20011513 Ver 1_Complete File_20011017

pip
DEC
ETLANOS G PO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA U?LITY SECTION-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 25, 2002
Dll,:5--/3-boa
Mr. John Hendrix, NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Subject: Nationwide Permit 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusion) Modification Request
USACOE Action ID No. 200230079
TIP No. B-3660, Bridge No. 204, SR 1334, Fines Creek and Unnamed Tributary
Haywood County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1)
State Project No. 8.2941001 (DWQ Minor Permit Fee $200.00)
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) has authorized the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to place fill in waters of the United States to construct
the subject project. This Nationwide Permit 23 authorizes the replacement of the subject bridge
structure with a 120-foot long by 32-foot wide structure on new location, approximately 90 feet
upstream of the existing location, and fill 200 feet of intermittent stream channel along SR 1334,
associated with the realignment of SR 1334. The intermittent stream channel was relocated
adjacent to the new road alignment. The purpose of this letter is to request a modification to the
existing Nationwide Permit 23 to allow the extension of a driveway pipe 20 linear feet in an
unnamed (intermittent) tributary to Fines Creek (DWQ Class Q. The purpose of the extension is
to provide an acceptable driveway to an adjacent landowner.
Due to the realignment of SR 1334, the driveway at Sta. 12+50 was left with a steep
grade and sharp turning radius, which could not be accessed by heavy trucks and farm
equipment. NCDOT proposes to widen the driveway, which will greatly improve the turning
radius and grade. This will require the extension of an existing 30" x 30' CMP by 20 linear feet
on the outlet end. This driveway provides access to a residence, several farm buildings and
agricultural land and will be used by cars, trucks, and farm equipment. I am attaching a PCN
application, site plan, and a marked county map and USGS quad map for your information.
NCDOT is hereby requesting authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to
proceed with the construction project outlined above. By copy of this letter, I am asking Mr.
Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator,` of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to comment directly to you concerning the 404 Nationwide Permit .
modification request...
4 B-3660 Permit Modification Page 2 November 25, 2002
Also, by copy of this letter, I am requesting authorization under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). In addition, I am asking Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ed Ingle,
(NCDOT) to comment directly to me concerning this permit request.
Your earliest consideration for this request would be greatly appreciated. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Rick
Styles, P.E., at [phone].
Sincerely,
G9y???? ?.r v?l/
Mark S. Davis
Division Environmental Officer
Enclosures
cc: Mr. R. G. Watson, P.E., Division Engineer, NCDOT, Sylva
Mr. C. R. Styles, P.E., Resident Engineer, NCDOT, Whittier
Mr. Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, DENR, Raleigh (seven copies)
Mr. Mike Parker, DWQ, DENR, Asheville
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, Environmental Specialist, PDEA, NCDOT, Raleigh
Office Use Only: Form Version October 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 491/5_/3
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23 Modification or
NW 14
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: ?
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
H. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 253 Webster Road
Svlva, NC 28779
Attn: Mark S. Davis DEO
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: (828) 586- 4043
E-mail Address: markdavisOdot.state.nc.us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replace Bridge No 204 on SR 1334 on New Alignment - NW 23
Modification - Extend driveway culvert - USACOE Action ID No. 200230079
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): TIP No. B-3660
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Haywood Nearest Town: Waynesville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-40 West to Fines Creek Exit
Take SR 1338 north 3.6 miles to Jct. of SR 1338 and SR 1334. Turn right onto SR 1334 go
approximately 0.2 miles to driveway on left.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 035 40'50.0" N. 082 57'01.0" W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Limited Residential - Agriculture (Row crops and pasture)
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): UT to Fines Creek (DWQ Class C)
9. River Basin: French Broad
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at hqp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Extend existing 30" x 30' CMP 20 linear feet
to provide an acceptable driveway for the adjacent property owner. NCDOT proposes to
improve the turning radius and grade of the driveway in order for large trucks and farm
equipment to gain access to agricultural lands and out buildings (barns)
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: Excavator, bulldozer, and
dump trucks.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Rural agriculture - limited residential
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
NW 23 (Approved Categorical Exclusion) USACOE Action ID No. 200230079 - Issued 1/15/02
DWO General Water Ouality Certification No. 3107 for NW 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions) - Issued 1/29/02
(See Attached Permits)
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application:
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
Page 3 of 8
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hgp://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please seci )
Site 1 Sta 12+50 CHIP Extension 20 UT to Fines Creek 1' I

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 20'
Page 4 of 8
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number

(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact

(acres)
(if Name p Waterbody
applicable) Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

t ist each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Due to the realiaunent of SR 1334, the driveway at Sta 12+50 was left with a steep grade and
sharp turning radius, which could not be accessed by heavy trucks and farm equipment NCDOT
needs to provide an acceptable driveway to the property owner, which will require the extension
of an existing 30'x 30" CMP by 20 linear feet in order to improve the grade and turning radius of
the driveway.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 5 of 8
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strrngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/mM/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ? No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ? No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
-v,,? , cxtvuub uut ov ieet perpenaicutar nom near bank or channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation of
Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or Payment
into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
N/A
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Y-line driveway will be paved from edge of SR 1334 to NCDOT rit of way limits
(approximately 45 linear feet) Existing driveway is a 10 foot wide gravel surface (pervious)
and will be paved resulting in 450 square feet of impervious surface Stormwater will be diverted
through settling basins or grass lined buffers prior to entering the stream
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction. dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
I O x'
Z U
LLJ W /n
> cJ
o m i <C/ II '
I
O a \ '/'' .68?S I Q? Q. v/ FINES GR?E' f
V /.?... a
? N ~ / ' w
11 \ / / O
3 13 W N
w m O !1 (?-?
a?
/ Aa2a' w z
awe 4- °0_° O I ?I I tin
NN Z J
0_0 -3
a ?, ,a ya 9 WQ E
t--N Z I lt7 W i C7
\
<? rc 3 0 UN? a0 N1` 1 (p U.
K ox, UWW Q O ?mM
m
WZr = Ldf-N O N N
ct'Ld+a N a a a a =
C, ?lX'?FF _ O D(.DIOQ N N N N m~m
s V) Y Y \ LLJ o??0 m O o C3 0 a,W„o
Q 26 \ 11 NUJJX3
WLUZ ((?r?
R m \\ II X •\ r \\ `O Q mmJw o
m I j??
?? ,\ \\ \1 U\m Q? J
?3 \ ???o\\\ 3w, Q lll?l `?y?
/MT. Fw lrJ I 1 ?! q
< ww?o \ \\ ?? Q? I I coo k?
aw \ \
\
w Z M k/ /'
'
03 X
ILI V) LL, A?
I q a // v O a CO -xv) q // ti0
? P
\ ?\ \ \ w ?I.. .F
F /k
Z o mM 1 lk-1ba
0. LN
$a \
-cIddV
/ J u
_j LLja-
o J NaaW 0 1 O? `? Try` `? y -?" ? v I j k
J rr00 ~O O J O
113_ <P in
%
C, Ith to
00 w f= _I J l? 'V' \\\ `\.', % \ ?j I I
w LO 1 t k
LLJ -8"
00
CF) r- WS
+ 5: -ii / ?i
am to WWN k Cl,
%
/ ti?i I\kq i i I O
-lj
in LQjj
LLJ
u -J
\ \\
/ FU- NWZ \\oaa??\\? \ O
u>- Z \c?o s l \\F k
A` z
4 SBW FENCE
TEMPORARILY
LOCATED ON TCE
Q
XO
0
-L- foo.00
E- IVIST. RI-VT
13.00' LT
40.00' LT
'ENCE
h?
)0 =
00.00
-L- f56
115.00' LT
\k REVISE FILL SLOPE TO 4:1
STA. 14+50 TO 15+00 -L- LT
k\ -L- fo0.00
• -. 55.26' LT
TIE TO
EXIST. FENCE ??
-L-
4/.64' LT "
66.77' LT
_ -L : --F46.00
FALLOW r - r r SEXIST. R/W
40.00' LT e '
' / 0 ,
11.1 le
-''4 SBW FENCE
RESET FINALLY '
ON R/W '
' R

