soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges of
upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has removed much of
the deep leaf litter ordinarily found on these sites. The white irisette is dependent on some form
of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Artificial disturbances such as power line and road
right-of-way maintenance are maintaining open areas that may have been historically been
maintained by native grazing animals and naturally occurring fires.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Soils within the project area are not appropriate for this species. The site investigation was
conducted during the flowering time of this species and it was searened for, even though
the soils were inappropriate. The plant was not found and the NCNHP database showed no
reported occurrences of the white irisette in the project area or vicinity. This species will
not be affected by this project.
b. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the
16
NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. Table 4 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Henderson County and their state
classifications (NCNHP, January 1998).
TABLE 4
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF
CONCERN IN HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name North Carolina
Status Habitat
Present
Aneides aeneus (green salamander) Endangered No
Cambarus reburrus (French Broad crayfish) Significantly Rare No
Carex schweinitzi (Schweinitz's sedge) Endangered No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (hellbender) Special Concern Yes
Hexasrylis contracta (mountain heartleaf) Endangered Yes
Hexasrylis rhombiformis (French Broad heartleaf) Candidate Yes
Juglans cinerea (butternut) Not Listed Yes
Juncus caesariensis (rough rush = New Jersey rush) Candidate/
Prop. Endangered No
Lasmigona holstonia (Tennessee heelsplitter) Endangered Yes
Lilium grayi (Gray's lily) Threatened -
Special Concern No
Lysimachia fraseri (Fraser's loosestrife) Endangered No
Marshallia grandiflora (large-flowered Barbara's button) Candidate No
Monotropsis odorata (sweet pinesap) Candidate Yes
Myotis leibii (Eastern small-footed myotis) Special Concern No
*Narthecium americanum (bog asphodel) Endangered No
Neotoma floridana haematoreia (Southern Appalachian
woodrat) Special Concern No
Plantantherea integrilabia (white fringeless orchid) Endangered No
Senecio millefolium (divided-leaf ragwort) Threatened No
Silene ovata (mountain catchfly) Candidate No
Speyeria diana (Diana fritillary) Significantly Rare No
NOTES:
Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and
needing population monitoring).
Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Not Listed (species whose status is not listed at this time).
17
Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action
is recommended).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any federally protected species known to occur in
Henderson County. Habitat is present in the project area for six FSC species listed in the county.
No rare species were observed at the time of the site visit and no impacts are expected to occur to
protected species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated that the only structure of architectural importance in the general project area is Bridge
No. 6, which has been determined not to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Photographs of all other structures in the APE were reviewed with an NCDOT
Architectural Historian and representatives of the SHPO on November 13, 1998. None of the
other properties were considered to be eligible as indicated in a concurrence form dated
December 30, 1998. Copies of the concurrence form and the memorandum are included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
Also, in their memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the SHPO recommended that "a
comprehensive archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
During the course of the archaeological investigation two archaeological sites were located
within the project area. However, no further investigation of these sites has been recommended
and in a memorandum dated October 12, 1999 the SHPO concurred with that recommendation
since neither site involves significant archaeological resources. No further archaeological work
will be conducted in connection with this project. Copies of these memorandums are included in
the Appendix.
18
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
SR 1338 is a boundary for the Pisgah National Forest, property to the south of SR 1338 is within
the boundary of this National Forest. However, all studied alternatives for this project involve
land to the north of SR 1338. The United States Forest Service has indicated that the project will
not effect any land in the Pisgah National Forest.
Bridge No. 6 is located on SR 1338 over South Fork Mills River in Henderson County. The
superstructure is composed completely of timber and steel, and the substructure is not located in
the river. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any component into Waters of
the U.S. during construction.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resource Conservation Service.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air
19
Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Henderson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
20
1423 1 _ 2208
4 ?.3 1419
1496
( ?? (..? CANE MTN. N .4 e,
P IS) G // 1 1 1 't 10 1349 q' 1443
\ J McO w
/ f G?
l 0 1350 1.4
1346
B-319 1 r 1351
D 7 -r
? 0 1347 1348 .7 191 28
N A 1 1"?N A L 1345
;
5 .5 .9
?-ry/ - - - 2019 C' .2214 -
L V •6 1337
1345 w 1343 / 1338 6 - 2020 - 1338 •5
.3 .3 , Mills River
BIG ,4 ,6 '?
1342
KNOB s 133s 1 r
Q?F
1336 ti .5 2213
1338 1498 a 1328 ?- 6
F O R E S T 1334 1335 1332
1331
e v /.
s 1.0
16 / .t ? 1426
5. 2053
j 1333 6
?p 1340 2
1422
UTTERM IL_K 1440
MTN. fwd 280
-------------- .__? 1316 r
L a
?/ 2078 1421
J Q? ,''1487 - -- 2 B 1316 a 2088
J ?O
11 1327 13183
T ARKILN 1386 5??c 1328
MTN. / a A rte` 00?\ 2 _ ??
,Y
" \: ? ?? ' Bat Cava
Fletc er 64
` Mountai Fnpllan 11ak
` Mill 6i gt3 , Home Edneyvl11,e
\ SID N
HOT e 6 ® r
t 64 T tow. • 74 lEast Flat
adersonville Rock r
eniose Flat R
5 ? Zirc
dmei fdoc. Sr. forenr
itttle River Tuxer
I/
L.%
North Carolina Department Of
?. Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
B-3191
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 Mlles 1.0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 1
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
8-3191
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORTH
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3

