20020449 Ver 1_Complete File_20020322

rl•
N
I
i
1505
i
I
Bridge No. 112 J
•/ ?? ? ? _ ? -Cry
j 1506 I /
1504 ! ?.
?• - - ?ppft
/ .J
/ 1504
C(/e?
i5i 3
Holy Spring
1521
'513
?POpF NCRTH C49Of
North Carolina
" '\ Department of Transportation
q ?0) Division of Highways
y?Fy ?'l Planning & Environmental Branch
\OFTRPNS?
Macon County
Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
Over Rabbit Creek
B-3352
Figure One
152KI
?A, L
B-3352
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2970501 Right of Way 6-00
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1504(5) Construction Let 6-01
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504 over Rabbit Creek in
Macon County, B-3352.
Will there be Special Funding Participation by a Municipality, Developers, or Others?
YES NO x
EXISTING LENGTH 9.5 METERS; WIDTH 5.8 METERS
STRUCTURE: 31 FEET 19.1 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 25,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 275,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
r
dd $UIF?
020449
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 20, 2002
r US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
x
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 M
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 AR, Z ?p??
?V'tTr" US GAUP
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: MACON COUNTY, REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 112 OVER
RABBIT CREEK ON SR 1504, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO.
MABRZ-1504(5), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2970501, TIP PROJECT
NO. B-3352.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above-
referenced project. Bridge No. 112 will be replaced at anew location approximately 176
feet (54.8 meters) east (upstream) of the present bridge with a bottomless culvert. The
culvert will measure 20 feet by 8 feet (6.1 meters by 2.4 meters). Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during the construction period. No jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. Construction of the bridge will result
in temporary impacts to surface waters of 130.7 square feet (0.007 acre). The impacts are
depicted in the attached drawings (Sheets 3 and 4). We have also enclosed a project
vi .pity map and preconstruction notification form.
\ Temporary Fill Information: Placement of the culvert footings will require
temporary dewatering of portions of the streambed. Water will be diverted to the center
of the stream channel using sandbags.
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a March 18, 2003 let date. See Sheet 5
for additional sequencing.
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.N000T.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Disposal: After stream containment is no longer required, the contractor will
remove sandbags used in the streambed. All containment materials will become property
of the contractor... The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for
removal and disposal of all materials off-site.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 112 is located on SR 1504 over Rabbit Creek
(DWQ Index No.: 2-23, 7/1/73; Class C Tr). It has one span totaling 31 feet (9.5 meters)
in length. The superstructure is composed of a timber deck supported by steel I-beams.
The substructure is composed of masonry abutments. Therefore, Bridge No. 112 will be
removed without dropping. components into waters of the United States during
construction. However, removal of the substructure may cause some disturbance in the
streambed. Any material that falls into the stream will be removed as soon as possible as
part of the bridge removal process.
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. Rabbit Creek is
designated as a Wild Designated Public Mountain Trout Water and supports brown trout.
It is anticipated that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers: by copy of
this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests
that NCWRC forward comments to the Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that placement of culvert footers will be authorized under Section
404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering). We are,
therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing temporary fill
associated with construction of the footers. All other aspects of this project are 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
Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project. We are
providing copies of the CE document and this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for
review.
This project will also require the review of the Tennessee Valley Authority. A
permit application is being prepared at this time and will be submitted at a later date.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Chris
Rivenbark at (919)-733-9513.
Sincerely,
C.
SI
1,w William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
D Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
r
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E.; Structure Design
Mr. Ken Pace, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. R. G. Watson, P.E., NCDOT Division 14 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD & EA

a
Office Use Only: Form Version' April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
L 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: Nationwide 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: r;l
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII -Mitigation), check here: ?
IL Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the_w4gent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: \
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Y
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 beenplaced on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridize No 112 on SR 1504 over Rabbit Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3352
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Macon Nearest Town: Franklin
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): n/a
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From US 221 traverse east on
View Mountain Road (SR 1802) for approx. 3.5 miles to Bridge No. 3 crossing of South
Muddy Creek
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 562633.419 N: 710293.779 E
(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:
rural hi2hwav
7. Property size (acres): n/a
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Rabbit Creek
9. River Basin: Little Tennessee
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mgps/.)
Page 4 of 13
I
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: replacement of Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
crossing Rabbit Creek
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: backhoe crane bulldozers,
heavy-duty trucks
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural: agriculture light 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. Descri be 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.
n/a
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? 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
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 5 of 13
r
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 ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and taennty temporary unpa-b. uupa?w ............. - --- ...,................
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 help://www.f'ema.t;ov.
*** 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?
leases ecif )