'?' P\N,?p\NF'0 i '
i
- POT l0foooo
3
9NSTRUCTION
./ MPx `'R' ? pc
i
i
i
i

I-P
`? - . a.o• C HW

I ?klll
?'l
Ex, ?ej
ob.z

i',???•'70.00'RT C??h
c?
ROCK
O

30.00'
/ -4?\ 9' -L- -f00.0o
-i- /
/ F EX157 : R/W
I3.00' RT
30.00' RT
?-
X

DETI
TOE FRO
(Not to
Natural
GrourW d
d = 2,0 Ft.
Type of Liner = CLt
-L- STA 14+35 T,
EST 72 TONS CL
EST 193 SY FILT.
°o
V
con
C} '`
M ,
CY)
Aj6
.? - - C-• _ _ -?t5?? i 4
t7v J ? y:Sl
C ?-.
.y
- LO
`--
? r? e
:t
CY)
Y
T IT I
!
'•r ,= (?
co/
77
cy)
F
i
t firth c
9
s' x ir' C^ CN
r
? ?? std
r
4
1
I?Q

W

.0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200230079 County: Haywood
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Attn: William. D. Gilmore,
Manager, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone No.: [phone]
Size and Location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.):
Bridge No. 204, SR 1334, Fines Creek and unnamed tributary, TIP No. B-3660.
Description of Activity: Replace Bridge No. 204 with a 120-foot-long by 32-foot-wide structure on new
location, approximately 90 feet upstream of existing location, and fill 200 feet of intermittent stream
channel along SR 1334, associated with associated realignment of SR 1334.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All conditions of the attached NC Wildlife Resources Commission
memoranda of May 24, 1999, and October 24, 2001, are hereby incorporated as special conditions of
this permit.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1344).
(check all that apply) Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899).
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number.
23 Nationwide Permit Number.
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide Permit (NWP) provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity
is subject to Section 404 (if Section 404 block above is checked), before beginning work you must also
receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management,
telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the
conditions of the RGP or the NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a
restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the
responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may
need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the General Permit or
Nationwide Permit, please contact the Corps Regulatory Official specified below.
Date: January 15, 2002
Corps Regulatory Official: John W. Hendrix Telephone No.: [phone], x-7
Expiration Date of Verification: February 11, 2002
CF: Mark Davis, Division 14 Environmental Officer, P.O. Drawer 37, Sylva, NC 28779
CFSAW Forth 591
Revised July 1995
RECEIVED
OCT 2 9 2001
CESAW-CG-RA
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Mr. John Hendrix, USACOE
Asheville Field Office
FROM: Maryellen Haggard, DOT Permit C 'ordinat r
Habitat Conservation Program. j?
IJ"
DATE: October 24, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT bridge replacement of No. 204 on SR 1334 over Fines Creek, Federal
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1), State Project No. 8.2941001, TIP No. B-3660,
Haywood County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a concurrence letter
from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Biologists on staff with the NCWRC have reviewed the
proposed improvements and are familiar with habitat values of the project area. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.).
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge over Fines Creek with a new bridge .
approximately 90 feet upstream of the existing structure. The bridge replacement will require
the new alignment of both SR 1334 and SR 1338 to facilitate a new tie-in. We concur with the
preferred alternative. Replacing the bridge with another bridge should have minimal impacts on
aquatic resources. Provided that NCDOT adheres to the environmental commitments stated in
the Categorical Exclusion document for bridge construction and bridge removal we do not object
to the project as proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
Cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 9 Fax: [phone]
FWTFI
Y1999

® North Carolina. Wildlife Resources Commission KN
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 Coordinator
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 Canunission
(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).
belo The proposed work involves 5 bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina (listed
w). 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
??) and environmental
documentation for these projects should include descrition of any streanig or wetlands on the
and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction. project site
B-2583 - Madison County, Bridge No. 328 on SR 1001 over French Broad River W
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 instrearn work should not be conducted between November I and April
15.

Group XV Bridges
page 2
May 24, 1999
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over South Mills River
B-3191 - Henderson County,
the project site; however, the stream supports a
The South Mills River is not-designated PMTW at with another sp anning
wild trout population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced u witb N another sp
structure. In reference to the Bldg oDbe conducted between Nov ember 1 and April 15.
should read instream work sho
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
pports a wild
grated PMTW at the project site; however, the stream su trout
Fines Creek is not desi bridge be replaced with another spanning structure-
population. We would prefer that the existing iced by NCWRC should read
instrearn In reference to work s hould not be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
as "trout water counties" by the Corps of
Because all of the above counties are recognized ? for the proposed
Engineers (COE), the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits
projects. The following conditions are likely to be placid on the subject 404 Permits:
sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and ??? on
1. Adequate sedim c resources. Structures should be
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquat? events.
inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
2. Temporary or Pe erosion control.
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term
. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
be usedwhere possible
3
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
work area must be maintained to prevent direct
4. If concrete is used during construction' a dry water
concrete and stream water. Uncursd concrete affects
contact between curing quality and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
l?lling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
5. Grading and bac of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife.
possible to ensure long term availability
6. In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout spawnu?g period of
November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
to
should be operated from the bank rather than other pollutants elf in order
7. Heavy equipment
reduce the likelihood of introducing P
minirnize sedimentation and
8 that all
they should be designed so
! S. If multi-celled reinforced conc rete box culverts are utilized, during 1 flow conditions. This could
water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) 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.
:: up XV Bridges Page 3 May 24, 1999
n<
9. Notched bales 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
w
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Permit Number: 200230079
Permit Type: NW 23
Name of County: Haywood
Name of Permittee: NCDOT/SR1334/BR204
Date of Issuance: January 15, 2002
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation
required by the permit, sign this certification and return it to the following
address:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Attention: CESAW-RG-A
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection
by an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with
this permit you are subject to permit suspension, modification, or revocation.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has
been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said permit,
and required mitigation was completed in accordance with the permit
conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/files/CiENCEP,T.23
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 23 (APPROVED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B
.0200 for the discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas
as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23). This Certification
replaces Water Quality Certification Number 2670 issued on January 21,
1992 and Water Quality Certification Number 2734 issued on May l 1993.
This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize
Nationwide Permit 23 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the
DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified
category of activity will not violate applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of waters or
wetlands for this General Certification requires written
notification to the Division of Water Quality regarding the
extent of impact to waters and wetlands;
2. Two copies shall be submitted to DWQ at the time of
notification in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a);
3. Fill or alteration of more than one acre (0.45 ha) of
wetlands will require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC .0506 (h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may utilize the state's
Wetland Restoration Program;
4. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters)
1 of 3 01/29/2002 1:41 P1I
s http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/files/GENCERT.23
or streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may utilize the state's
Wetland Restoration Program;
5. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which
equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent edition of
the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices) are utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as
trout by DWQ; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes
and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
6. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands
or waters shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project;
7. If an environmental document is required, this Certification
is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
8. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to
projects proposed under this Certification in order to ensure
compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards;
9. If the project is not completed within three years from the
date of the first notification to DWQ, then the applicant
will again need to notify DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set
forth by a specific fill project shall result in revocation of
this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal
and/or civil penalties.
2 of3 01/29/2002 1:41 PM
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/f7,les/GENCEkT.23,,?
Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may
require submission of a formal application for individual
certification for any project in this category of activity, if it is
determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse
effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses
of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or
group of applications prior to a Certification decision if deemed
in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
gencert.23
WQC # 3107
3 of 3 01/29/2002 1:41 PM
'Ab
f