a
v

?

)

a
w

w
N CO fZ
0. z
d a `? a w
C) E
CO0aca

o?,? °
fo P.M

U O
x
C ,, O
wz F. 0.1
tiE- 0 > q O
0- 0
zo0.w
O
q

?
x
w
?
9
O

'O

1_ C *N ao O S

° Z
p c
--- Z
_O

E
1
E E
v
w
,G
N OD
I H^ *4O N
c'7 r- G ch N
O = » N
VZ_
t; V

C14 0
N ?O
O
0

%0 Ln a

Q

.pE

O
.
aL CL
Q v
N 06 ..? vi ? , ~
Z
Q
v O (?
- CL CL
E N 00
N

f 0 m CO

E'er J
o
0

%O j N
r J J
c" 1 r- u

cl? c
z ? N
N

I 0 ~
__ _ _ -_ _
FQ- J II II II

N
(? Q o, O N
LU a N N

Z H

~
Z Z
O O LAI
G V
U
Q
v
z
D
LL
LO
a

v
00

Ci
nt?

w
N C
CC a C Z
Q q o ¢ ?D a Ct.
G m U
•
M
(ul O
= 0W

Ia. q?
z
O
CD
? CY)
N U C ., o V) F-
??? w z a
w E" o > O
o. w a
zoa w z w
C7 U]
w
x Q ?
w
? o