* List each impact separately and toenttty temporary rmpacw. rlllpaVlS 1llGiULLGy UUL ai llV& a1111- LV. may.-- «..-.---`-- ..r --r1
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.tisQs.aov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.coin,
voww.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 6 of 13
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: n/a
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 Name of
(if applicable) Waterbody Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.
Sheets 2-3 Temporary fill; sandbags 0.007 Rabbit Creek stream

* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts inumue, Dut aIG HUL nuuwu LU. illl, cnavaav,., .,.__5•••b,
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.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
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 dicuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Project involves bridge replacement with bottomless culvert approximately 176 feet upstream of
existing bridge with no impacts to wetlands and no permanent impacts to surface waters. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during project construction. Any material that falls into
the stream it will be removed as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process.
Page 7 of 13
v
Y
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.
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/stT.mgide.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
Page 8 of 13

IX.
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 htip://h2o enr state nc.uslwM/index.htin. 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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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.
Page 9 of 13
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 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 Multiplier Required
(square feed Mitigation
i
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of 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.
a
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.
Impervious area will be similar to that of the existing bridge The existing bridge is to be
replaced approximately 176 feet upstream and at approximately the same elevation. NCDOT
BMP's for the protection of surface waters will be followed throughout project construction-
X11. 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
Page 10 of 13
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A NCAC 211.0500) 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
L h?? 2v zc 3 L
Applicant/Agenf Signature ate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)

LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
W?--W

L
WETLAND
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'

DENOTES FILL (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER R EXISTING STRUCTURES)
54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® D ENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
® D ENOTES EXCAVATION

IN WETLAND ¦
DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
`
WATER - ROOTWAD
* _ _ =
"
" DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
"
_" = CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-- TOP OF BANK
- WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-M PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - v- - - - WATER SURFACE
XX XX X X LIVE STAKES
C2D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
Ax r.
?: • psi" ? , ?? (?Y ?? ,.,?.
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MACON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2970501 (B-3352)
BRIDGE NO.112 ON
SR 1504 OVER
RABBIT CREEK
SHEET lA OF 7 1/31/02
-51
S-M
'10Z ?"Zl
7 C y ?,.)
00 Z
It ;&(3
\ CO f v
S ? N Z.1. •8 ? is VE?3,,.?CA L dS - ?A. 00
r4
;4 31'\- 8p?yNO`,
o
? (rW - n ?V `? ?e o R' C
w
s1 0= a? r
70
u v 75
Q a I
V N
? ? Z ?u t,'cf
` x a a 1 o O _ ?, Z_Y ^'
1? nt ?, ???tA t c c (? c O
\
?dZ- ? ? ? py r-t
- - Lei
Gi
t
L )i
`? Cf> •?',?
r3
C\J
z ti
J O ??
? o
z ? .
LL
c) 1
b i r
\ ?\ \ I 1
\\ \ \ \ \ •I j ?
x Ix
?b 1 1.
r<> I z 1
? I z ( I
1 \ ? Q
1
yx I\ ti
9 x
xx / Ix x
w/ lam; / a y \
J
x x I I II/ '
i
(n LLJ
Lli
i
x W

b
U
O
O

X
X
X X
\ X X
? \ I I
1* '01
PO\O-' / / \S
Q \ Ali
w
F-
U) o I
o Q f ) I
= i o ; I
CD
w 1 I ?°
J I ?.I
I a? i

/
/
r
r

:i

r
?I

r
l
.

o,
-a
c
0
J

I I ? l ? •
I/ I
0
1 ?
w

u
LC)

0

® N
®

w
w
?w
ww
z?
oz
z
Ilk,
\ ® z U U z ?
I ? z
cEi? I a
? I w
? w
??c I OpN cUi?Ny I ??c ?
Ln
I a?
® I
? ? I o
Lnl
I
94 ? i JE N
>
CD Q) .11
8 °
1' 10
E ?
w?
z?
w
az
z

1-1
LE-
®

a.
z

F
®

3

®

z
F

z
?:)
®
z
® C4
M
m

y
o
Qo

U

z

®
-'
z

U

H
@ o

?
o

w

?
CC
O

W
o
?
j
QZ

O
?
z

Q

Q
z
C)

?

z
CD cc

O
?

?
z
0
z

?

y
v
j

?l
O

(J)

J

?
n
z

m

O

E\

U
o
Q

J
Z
0

W
~
j

Z
N
z

?u
?
p
C)

w
C)

Q W

o

?
O

W
Q

j z
o

:?t

O
Q
z L-Li

`n

W

U
rr
j

?u
?
V?

;'
W

W
Q
Ln
o
Q

m
O
O
LQ

a
Q

J
I

W

m
z

W

j
O
?
?