01151
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
September 26, 2001
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hendrix V 115 1
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: NWP 23 request for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 204 over
Fines Creek on SR 1334, Haywood County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-1334(1), State Project No. 8.2941001, TIP Project No. B-3660.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 204 will be relocated approximately 90 feet (27.5) upstream (east) of
the existing structure. It will require new alignment of 1150 feet (351.7 meters) of SR
1334. The new bridge structure will be approximately 120 feet (36.7 meters) long and 32
feet (9.8 meters) wide with two 12-foot (3.6 -meter) lanes and 4-foot (1.2-meter)
shoulders on each side. Approximately 425 feet (130 meters) of improvements to SR
1338 will be required to facilitate the new tie-in to SRI 334. No jurisdictional wetlands
will be affected by the construction of the proposed project. A channel located to the east
of the existing bridge was determined to be ephemeral or intermittent along its reach to
the confluence with Fines Creek. The channel scored 10.5 and 14.25 on the DWQ stream
classification forms.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, part VII, Volume 61,
Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
..
We are also requesting a letter of concurrence from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) during the project permitting process since Haywood County is a
designated "trout" county. As requested in comments from NCWRC dated May 24, 1999
and stated in the environmental commitments of the planning document, an in-stream
work moratorium will be observed from November 1 to April 15.
If you have any questions of need additional information, please call Mrs. LeiLani Paugh
at 733-1194.
Sincerely,
1'
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, WRC, Elkin
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. R. G.Watson, P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, Division 14 DEO
Ms. Stacy Harris, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
A
V
ttA?
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID APPLICANT NAME 111C-00 ' 3l U DATE
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) ?G/o G 2 T/CW
WATERBODY/RIVER BASIN (W% /ir[C,S Ut?GK //rCs?c?.?3?ozaC_ COUNTY/CITY ?i
- If RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS

Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? Y Approx. Drainage Area: -304 r, eJ_
llll/lllll/l/ll/llll/lllllll/lllllllllllllll/l/l/Ill/l/ll/ll/lllllllll/Ill/lllllllllllllll/lllllllllll/lllll/l/l1/Ill/llll/llllllll/Ill/l/ll/l/llllll/llllllllllllllllll/lllll/l/Ill/lllllllll/11/l/ll/l!l/lllllllllllll//l/I!
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) Important Channel: LF PROJECT MGR. Initials _________
Intermittent Channel ' (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no jd) (attach map indicating location of important/unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
r
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present

11/41
Jv w G?" t?(? GOB /?ISfiG???%/
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y (N)

/
/

0-0

! 1
?
U O

!
I LLI

~
0
j C +
, -
1
l w (D ?

= 1'n + + m c9 Z f--
Z
06-
cr) '
a
Q w
F-
-co V)

1 1 w
' N
1

1 1.

V) ,

1
l
. S,
F ? .
F1 :.r
+r`
444 't
r
t 7
141
s
.. _ .. it
f/ ' f
z
? r.
-Rove
:*.-, .h,r V^.. 'mil ?_..? .-..•i.. ? ?fC? ! :?
Ses
- 3 Y
e
i
F
Name: FINES CREEK Location: 035° 40'55.0- N 082° 57'03.3" W
Date: 9/26/2001 Caption: B-3660 - SR 1334
Scale: 1 inch equals 800 feet Haywood County
Opyngnt (q , aptecn, inc.
JWQ-Stream Classification Form 5,?? / ??.w ?t Utz>? %•? NKd?i Ay `???!
?ject Name: ,9-J1G0 River Basin: FieHC?,6io? County: fliywoW Evaluator: /ya//?c ,S ?avi s
VQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: /nes C,s; Latitude: 03-r' W V/ "IV Signature:
te: 9?- d 6 - 0 / USGS QUAD: Cree_A Longitude: DGa' S7' H W Location/Directions: Jc7. SRI-T 2r i
'LEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, theft use of this form is not necessary. SiQ
,o, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a matt-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this
ing system should not be used*
rimary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stroi
Is There A Riffle Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Different From Surrounding Terrain? O 1 2 3
Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3
Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
Is There An Active (Or Relic)
ood lain Present? 0 2 3
Is The Channel Braided? 0 2 3
Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 1 2 3 \
i Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
1 Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 1 2 3
NOTE: I Bed do Bank Caused B Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosity 77ien Score=0*
0) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Tono Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes-3 I No=O
YINDICATOR POINTS:
I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
) Is There A Groundwater n
-low/Discharge Present? 0 (1? 2 3
3RIMARYHYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:--Z- f/ow fe- dra-ly- X16, 1A ri04--r Aq
II Biology Absent
,) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3
t Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3
F) Is Perivhyton Present? 0
YBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:--c-L_
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
>48 Hrs. Since
Ditch Indicated In #9 Above
i During Dry
Weak
2
2
1
XGeomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Strong
t Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
A Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
A
ge Way? 0
Y GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICA TO
,1.? Hydrology
Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed?
,t) Is Sediment On Plants (Or
j) Are Wrack Lines Present?
y) Is Water In Channel And
ast Known Rain? (*NOTE: if
S) Is There Water In Channe
Conditions Or In Growing S
POINTS:
0
2 3
2 3
1 1.5
Absent Weak Moderate Stro
1.5 1 .5 ., 0
0 1 1.5
0 .5 1 1.5
0 .5 1 1.5
:i This Ste And #S Below"
n .5 1 1.5
Are H dric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel Or In Headcut 7 Yes
ECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
No=O
sII. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Strong
/ Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
1
5
2Are Amphibians Present? .5 1 .
. 0 5 1 1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? .
.q Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
1
5
f Are Macrobenthos Present? H.5 .
.
Are Iron Oxidizin Baceria/Fun us Present? 1 1.5
Is Filamentous Algae Present?
Are Wetland Plants In Streambed?
SAV Mostly OBL .5
Mostly FACW 1
Mostly„>AC 1.5
Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
' NOTE: If Total Absence OjAll Plants in Streambed 2 1 .75 55 0 0
s Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAV Present' . Gra
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
Present?
OTAL POINTS (Pritttary + Secondary)=/D. (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent)
-10

'luanituia)IIII va7W 91 "'pails al/,L S11g0d 6r o.Z lunGg 10 Hugs aalvaJDfi;?T' / = davptloaaS+ XJv-RIad) ,sJ-ATIOa 7V :Z 0.i
.S.LA[Iod MO.LdOIQA(I f9O7OIffA2f aAfOJW
I. I uaSvjdd yS SSZ7N/l aJS q a di4S anogy paJoN s
' s?
SL'
Lfl.M.LON•
i Z paqtuuaalSu!stuuidIlyfOaauasgYlu1o
0 0
'ldn A)SOW navy Alsow S
ova AIlsoW rags.
m ! .3 11SOW
' quo A)SOW AVS LPaqutea.jS uI slueld PuelloM ojd (g
Lluasald 0231,V snoluauze11, S711
S't
' t
l S
S• 0
Lluasald sn un&mpaloeg ulzlplx0 uoll aid 9
t
S 0 Lluasald sotpuagoioeyq aid S
9* 1 Lluosaldgsg ei0 aly b
9* 1 i 0
aid
un
n
a
y
p
.L
Lluasald sall.z