N
M W

0
r_
V
W
N
W

GC
m
J
V
L
r
r
J

H O
J CO CO
- 0
M W
?
Z U C 0 0
Cl
z UQ O
O o2 rr N

J II II II
N 0 a p O
Q W - N N
V _
s
L W
I•-
Z

E W Q Z N
z
N
Z i u
MO t
5 D
_ LL
N
? 4-.114. North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
? Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
B-3191
0 ^e ers 1.6 n o e•e 3.2
0 ^?es 1.0 2.0
FIGURE 6
FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area
1
y, tgirr??
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 12, 1999
IN rzE?LY REFEq TO
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
r {
+1
1
JUL
This is in response to a letter from your office dated July 18, 1998, addressed to
Mr. Steve Lund of our Asheville Regulatory Field Office, and faxed to Mr. Lund on
May 13, 1999, requesting comments on six proposed bridge replacements in five
western North Carolina counties. These counties and TIP Nos. are Madison -.B-2583,
Haywood - B-3187 and B-3660, Henderson - B-3191, Jackson - B-3196, and
Rutherford - B-3238, (Regulatory Division Action ID Nos. 199930825, 199930826,
199930830, 199930827, 199930828, and 199930829, respectively).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. Enclosed are our
comments on these issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
1 i I
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
July 12, 1999
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
Six Bridge Replacements in Five Western North Carolina Counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section at
(919 251-4728
Henderson County does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). However, we recommend that the proposed crossing improvement in that
county be designed so as not to significantly increase upstream water surface
elevations. The remaining four counties are participants in the NFIP. The crossing in
Madison County is located within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Marshall, which is
also a participant in the NFIP. Of these, the crossing of the West Fork Pigeon River in
Haywood County and, possibly, the French Broad River crossing in the town of Marshall
involve detailed study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and floodways
defined. The crossings of Fines Creek in Haywood County and West Fork Tuckasegee
River in Jackson County are on approximately mapped streams, which do not have
100-year flood elevations shown. We do not have flood maps in our office that cover
the French Broad River crossing in Marshall and the Second Broad River crossing in
Rutherford County. We refer you to the community and county for possible flood
ordinance requirements relative to these crossings. A summary of flood plain
information that we have pertaining to the bridges in the NFIP participating counties is
contained in the following table. This information was taken from the pertinent Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream BFE* FIRM
328 SR 1001 Madison French Broad R. * 5/78*
79 SR 1112 Haywood W. Fk. Pigeon R. 2687** 8/98
204 SR 1334 Haywood Fines Creek Approx. 7/84
193 SR 1157 Jackson W. Fk. Tuckasegee Approx. 5/89
* Flood map not in our office. Refer to town of Marshall for ordinance requirements.
** Base (100-year) Flood Elevation in feet N.G.V.D.
July 12, 1999
Page 2 of 3
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
For the detail study stream crossings, reference is made to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished
previously to your office. Improvements to the bridges should be designed to meet the
requirements of the NFIP, administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all
local ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or
developments should be referred to the local building official.
Except for Rutherford County, all of the affected counties are within the planning
jurisdiction of the USAED, Nashville District. The Nashville District does not currently
have projects that would be affected by the proposed bridge projects. Mr. Harry Blazek
may be contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the
Nashville District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund. Project Manager. Asheville
Field Office. Regulatory Division at (8828) 271-4857
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, U.S. Department of the Army (DA) 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. Specific permit requirements
will depend on design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United
States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and
other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit No.23, 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. Please be reminded that, prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) 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.
July 12, 1999
Page 3 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
Our experience has shown that replacing bridges, with culverts often results in
sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project 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. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if
undercutting is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be
stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
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 Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.