S i I S'
S' t I S
?011C alc lapoy?l 11uaM
)uasgy
IMo:gl Isla
lalBM sl (H

0 -- - L;uasald soul? ?Ioe1M aid £
S'I I S
S• 0 Lluasald sclga(I10 slueld UO luawlpaS sI L°
S I I
. i S I LPagtuuauS uI luasald
0 S 10111Ue3Z (s,lsla-l 10) s,lea,& slg,I, Si
s oto 1P H 'II
uo.ilS aluaapow llcaM )ua
gy
S't i S
S t I S'
S' t I S
to.ll? a)u.lapoy? KuaM
?IOJ VOIQA[I
0 LnGA l aocu«?u L-4-1-
V alumpul Agdej%odo,L soo(I (f'
0 LiODUUgD uI lulod lo.RuoO apel0 y alag,L sI t
D Llauueg0 uI luasald In0 PeaH y alag,L sl /
acid R olotl -10U1009 s
(a11i7 Jad .ragiunN auO apalj) :SJOIZ;)tpuI P1011,144
:S.LAIIOd aTO.LVOIQAII,IJ07OIS
£ Z t
£ Z CI
_ i
Z
0 I
0I)R a)e lapoy?l ItuaM
£ LPagwe2j3S uI luasald slueld
£ LPagweal3S uI luasald sloo3l
luasgy
-/ - CiAnna vn.rd,)1[rAIIAD070?IQdHd
dsI(F
aly t
gay /
11 ,11
\l 30lennpunol0 y alag,L sI (I
uo.?IS a)u.lapow KcaM luasgy 010.1P H 'I
:SIAIIOd 901 VOIaMI dOO lUHdifUHUdU A4 ysVua
O=oAI £=SaA Lluasald ON uI aO1Pu6' syd ° o.L uO
pa?eotpul sy) Iauueg0 101221() 10 12p10 PAY y Si (0/
«0=aaOaS uaq,L 1lsonulS M01111,41 Puy -!Hama a PasnuO VUUH v Pag 1:?LOtV
£ Z I 0 Liuosald )Iueg v poll snonui V sI (b
£ Z I Lluasald gouag JITA e I y alag,L sI e
£ Z I Lluosoid sllso aQ IeiAnlld luooag al 1
£ Z 0 Lpaptelg lauueg0 ag•L sI
£ Z I 0 Lluosald ulel pool
(31102l JO) aAlioy uy alag,L sI G
£ Z i 0 LsnonutS tauulag0 o% L sI
£ Z i Lluasald saanaZ Ieinlerl aly 1
£ Z i Lupamj. ulpunounS woi3 lualaglQ
paquivans uI alnixay vasn au sI (i
£ Z i 0 Laouan aS Iood-aII3l2I d alatl L sI
uoa)S a)uaapoW )IeaM luasgy otog aouioaf) .
(.1117 aad aagiutW auO aprlO) :Siolvaipul piala luw! j(
* pasn aq lou plnorls walsd's Sigi
sl q7-urvaig lampm paJlpour n;ou pun ga)lP apn:U-uvui v q ainlnaf aip tiolnnlnna ay)fo luasuaSpnf lvuolssafoid /saq atp tq fr'osl
/?£F/a'S) A££/NS 'A'iassaaau lorr Sl umof slip fo asn uaili !gaup apnui-nuui V .VI amlnaf ajp hill aaa9n aaumopuvl pun rolvnlvna ff :ajLom ?aSda'ia
f f ° ray°S :suotlaall(j/uoileaOj i /.POeRa :apn)!2UO T S-7(,w :adnb s9sn /O-LC°,G :ales
alnluu2is oti°S£o :opr4pu I )1,2 :WV04S Pawerl lsaleai.I :lagwnrl loafold bMi
s?.?2? s ???,? :lolunleAg p wmM eff :,(IunoO ?zo1? Y-7vPY :ulsell JOAI-d Pv??' ?y :awerl laafoa,
-2 4ZAIPA,J/? anoypl Z° taiJOA uODUMISSED Malls AA(?,
Lluosoid gs1-q aly (/
ototg lu

Haywood County
Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334
over Fines Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1)
State Project No. 8.2941001
T.I.P. No. B-3660
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
513
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-7/1-4/Do
ATE
Willi-11 D. Gilmge, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
r? ?Z/
DATE tom, Nicholas L. G , P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
,w
Haywood County
Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334
over Fines Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1)
State Project No. 8.2941001
T.I.P. No. B-3660
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 2000
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
it?q?415SI:1111'.

•
U
14;
S•w q i
? ?C C..•?
w e ?`L•L, _ ?i o
-
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P.E. Date c? 'k,
Project Manager °'-`

for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L*g44 6 4kttAt?'
Stacy B. Hams, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Haywood County
Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334
over Fines Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1)
State Project No. 8.2941001
TIP. No. B-3660
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditio is, 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 Branch, Resident Engineer and
Roadway Design Unit
A construction moratorium for in-stream work will be observed from November 1 to April 15
due to the presence of wild trout populations in the creek.
The final bridge plans and hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the
100-year flood elevation will be forwarded to TVA for. approval. An approved copy of the
Categorical Exclusion will be forwarded to TVA.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
July 2000
Haywood County
Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334
over Fines Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1334(1)
State Project No. 8.2941001
T.I.P. No. B-3660
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 204 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 34.9 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northern part of Haywood County*at the intersection of SRI 334 and
SR 1338. The project is located inside the Pisgah National Forest (see Figure 1). Land use in, the
area is rural woodlands, agricultural fields and single family residential.
SR 1334 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1334 is a two-lane roadway which has a 19-foot .(5.7-meter)
pavement width with two-foot (0.6 meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway
grade through the project area is rolling. The existing bridge is located on a tangent with a curve
at the southern approach and the intersection with SR 1338 at the northern approach. The curve
at the southern approach to the structure has a 25 miles (40 kilometers) per hour design speed.
The roadway is situated approximately 10 feet (3.0 meters) above the creek.
Bridge No. 204 is a two-span structure that consists of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing
surface on steel beams. The substructure consists of timber abutments with one interior bent. The
existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1967. The overall length of the structure is 81
feet (24.8 meters). The clear roadway width is 24.3 feet (7.4 meters).
The posted weight limit on this bridge is 20 tons for single vehicles and 20 tons for TTST's.
The current traffic volume of 1,150 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2,300 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and two percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). No speed limit is posted in the project area; therefore it
is assumed to be 55 miles (90 kilometers) per hour by statute.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but there are power and telephone lines
overhead as they cross Fines Creek on the downstream side of the structure. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be medium.
One accident, resulting in property damage only, was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 204
during the period from September 1994 to August 1997. The accident occurred when a tractor-
trailer struck the north end of the bridge while attempting to turn right onto SR 1334. The
roadway was wet at the time of the accident.
Two school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will be approximately 120 feet (36.7 meters) long and 32 feet (9.8
meters) wide with spill-through abutments on both end. The structure will provide two 12-foot
(3.6-meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) shoulders on each side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulics analysis. The length of the
new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrological studies. The final design of the bridge will be such that the
backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits.
The grade of the new structure will be approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) higher than the grade of
the existing structure.
SR 1334 and SR 1338 will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders on each side, in accordance with
current NCDOT policy. Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are included as
Figure 4.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
Two reasonable and feasible alternatives for replacing were considered.
Alternative 1- Rev 1 (preferred) involves replacing Bridge No. 204 on new alignment
approximately 90 feet (27.5 meters) upstream (east) of the existing structure. The existing bridge
and roadway will be used to maintain traffic during construction. The new alignment will have a
design speed of 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour and will be approximately 1150 feet (351.7
meters) in length. Approximately 425 feet (130 meters) of improvements to SR 1338 will be
required also to facilitate the new tie-in with SR 1334. The pavement at this intersection will be
widened to facilitate turning movements. Geotechnical analysis of the hillside north of SR 1338
indicates that slopes as steep as 1:1 can be used in sections of the cut slopes. A design exception
will be necessary for the horizontal and vertical curve design speeds.
2
Alternative 2 involves replacing Bridge No. 204 on new alignment approximately 180 feet (55.0
meters) upstream (east) of the existing structure. The existing bridge and roadway will be used to
maintain traffic during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of 40 miles
(65 kilometers) per hour and would be approximately 1250 feet (382.3 meters) in length.
Approximately 360 feet (110.1 meters) of improvements would be required to SR 1338 also to
facilitate the new tie-in with SR 1334. A design exception would be necessary for the horizontal
and vertical curve design speeds. This alternative is not recommended because of the adverse
effects on a large flat farm field adjacent lo SR 1334 and SR 1338. Such flat farmable land is rare
in Haywood County.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternative 1- Rev 2 involves replacing Bridge No. 204 on new alignment approximately 90
feet (27.5 meters) upstream (east) of the existing structure. The existing bridge would be used to
maintain traffic during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of 30 miles
(50 kilometers) per hour and would be approximately 1150 feet (351.7 meters) in length. This
alternative would require approximately 425 feet (130 meters) of improvements to SR 1338 also
to facilitate the new tie-in with SR 1334. A design exception would be necessary for the
horizontal and vertical curve design speeds. With this alternative, the north end of the proposed
bridge is flared to accommodate turning truck traffic from SR 1338. This alternative is not
recommended because of the difficulties of constructing a flared structure.
Alternative 3 involves replacing Bridge No. 204 on new alignment approximately 70 feet (21.4
meters) upstream (east) of the existing structure. The existing bridge and roadway would be used
to maintain traffic during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of 25
miles (40 kilometers) per hour and would be approximately 650 feet (198.8 meters) in length.
This alternative would require approximately 200 feet (61.2 meters) of improvements to SR 1338
also to facilitate the new tie-in with SR 1334. A design exception would be necessary for the
horizontal and vertical curve design speeds. This alternative is not recommended because it
changes the traffic flow pattern along SR 1334 and SR 1338.
Alternative 4 involves replacing Bridge No. 204 on new alignment approximately 100 feet (30.6
meters) upstream (east) of the existing structure. The existing bridge and roadway would be used
to maintain traffic during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of 30
miles (50 kilometers) per hour and would be approximately 1375 feet (420.5 meters) in length.
This alternative would require approximately 735 feet (224.8 meters) of improvements to
SR 1338 also to facilitate the new tie-in with SR 1334. A design exception would be necessary
for the horizontal and vertical curve design speeds. This alternative is not recommended because
of the large amount of rock excavation required and the resulting increase in construction cost.
Alternatives that replaced Bridge No. 204 in-place with a temporary on-site detour were not
considered because of the need to improve the alignment of SR 1334 and raise the grade. An off-
site detour is considered unacceptable due to the high road user cost of approximately $2,800,000
and the detour length of approximately 22 miles (35 kilometers) over mountainous terrain.
Therefore, neither off-site nor temporary on-site traffic maintenance alternatives were considered
reasonable or feasible.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1334.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 204 will be replaced on new alignment approximately 100 feet (30.6 meters)
upstream (east) of the existing structure. Alternative 1- Rev 1 is recommended because it
minimizes impacts to a flat farm field adjacent to SR 1334.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternative 1 - Rev 1 as
the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two reasonable and feasible alternatives, based on current prices, are
as follows:
Alternative 1-
Rev 1
Preferred Alternative 2
Structure $268,80 $251,20
Roadway Approaches $483,356 $420,018
Structure Removal $17,76 $17,76
Misc. & Mob. $362,00 $311,022
Eng. & Contingencies $1685,08 $150,00
Total Construction Cost $1,300,00 $1,150,00
Right-of-way Costs $47,50 $67,50
Total Project Cost $1,347,50 $1,217,50
The estimated cost of the project shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program is $385,000, including $35,000 for right-of-way, and $350,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 20, 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. .
4
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Fines Creek, NC 7.5 minute series
topographic map (1976); Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey of
Haywood County Area, NC (1997); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory map (Fines Creek, NC, 1995); the current USFWS Endangered, Threatened,
and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina list; North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database of rare species and unique habitats; 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 feet (18.3 meters)
wide right-of-way limits, 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 of
North Carolina west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. The topography of the project vicinity can be
characterized as somewhat flat to very steeply sloped. The more level areas are located generally
in the floodplain of Fines Creek. Elevation in the project vicinity ranges from approximately
2480 feet to 2800 feet (756 to 853 meters) above mean sea level (msl). Elevation in the project
area ranges from about 2480 feet to 2520 feet (756 to 768 meters) above msl. Current land use in
the project vicinity is mainly rural residential and agricultural.
The Soil Survey of Haywood County (MRCS 1997) identifies the general soil classification
found in the project area as Saunook. This is consistent with the field assessment. These soils are
typically gently sloping to steep, very deep, well drained, and loamy: They are underlain by
loamy alluvium and colluvium and are usually found in drainageways and coves.
The predominant soil found in the project area is the Cullowhee-Nikwasi complex, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently flooded. It is located on both sides of the southern roadway approach to the
bridge, north of Fines Creek Road just west of the intersection with SR 1334, and adjacent to the
creek. Cullowhee soils are usually found closer to stream channels and higher on the landscape
than the Nikwasi soils: Field conditions generally conform to the soil survey mapping in the
project area.
Cullowhee soils are somewhat poorly drained, and contain more than 35 percent by volume rock
fragments. Nikwasi soils are poorly drained to very poorly drained, and contain more than 35