RAC
?Cl ?
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 Wort Surnrnit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 t G? c'6.
October 22, 1998 ?? .S,%????'? J99
r?J? ?J
?! 5r-
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department ot" Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
GROUP XV BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, FRENCH BROAD RIVER, WEST FORK PIGEON
RIVER, SOUTH MILLS RIVER, WEST FORK TUCKASEGEE RIVER, AND FINES CREEK, HAYWOOD,
IIENDERSON, JACKSON, AND MADISON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the scoping notice for the following proposed bridge replacements in western North Carolina:
• B-2583, SR 1001 over French Broad River, Madison County
• B-3187, SR I t 12 over West Fork Pigeon River, Haywood County
• B-3660, SR 1334 over Fines Creek, Haywood County
• B-3191, SR 1338 over South Mills River, Henderson County
• B-3196, SR 1157 over West Fork Tuckasegee River (Thorpe Dam Spillway), Jackson County
The environmental document prepared f'or these projects should note that approvals under Section 26a of the
TVA Act would be required f'or the bridge replacements and structure modifications. TVA would hope to use the
Federal Highway Administration Categorical Exclusion documents as support for its environmental review of the
same actions. Therefore, the inclusion of information related to wetlands and potential mitigation, Floodplain
Management Executive Order, National Historic Preservation Act compliance, and Endangered Species Act
compliance would lower TVA's review costs and greatly facilitate TVA's eventual approval of the projects.
Other issues to be discussed would vary according to project location and impacts but may include, as
appropriate, .iti.atc-,fisted specie:; (blodlversi j 11TIliaCaj and visual i iipacts.
Please invite TVA to any interagency meetings, ifany are found to be necessary. Please send a copy of the
completed environmental documents to TVA,
Should you have any questions, please contact I tarold M. Draper at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sin rely,
l ?.
Jon M. 1, e , Man cr
lnvironmental Management
a.a Srnr£
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 12, 1999
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Bridge 46 on SR 1338 over South Mills River, B-3191, Henderson County, ER 99-7417
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for vour letter of September 7, 1999 transmitting the archaeological survey report by Wake Forest
University Laboratories concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological sites were located within the project area. The authors have
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur
with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservations Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800, and to Executive Order 1 1 593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments, please
contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
I r
Daiid_Brook I
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:bjs
cc: Kenneth W. Robinson, WFU
Roy Shelton, FhwA
Gail Grimes, PE, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fux
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Carter, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (919)7334763/733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-16 1 9 [phone]/715-2671
RESTOItATIoN 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone]/715-4801
STATF?
J2.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branc
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook //?/j? ( ??1 ! ??? ;-
Deputy State I`Iistoric Preservation Oi icer
1-0 E
JUN 21 1999
?Q -0
SUBJECT: Scope of work and two addenda, Archaeological ptvts;`,, , =?=
Survey, Bridge Replacement Projects, Multicounty,?oA?F? sF
ER 99-8971 iTC r
^?L AiIA?-..m''
Thank you for your memorandum of May 27, 1999, transmitting the Scope of Work for
project B-3045 and the two addenda for additional archaeological survey.
We have reviewed the Scope of Work and find it to be complete and appropriate for the
proposed bridge replacement projects. These projects include the following:
B-3071 (Wilkes Co.), B-3334 (Gaston Co.), B-3065 (Watauga Co.)
B-3248 (Surry Co.), B-3191 (Henderson Co.), B-3187 (Haywood Co.
B-3480 (Jackson Co.), B-3485 (Macon Co.) and B-3518 (Transylvania Co.)
We look forward to receipt of the resulting archaeological survey reports.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Presen,,a.tion'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: Lee Novick, NCDOT
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
inn r.... T....... . C.- . . . n_' .?..1. , 1 _.1. - r0?n
,. A
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 6, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
\ r. C/
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hksto?nc_Preservation Office r 114k
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge 6 on SR 1338 over South Mills
River, Henderson County, B-3191, ER 99-7417
? z OCT ? 8 1998 ?-
' D/V/SfO
G?? HIGH!n; CP
Rp??
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1998, concerning the above project. We apologize
for the delay in responding.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structure
of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Bridge 6. This bridge has been determined ineligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
Numerous archaeological sites are recorded along the South Mills River. We recommend
that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted if a change of bridge location or
alignment is anticipated.
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
is
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
51
J
K.
CO`NCLR.Z1-`CE.:OR`i FOR PR0PE,-, ? OT ?E L:I?'GL
%A 71ONAIL
5rc'P-cjcC. Dcsc:;ot:cn ?t'?I(1!' D t"?r1(.LJ(,e_?(? 0Y1 S? 13?_ ,?VP?'
ov, 13
On-Z?`9q? , . ?resc a vcs or the
? <a rt11 Carolina Dcpartmcat or Transco r-=on (\NCDOT)
Fcdcral HiL:mav Administ mtiori (FHw.a,)
??ar h Carciina Stac:. L-:istJnC ?:CsC7atscn 0`:cc iS'r:PO)
Odic-
.cvic%. Cci Ctlc Sucicc• 7rcicc,
_ ?.;000lnc ..__... _
^IsICr:C rC ItCC...al .CSCIIi _ :C(C'_ I1 .:C', S Ilsilli i', r
CIhC:
:CS CSCnC

'. arc no :,rco=ics :CSS ...an ii ..:S oiC -,\:I:C: ... :v :C.^.
CCris lcc:at,cr C, wuc:n ...cicc. S arcctc ..al

; c:c arc =:S oic (gist ..;c rc s or :;ctc^t:ai
._..
lc ti?,Cd Pro 2e rrieS
,or at:cr,a. :.?c :stc: ?..? ao _.?...aC:c 'D ..._...s ....__.._Z .
.hC.., arC .^.C
Csc:aatl ic.. C D
F;iwA, -)r the Divlsicri a.cr.llnist ?CCr, cr ct1:c: =_ccrai ?cc c.: Dcsc
Rcorescntauvc, SfiPO
St: tc cr:c Pcz,-z, .cucn 0 t;tc .
l3
? DCIC
' ?Datc