percent by volume gravel and cobbles. Nikwasi is listed as hydric (USDA, SCS 1991).
Included within the Cullowhee-Nikwasi complex are small areas of Dellwood and Hemphill
soils. Only the Hemphill soils are listed as hydric. These soils are very poorly drained. They are
usually found where the mapping unit joins a low stream terrace.
Fannin loam, 30 to 50 percent slopes, eroded, is located on the steep hillside north of Fines Creek
Road where it intersects SR 1334. It is well drained and moderately permeable. Fannin loam is
not listed as hydric and contains no hydric inclusions.
A geotechnical analysis of the slopes of the hillside north of SR 1338 and west of SR 1334 was
conducted to' determine the steepest slope that could be used in cut areas around the hill. The
findings of the geotechnical report indicate that slopes steeper then 1.5:1 can be used in some
areas. For this report all cut slopes were set to 1.5:1, therefore final impacts to the hillside will be
less than those shown in this report.
C. Water Resources
1. Stream Characteristics
The proposed project falls within the French Broad River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
FRB5 (04-03-05) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of French Broad-06010106. Fines
Creek is a perennial tributary within the French Broad River basin. The creek flows westward
through the proposed project area and is approximately 15 to 20 feet (4.5 to 6 meters) wide at
Bridge No. 204. The depth of the creek was approximately 4 to 12 inches (10 to 30 centimeters)
on the day of the investigation. Fines Creek has a Class C rating from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). A Class C designation indicates
the creek's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. The Classification Date and Index for this portion of the creek is
7/1/73, 5-32.
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 NPDES permitted discharges and none were
found in the area.
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 1334 and the
agricultural fields east of the road may contribute to 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 basf wide 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
6
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 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 1355, approximately 2 miles (3 kilometers)
downstream of the project study area on Fines Creek. This station was last sampled in July of
1997, with a DWQ sampling identification number of 7362. The NCIBI rating of Fines Creek at
this location was determined to be Good-Fair.
2. Anticipated Impacts
a. General Impacts
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
one mile (1.6 kilometers) of project study area. Long term impacts to water quality are expected
to be negligible. However, short term impacts to water quality could result from construction of
the bridge and approaches, such as turbidity and sedimentation. The NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs) will be implemented, as
applicable, to minimize long term and short term impacts to the water quality of Fines Creek.
b. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT will follow the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. These BMPs are in addition to those implemented for the NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure to be removed into "Waters of the United States" will be
allowed only if no other practical method of removal is feasible. The existing bridge has a
superstructure which consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The substructure consists of
timber caps, piles, and bulkheads at both abutments. The superstructure and substructure for this
bridge are such that it is anticipated the bridge will be removed by a method other than dropping
it into "Waters of the United States". This project is classified as a Case 3 situation. Should in-
water work be necessary, no special restrictions are required other than those outlined in the
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
7
D. 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.
1. Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is Man-Dominated.
Dominant faunal components associated with this area will be discussed in the community
description below.
Man-Dominated Community - This highly modified community includes the road shoulders and
embankments, a residential property, and two agricultural fields. Road shoulders vary in width
from approximately 2 to 3 feet (0.6 to 0.9 meters) and include white clover (Trifolium repens),
plantain (Plantago sp.), and planted grasses. The west side of the southern approach to the bridge
consists of an ascending bank approximately 15 feet (4.6 meters) high which grades into pasture
upslope. Embankment vegetation includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), wild rose (Rosa sp.), and
sapling sized red maple (Acer rubrum) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). There is a
residential property at the southwest comer of the bridge. The east side of the southern approach
slopes downward approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) to a ditch which parallels the road.
Vegetation is a mixture of the above mentioned species.
Agricultural fields are adjacent to both sides of the creek east of SR 1344 and were plowed but
not planted on the day of the site inspection. There is a steep hillside located north of Fines Creek
Road at the intersection with SR 1344. The area within the right-of-way consists of species
indicative of disturbance and includes wild rose, black locust, and red maple. Further upslope but
out of the right-of-way, white oak (Quercus alba), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and
additional red maple and black locust are present.
Wildlife was actively searched for on the day of the site inspection but only a swallow
(Hirundinidae family) was observed. Birds such as the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) may find this open habitat beneficial for food sources. The
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) might be found near Fines Creek searching for
earthworms and fish to eat and the black racer (Coluber constrictor) could utilize this community
to search for insects and small mammals.
2. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within Fines Creek. Within the project
study area of Bridge No. 204, Fines Creek flows westward and is approximately 15 to 20 feet
(4.5 to 6.0 meters) wide. Fines Creek and SR 1334 cross at this location perpendicular to each
other. On the day of the field investigation the creek had a moderate flow and a slight sediment
load. The depth of the creek ranged from about 4 to 12 inches (10 to 30 centimeters). An area of
riffle habitat lies to the west of the bridge -and a slightly deeper pool lies to the east. Substrate
consists of sand and cobbles.
A cursory search of the stream area was conducted for evidence of mussel and clam species. No
evidence of mussels was found in the stream or on the shore. Additional stream investigation
revealed dragonfly larvae under rocks in riffle areas and small snails attached to rocks near the
edge of the water.
The District 9 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicated that
the following freshwater fish species are found within Fines Creek: brown bullhead (Ameiurus
nebulosus), brown trout (Salmo trutta), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and largemouth
bass (Micropterus salmoides). He recommended a construction moratorium from November 1 to
April 1 due to the presence of trout.
3. 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.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Alternate 1 will result in the least impact to terrestrial communities. Table 1 details the
anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
9
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC
COMMUNITIES
Bridge #204 Man-Dominated Aquatic Total
Replacement Community Community
Impacts acres (ha) acres (ha) acres (ha)
Alternate 1 1.83 (0.73) 0.02 (<0.01) 1.85 (0.74)
Alternate 2 2.70(l.08) 0.02 (<0.01) 2.72(l.09)
Alternate 3 2.15 (0.86) 0.02 (<0.01) 2.17 (0.87)
Alternate 4 2.42 (0.98) 0.02 (<0.01) 2.44 (0.99)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 60 feet right-of-way width.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where alternates
overlapped the existing alignment.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above, calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Fines Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of less than 0.02 acres (<0.01 ha) or 60 linear feet of
stream bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance may be less). The new
replacement structure construction and approach work could increase sediment loads in the creek
in the short term. Construction related sedimentation can 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 the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters and the use of erosion and sediment control measures 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 wetland areas were found within the project
study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Up to 60 feet (18.3
10
meters) or less than 0.02 acres (<0.01 ha) of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due
to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 204.
2. 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 initiated. 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
Haywood County is a North Carolina trout county, concurrence with the nationwide permit will
be required from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
If wetlands or "Waters of the United States" will be impacted by filling from a proposed project,
a Section 401 Water Quality Certification may 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
must be made if there are any impacts to "Waters of the United States".
A Section 6 Permit will be required for any foundation investigations which are necessary on this
project. The investigation may include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing and
obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
3. Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 feet (45.9 meters) is generally not
required. However, a final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the
USACE.
F. Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are in the process of decline either due to
natural forces or to their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Haywood County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
11
1. 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 seven federally protected species for Haywood County as of the January 3,
2000 listing (Table 2). Information pertinent to these species and the possibility of impacts due to
the proposed project are listed below.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES IN HAYWOOD COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Felis concolor cougar (Eastern cougar) Endangered
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Threatened
NOTES:
Threatened A species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
hroughout 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.
Threatened (S/A) These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to Section 7 consultation.
Species: Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to three 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 River, the
South Toe River, 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.
12
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: . NO EFFECT
A walking survey of the stream bottom and shoreline was conducted on the day of the site
investigation for evidence of mussels. No species of mussels were observed anywhere within
the project area. Agricultural fields are located adjacent to the project study area as well as
upstream from the study site. Siltation was evident in the creek on the day of the site
inspection even though a rain event had not occurred recently. The USFWS was consulted
regarding the possibility of Appalachian elktoe being found in Fines Creek. Due to the poor
condition of the creek, pollution levels in the area over several decades, and the isolation of
the creek from other reaches that contain populations of mussels, it is unlikely that this
species would be found at the project site. Additionally, the NCNHP has not reported any
occurrence of the Appalachian elktoe in the project vicinity. This project will not effect the
Appalachian elktoe.
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.
Species: Felis concolor cougar (Eastern cougar)
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip of
the tail, which are black. The eastern cougar is large, unspotted and possesses a long tail. In
North Carolina, the cougar is thought to occur in only a few scattered areas, possibly including
coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian mountain areas of the Great Smokey Mountain
National Park and the Nantahala National Forest. The eastern cougar is found in large remote
wilderness areas where there is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A
cougar will usually occupy a range of 25 miles (40 kilometers), and is most active at night.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the eastern cougar. The area is highly man-
influenced and does not provide the remote type of habitat that cougars favor.
13
Additionally, the NCNHP has not reported any occurrence of the eastern cougar in the
project vicinity. This project will not impact the Eastern cougar.
Species: Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel)
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its
body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear
forming an aerodynamic surface which is used for gliding from tree to tree. The Carolina flying
squirrel is a nocturnal mammal which possesses a long, broad, flattened tail (80 percent of head
and body length), prominent eyes and dense, silky fur. It can be distinguished from the southern
flying squirrel by its larger size and gray base of its ventral hairs as opposed to a white base for
the southern species.
Several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel have been found in the western part of
North Carolina, in Haywood County, Yancey County and in the vicinity of Mt. Mitchell. Two
other populations have been sited along the-eastern Tennessee mountains bordering North
Carolina. This squirrel is found at elevations above 5000 feet (1524 meters) in the vegetation
transition zone between the coniferous and northern hardwood forests. Both forest types are used
in search of food, while the hardwood forests are needed for nesting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. A
search of the NCNHP database revealed no reported occurrences of the northern flying
squirrel in the project vicinity. Since the project study area elevation averages
approximately 2500 feet (762 meters) it can be concluded that the subject project will not
impact this species.
Species: Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen)
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies, which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found
at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September and flowers are present from April to June.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation [5000 feet (1524 meters)] mountaintops and cliff
faces which are frequently bathed in fog, or lower elevation [2500 feet (762 meters)] deep gorges
in the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces
where seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome
lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent
seeps. The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat
alteration/loss of high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent
to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen.
14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock gnome lichen. There are no high
elevation communities in the project area and no deep gorges with high humidity. The
NCNHP database revealed no reported occurrences of the rock gnome lichen in the project
vicinity. This project will not affect the rock gnome lichen.
Species: Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
The bald eagle is a large bird, 32 to 43 inches (81 to 109 centimeters), with a wingspan of more
than 6 feet (2 meters). Adults are dark brown with a white head and tail, and immatures are
brown and irregularly marked with white until their fourth year.
Bald eagles typically nest in the top of the tallest living tree in the area within one half mile with
a clear view of a large body of water. Nest size may measure 6 feet (2 meters) across and up to 6
feet (2 meters) in depth. Bald eagles will frequently abandon nesting sites within sight of
disturbance or man. The species may be seen around lakes and rivers throughout the inland
portions of North Carolina, as well as along the coast. A large portion of the eagle's diet often
consists of fish, but it also feeds on small mammals, reptiles and other birds.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No bald eagles or their nests were observed in the project study area on the day of the site
inspection and a search of the NCNHP records showed no reported occurrences of the
species in the vicinity. Surrounding terrestrial communities may be able to provide an
adequate supply of small mammals, birds and reptiles for the eagle, but good supplies of
fish of adequate size are not likely. Additionally, growth of surrounding urban
development and absence of large open bodies of water makes the presence of bald eagles
unlikely. This project will not affect the bald eagle.
Species: Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia)
The, small-whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots. It has a smooth, hollow
stem 4 to 10 inches (9.5 to 25 centimeters) tall, which 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 x 4
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 documented, is
purported to occur under certain conditions.
Twenty-three populations of the small-whorled pogonia are known to 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 number less
than 25 plants. Habitat for the small-whorled pogonia usually occurs in open, dry deciduous
woods with acid soils, however it has also been found in rich cove hardwoods.
15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
There are no wooded areas within the project study area that could provide habitat for this
species. A search of the NCNHP revealed no reported occurrences of the small-whorled
pogonia in the project vicinity. This project will not affect the small-whorled pogonia.
2. 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 of 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
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 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Haywood County and their state
classifications.
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) North Carolina Habitat
Status Present
Abies fraseri (Fraser fir) ' Not Listed No
Buckleya disticophylla (piratebush) Endangered No
Cardamine clematitis (mountain bittercress) Candidate Yes
Carex manhartii (Manhart's sedge) . Candidate No
Contopus borealis (olive-sided flycatcher) Special Concern No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (hellbender) Special Concern No
Delphinium exaltatum (tall larkspur) Endangered -
Special Concern No
Dendroica cerulea (cerulean warbler) Significantly Rare No
E'uphorbia purpurea (glade spurge) Candidate No
Glyceria nubigena (Smoky Mountain manna grass) Threatened No
Juglans cinerea (butternut) Not Listed No
Lysimachia fraseri (Frasees loosestrife) Endangered No
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis (Southern rock vole) Special Concern No
Neotoma floridana haematoreia (Southern Appalachian woodrat) Special Concern No
Neotoma magister (Alleghany woodrat) Not Listed No
Plagiochila sharpii (a liverwort) Candidate No
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii (a liverwort) Candidate No
Phyciodes batesii (tawny crescent butterfly) Significantly Rare No
16
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN IN
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) North Carolina Habitat
Status Present
Rugelia nudicaulis (Rugel's ragwort) Threatened No
Saxiaga caroliniana (Carolina saxifrage) Candidate No
Silene ovata (mountain catchfly) Candidate No
Sorex palustris punctulatus (Southern water shrew) Special Concern No
Speyeria diana (Diana fritillary butterfly) Significantly Rare No
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii (a liverwort) Candidate No
Sylvilagus obscurus (Appalachian cottontail) Significantly Rare No
Thryomanes bewickii altus (Appalachn. Bewick's wren) Endangered No
Trillium pusillum var. 1 (Alabama least trillium) Endangered 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.
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
Haywood County. Habitat is present in the project area for one FSC species. No impacts to
protected species will result from any of the proposed project alternatives.
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.
17
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the area of potential effect (APE) was conducted on December 18, 1997. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later these photos were reviewed by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). In a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the SHPO
indicated that the Brown-Rathbone House was in the general project area. This house was later
determined to be outside the project's APE. None of the properties photographed were
considered to be eligible. In a concurrence form dated November 13, 1998 the SHPO concurred
that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic places within the APE. A copy of the memorandum and the
concurrence form are included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), in a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 stated
that "it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore,
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
No archaeological investigation was conducted for this project. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VIII. 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.
The area around Bridge No. 204 is within the boundaries of the Pisgah National Forest, however
the US Forest Service has indicated that they own no land near Bridge No. 204. Therefore, the
Forest Service has no comments on this project.
1s
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources 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 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 Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the Solid Waste Management
Section revealed one potential underground storage tank located south and west of Bridge No.
204. This site will not be affected by any of the project alternatives. No other hazardous waste
sites were revealed in the project area.
Haywood County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project area is
not in a Flood Hazard Area. Since the proposed bridge will be a structure similar in length and
waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that this project will have an adverse affect on the
existing floodplain.
There are no practicable 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 level or extent of flood hazard.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
All comments from federal and state regulatory and resource agencies and local government are
addressed elsewhere in this document.
19
Gt ?_ O
1336 \ 2
HAYNES KNOB 1379
W4
BETSEXS GAP p
ELE?. 5.895 G
209 ` ;?...
PISGAH`
tIATIONA 1380 ? ,t _, _• __ ?
? tt ?? 1 6 co
'?!N?•r
„ Fines eek r
HEBO MTN.
FOREST
_ r + ; '
C
1340 -d4
1', 134 I 1337 1343 g
t1rn
1 0) lr' f'ai? 11342_ a y. ines Creek /t 8 a
1634
-777
lI ?t U 1338
1382 )1341 G? 5 500 r
/ \ . ?1\ r 11 t
1344 4 ,\ tt 1 Fi \ li 5 1 y
` _ { ` ? IS ??a) it - ?5 ,{?h \? _,y ,.., _i ? I ?` ? .. ,` •..I ? r 1 % I ., ?
-, r
/? N V --1
B-3 6 6 O CRABTREE .rBALD ..'t
WAT RV LE r 1338;1351 i ELEV. 5.680
OAK MTN.
I' Hepco
LAKE
1353
1396 i a t t
?? r' 1338 ? :_",, ) ''J v / •..
J 1 1386
1346 ±v 11 .. a 1384 209
- 2
1338 1. 1354 1352 /
7//?• Mr SruLr
?l 5e11
(PARK
.111,
1
Oe.
dn
- PI GAA`•.
?0 i ?ld n.m
.z.. l
tti
17 NAT ;
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HAYWOOD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 204 ON SR 1334
OVER FINES CREEK
B-3660
0 kilometers 1-6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles (.0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 1
?? si s kr.. ?- :NU a ,?• '