J
l?1 1( IA^?)
1 1 ? ? t T-.,- r
I,
MAY ' 199
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinators
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 24, 1999
SUBJECT: Comments on Group XV Bridge Replacement Projects in Haywood, Henderson, Jackson
and Madison Counties.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves 5 bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina (listed
below). Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance
in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We prefer bridge designs that do not alter the natural
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge designs should also include provisions for the deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. We are
also concerned about impacts to designated Public Mountain Trout Waters (PMTW) and environmental
documentation for these projects should include description of any streams or wetlands on the project site
and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-2583 - Madison County, Bridge No. 328 on SR 1001 over French Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
B-3187 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1112 over West Fork Pigeon River
The West Fork Pigeon River is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW. The river also supports a
wild trout population in the project area. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with
another spanning structure. In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required
by NCWRC should read instream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April
15.
4 . ?
Group XV Bridges Page 2 May 24, 1999
B-3191 - Henderson County, Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over South Mills River
The South Mills River is not designated PMTW at the project site, however, the stream supports a
wild trout population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning
structure. In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required by NCWRC
should read instream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
B-3196 - Jackson County, Bridge No. 193 on SR 1157 over Thorpe Dam Spillway
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
B-3660 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334 over Fines Creek
Fines Creek is not designated PMTW at the project site; however, the stream supports a wild trout
population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required by NCWRC should read
instream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
Because all of the above counties are recognized as "trout water counties" by the Corps of
Engineers (COE), the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed
projects. The following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Structures should be
inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
4. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area must be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife. "
In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of
November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts are utilized, they should be designed so that all
water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could
be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.

Group XV Bridges Page 3 May 24, 1999
9. Notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot intervals to
allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities, and to provide
resting places for fish moving through the structure.
10. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should be
removed without excessive disturbance of the natural river bottom when construction is
completed.
11. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Mr. Kevin Austin, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., Raleigh
x
Board of Public Education
di
Linda R. Hawk, Chairman
Jackie H. Hornsby, Vice Chairman
Ervin W. Bazzle
Brenda Cr. Brock
Allen A. Combs
Thomas E. Orr
Thomas B. Pryor
July 27, 1998
Dan G. Lunsford, Ed. D.
Superintendent
414 Fourth Avenue West
Hendersonville, N. C. 28739-4261
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone] or 697-4738
GE1y??
JUL 3 U 1998
Drr.S1C14 F K
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager'`,
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over the South Mills River,
Henderson County, TIP No. B-3191
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
In response to your letter of July 17, 1998 regarding the above-referenced bridge, the
Henderson County Public School System has four (4) buses that cross this bridge on a daily basis.
Thank you.
S cergly
V
Dan G. L nsford, Ed'. D.
Superintendent
DGL:cmb
c: Dr. Kohlan J. Flynn
Mr. Jerry Cunningham
HENDERSON COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
'Tf1 &-,re 'T rrtorrvw Begins
"The Henderson Counny i'uhhc Schools is .tn e(jual opportunitc entpltner and does nor discriminate
on the hasis of racc, color, rclil1011, ticx..t_'c, disahility of national ori: in."

hENdER501Y COUNTY
P1ANfVINCr, dEPARTMENT
101 East Allen Street • Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
August 5, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
I V
p
.,l
`yga
-'
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over the South Mills River,
Henderson County, TIP No. B-3191
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Pursuant to your request for comments regarding the above referenced project,
we offer no specific comments other than the fact that the replacement bridge is
located in a WS II Watershed. Such replacement, however, is not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed
Ordinance. We see no adverse impact of this project and we feel that the bridge
replacement will be a benefit to the community.
Very truly yours,
C,
Matt Matteson,
Planning Director
MM/krs
cc: David Nicholson, County Manager
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission n
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Envirpnment a ch, NC T
FROM: Owen F. Anderson?u ain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Henderson County, Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 South Mills River Road, South Fork
Mills River, Federal Aid No BRZ-1338(2); State Project no 8.2951201; TIP No.
B-3191
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the
proposed projects, and our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Bridge No.6 will be replaced over South Fork Mills River on SR 1338. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion". The bridge
will be replaced with another spanning structure. The requested moratorium of November 1-
April 15 to protect spawning trout will be adhered to. High quality water erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be followed.
Provided the bridge is replaced with another spanning structure and the inwater work
moratorium is adhered to along with the other conditions in our original comments, we can
concur with the categorical exclusion for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-
2546,
cc: Mr. John Hendrix, Project Manager, COE, Asheville
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, Highway Coordinator, DWQ
MV ;I.,,, ,,., .,E r.,l,.,,? F ; h, ,•;, 0 1711 n,t,;I c,.- r •.,.,-,• . P N 7t Lxi_ 1 711