D
rn
D
O
-D
rn
r
rn
T
T
m
n
a

,Pt ? e

tom. Y i? ?.

:

i

37.

.Ml ".
i
aj?g
r rti
I
t

HAYWOOD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 204 ON SR 1334
OVER FINES CREEK
B-3660
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING WEST
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3

a co
- W
a q o + M
E 0-4
ae ° p,6 ?:) z U

N0a
O
0 m

W tD

0
A

Z co
?O boo
o w
m

zoa.w d W W
>
O O•
o; ?
N x A o

Q •a m

• a

E
_
N •p
0 E •-
3
0

o

Z co

N
c
c

Z
O 0 ... p
E' W E • y
to p. N
p to N ?p E? N
p .--.
N O =U M C =W

CT V
CT a0
OH 0d
NO ?
V .. o ?O
CL
LO O Q O Q

C?
N
Q C,4 'o
M
Z_
J
V
V O

co v, o o
N

L
U
N

+ J
J

O _
m Co
m
!
E r V V ?' v
•
•
N `C '0 O U- as y
m
?- ai z h .? H
O
> 7
? OC Q ? ? J

W O
Q CO
O
Z
O N
r r N
O O ry '
Q

cn
NE V it II
II
O M LO
N N N N
V

Z
O
V
Z
D

ul
m C W
(? aTj 02

LU m m?
Qa a E• M
z w
w

v ?=

. O am°

o 93 o

CO
_

"=

m aQ S

A O
to
z Co
N U 0
a „ 0 O 02
O O i
G?, Cq
E- z
w
>
Zoww Q W W
°
x? o
A
a

E
? 3
*
C4 ,q
M W '
"Z
J

0
H
V
W
N
W

OG
ao
J
V
ra
0
F-
U
T J m m m
G? O U " v
C,4 0 U- 0
F O
J

J

J C
ID ID
m
Q 0
M W
O O
Z
0
j N ch
r r N

Q Q II II it
U

? _

LL.
N
0 CV) LO
O O N
c0
C N N N
=
C,4 U
0
Z
to 0
F-
U
Z
O
U-

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
July 12, 1999
IN REPLY REFER 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:

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,
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
[phone]
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. 5189
* 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 [phone]
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.

R Lr
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Onve. Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
October 22, 1998 'S<;?G?", j99
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
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,
HENDERSON, 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 1112 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 for these projects should note that approvals. under Section 26a of the
TVA Act would be required for 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, 5tatCiistCd spccics (biodiverstty impacts) and visual inract5.
Please invite TVA to any interagency meetings, if any are found to be necessary. Please send a copy of the
completed environmental documents to TVA.
Should you have any questions, please contact I larold M. Draper at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sin rely,
i
Jon M. 1, e , Man `er
l:nvironmcntal Management

?y
OCT 0 8 1998
? HrGNyt;A YS `?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
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 Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook ????'
D4-':Q
eputy State 0(isto Ic Preservation O4icer S
UBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge 204 on SR 1334 over Fines
Creek, Haywood County, B-3660, ER 99-7420
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:
Brown-Rathbone House, east side of SR 1334, 0.5 mile north of junction with SR
1338.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Rakich, North Carolina 27601-2807 U_33
L?Ccd
5 ?P- I? {Ltd i I2 = r 7?fr?LC „u- l?
CO`,Ci;RItE`CE FOR NI I FOR PROPERTIES 'NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL RZ0.15 .R OF HISTORIC PLAC.ES
Brcr Project Dcsc:intion IQG2 1? 1 ?? O?'1 S? 13 r
,?-- i rj5 f Y P_P !L ;? C-F(b uVW
On
NoY.G
rcoresc,-,mtivcs or the
v?vor:h Carolina Dcoar-unlc:lt oc Tmanspartaticn (NL CDO 1)
Federal Hiah,,vav Administ,:.tion (FH,,vA)
?ivorth Carolina Scatc Historic Preservation Ofcc (SHPO)
OChcr
rcvic,.vcd the subjcc: proicct ac
_,A scopine mcc::ng
Historc arcaitcc:urai resources pllocc'_3,rapit rcvtc'v scsslonicoltsultaCioc
Ot::cr
.=,il oar:ics ;,resc:.t a
arc nC ?-rC!,,=;CS oVC7 W=ars old wicilitl file projec_ S arc_ o pocc=Z.,
? i;1C'C arc no ^urcoc-,ics Icss thart VCGrs old which arc caRSidcrcd CO Cr:CC: Gil
CcnsldC -Clop C with m dlc oroiCC: S area or oomnual c.icc:=.
? t?.Crc arc orcccr'ics Ovcr rI?i: 'Cars oid (115. aaacClcd) Widlin the prblCCt S arc.:. Of 0OEC.^.tla: c.:;.CZS,
?tlt baSC? Cn ..C i1IS000:C: 1 1nL0[1::...:Cn a?'atICOIC aP.d t11C phaCO?raDRS Oi ..aCa 7CCDC.:?, pCCC :?:C_
idc CIr.c as C) rcpe-r arc considcrcd rot cii2ibi:
ccr vabonai Rcl'SS- Ld ..C ;1?. C•.CluaCCn OL :; ?.^.. IS .^.CCCSSa:Z'.
? LiC:.. arc :lo National Rc_'szc- IlstcC ,,rcoc,lcs tctCtan Chc ppro1cc: S arc_ CC .,'.,OCc..t:al .. CC::.

R ?prsc::cativc. ?+C?OT

F; i%vA, = Cmc Division . dnlinistrtcr, or other Fcdc=1 Agc^c•: DaEC
? I l? t
Rcorescricativc, SHP ate
tatc'izistoric ?resc.- acion Otilc::•
s:.r:c. rC::cir :i ::us :ist

,
MAY ? 1?9g
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
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 Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 24, 1999
SUBJECT: Continents 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 upiand 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 ' x
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.
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, B::dge 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.
6. 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.
8. 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
qr

HAYWOOD COUNTY SCHOOLS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
401 FARMVIEW DRIVE
WAYNESVILLE, NC 28786
August 18, 1998
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
Department of Transportation
PO BOX 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Ms. Mulkey:

r' 1?U? 2 i tR?$
This letter is in follow-up to your request for information concerning the number of bus
' crossing the bridges that attached. Bridge #79 has 6 buses crossing it twice a day and Bridge #
3??? has 4 buses crossing it twice a day.
*2.04 Z
I hope this information wM assist you in your planning process. If you have any other
questions, please contact me at 828-456-2421.
Sincerely,
Rodne Bullock
Transportation Director
Haywood County Schools
15 i„Tor;?a
4' n 10 WAS
?IA A 18h
?nU?f?SA4' ?
P n,3 (
1((
uj )?l1 p Q
Mr. A0 Y! 0,/ ea !
110tk arl ,
?lj)3%?e,