W

O
v
z
C2)
o
W

L-Li
O
?
r1l:

73 -

C:
Z

Q) O O
N It N
LO Q
< C) LO
Q M W
O m U) W

Z
O o tz
? U co
-m
cu CL O ZN°
Oao0<
W
O Z
- Z
O Q
F
>
?
C?
?
W >

Z O

LLJ
0
3:
(01
f-
W
W

U) S

m Co
co

a)
Q
Q
ca,
(0
= Zs
Q
CL a>
C ?
O fA
4

Q)
W c
0
U
N
E

E 3

a) o
N E
o m
a)
L
N
C Q
a)
Y
a) C
66 M
Q

N C
O
?
U ?
U
W

O
C
O
(

U
?
a>
N C C U
U 'X.?
Q W U ?
O
.

? W ? o
t0 0
? s
°- U) r
o 0 0
m o 0
? H

LL. C O L

W

? -P L
Z
LL `-'

Q N ? -
Z co co
? L

U c N
?
O

U
0
Z W C
J
F- N
> ? a
(6
fE
a -
j
O

N
C ?
- C

LL N

U N ? W ?
N

m
?
o o
00
(SS +

J
?_ o ? H
? Z O
co
O U
0 O O
U co rl
H
z
®

M
p
®
1:r 3
x F
z
- o
z ?? z
® ? z
®
U a1 ?
z

o o ?
® C\j
NI N

v
? c z ? c z
m
Lc)
? LL-

T

Macon Countv
Bridge No. 112 on SR 15 04
Over Rabbit Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-15 04(5)
State Project 8.297001
TIP No. B-332
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
020449.
UAp ? ? ?nn?

Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

Date Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator. FHWA
v
Macon County
Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
Over Rabbit Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1504(5)
State Project 8.2970501
TIP No. 13-3352
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2001
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Date John ' . Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
r
Date William T. Goodwin Jr., P.E., U Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Macon County
Bridge No. 1 t2 on SR 1504
Over Rabbit Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1504(5)
State Project 8:2970501
TIP No. B-3352
Resident Engineer, Roadside Environmental
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during design
and construction of the project.
There is an archaeological site in the area that must not be disturbed by this
project. An NCDOT Archaeologist shall be invited to provide input at the pre-
construction meeting. ' Please contact Tom Padgett at [phone].
NCWRC has commented that Rabbit Creek is Wild Designated `Public Mountain Trout
Water supporting brown trout. The following will be implemented to minimize impacts to aquatic
resources:
• Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the brown trout spawning season of January 1 through April 15 to
protect the egg and fiy stages.
• Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel except in the immediate vicinity of pier construction.
• 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.
• All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be completed in a dry work area.
Sandbag or rock berms, coffer dams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
• If concrete is used "during construction: of piers and abutments, a dry work area should
be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water.
Structure Design
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition will be followed during design
and construction of the project.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) Act. The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the
replacement structure on the 100-year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the'
Historic' Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to TVA for approval.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of '1
Green Sheet
March 5. 2001
Macon Countv
Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
Over Rabbit Creek
Federal Project MABRZ-1504(5)
State Project 8.2970501
TIP No. B-3352
Bridge No. 112 is located in Macon Countv over Rabbit Creek. It is programmed in the
2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project
due to deteriorating structural integrity and a deficient cross section. This project is part
of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and
has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts
are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 112 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 on new location
approximately 1 17 feet (35.7 meters) south of the existing bridge. Traffic will be
maintained on Bridge 112 during construction. Based on preliminary design, the
horizontal curvature would meet the criteria for a 40 km/h (25 mph) design speed which
would require a design exception. The vertical curvature would meet the criteria for an
80 km/h (50 mph) design speed.
The estimated cost of the project is $503,000 including $450,000 in construction costs
and $53,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 2002-2006 TIP is
$405,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT anticipates a design exceptions for the design speed resulting from vertical and
horizontal curvature. To improve the design any more would cause significantly greater
impacts to both the human and natural environment.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1504 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. It is located just west of Franklin, N.C. Currently the traffic volume is 200
vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 400 VPD for the year 2025. There is no posted
speed limit in the area and therefore is a statutory 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge.
The area is largely agricultural with scattered residences.
The existing bridge was completed in 1964. It is composed of a one-span timber and
steel structure. The deck is 31 feet (9.5 meters) long and 20 feet (6.1 meters) wide.
There is 10 feet (3.3 meters) of vertical clearance beneath the floorbeams of the bridge
deck. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is
43.1 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 13
tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The bridge lies in the sag of a vertical curve. Horizontal alignment is poor. The
pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 16 feet (4.9 meters). There is
very little shoulder on the approaches of the bridge.
In an analysis of a recent three year period the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that
no accidents were reported.
There are no known utilities near the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are three '-build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Bridge No. 112 would be replaced 46 feet (14 meters) north of the existing
structure. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
new structure would be a 20x13 foot (6x2.4 meter) bottomless reinforced concrete box
culvert. The culvert would be approximately 66 feet (20 meters) long. The horizontal
curvature would meet the criteria for a 40 km/h (25 mph) design speed which would
require a design exception. The vertical curvature would meet the criteria for an 80 km/h
(50 mph) design speed.
Alternate 2) Bridge No. 112 would be replaced 46 feet (14 meters) south of the existing
structure. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
new structure would be a 20x 13 foot (6x2.4 meter) bottomless reinforced concrete box
culvert. The culvert would be approximately 49 feet (15 meters) long. The horizontal
curvature would be less than the criteria fora 30 km/h (20 mph) design speed which
would require a design exception. The vertical curvature would meet the criteria for an
80 km/h (50 mph) design speed.
Alternate 3) (Recommended) Bridge No. 112 will be replaced 177 feet (35.7 meters)
south of the existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The new structure would be a 20x13 foot (6x2.4 meter) bottomless
reinforced concrete box culvert. The culvert would be approximately 92 feet (28 meters)
long. The horizontal curvature would meet the criteria for a 40 km/h (25 mph) design
speed which would require a design exception. The vertical curvature would meet the
criteria for an 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed.
SR 1504 is a dead end road and therefore an offsite detour is not possible.
An onsite detour was not considered a competitive alternate from an economic
standpoint.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
2
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2 3
Bottomless RCBC* 55,000 50,000 88,000
Bridge Removal 5,000 5,000 5.000
Roadway R. Approaches 193,000 60,000 174,000
Mobilization R 117.000 55,000 123,000
Miscellaneous
Engineering & Contingencies 55,000 25,000 60,000
Total Construction $ 425,000 $ 200,000 $ 450,000
Right of Way $ 25,000 **$ 105,000 $ 53,000
Total Cost $ 450,000 $ 305,000 $503.000
. ne uiuermg costs or the reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) proposed in each
alternate result from the different lengths as described in Section IV of the document.
** Alternate 2 takes a house immediately south of the bridge and results in the higher
Right of Way cost.
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 112 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 3 on new location
approximately 46 feet (54 meters) south of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge during construction. Based on preliminary design, the horizontal
curvature would meet the criteria for a 40 km/h (25 mph) design speed which would
require a design exception. The vertical curvature will meet the criteria for an 80 km/h
(50 mph) design speed.
The new structure would be a 20x 13 foot (6x2.4 meter) bottomless reinforced concrete
box culvert. The culvert will be approximately 92 feet (28 meters) long.
The new alignment will include 787 feet (240 meters) of roadwork. The typical section
will include two 9-foot (2.7-meter) wide lanes with 4-foot (1.2-meter) wide shoulders [7
feet (2.7 meters) where guardrail is required.
Both Alternates 1 and 2 have tight curves providing poor alignment resulting in poor
design speed. Alternate 1 would impacts the barns along the north side of the road.
Alternate 2 would require taking the house to the south of the bridge. Alternate 3 was
originally suggested by the homeowner and upon evaluation met the criteria for a higher
design speed (80 km/h, 50 mph) and did not require taking the home. Alternate 3 does
have greater stream impacts (30 feet greater than Alt. 2 and 80 feet greater than Alt. 1).
Given that the design criteria for Alternate 3 is much superior to Alternates 1 and 2, the
impacts to property is less, and the stream impacts are only a little greater, NCDOT
recommends Alternate 3. Division 14 concurs with this recommendation.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT 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 construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have
any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
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.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on
noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
On June 4. 1998, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
project. Subsequently. the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to affect any
resources of architectural significance (see attachment). An archaeological study was
conducted and determined that there is a pre-historic site east of the project. The SHPO
concurs with that determination (see attachment). The site will be avoided in both design
and construction
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Physical Characteristics
Soil and water resources. which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Macon County lies in the Mountain Physiographic Province. The project is
located in a rural area of Macon County surrounded by residential houses and upland
forests and lies approximately 695 meters ( 2280 feet) above mean sea level. It is located
in the Evard-Cowee-Saunook soil series which is characterized by strongly sloping to
very steep, very deep to moderately deep, well drained soils found on uplands and in
coves and drainageways.
Soils
Four mapped soil units are located in the project study area and include
Hayesville clay loam, 15-30% slopes, eroded, and Saunook loam 2-8% slopes. These soil
units are discussed below:
Hayesville clay loam (HaD2), 15-30% slope, eroded consists of moderately steep, very
deep, well drained soils on side slopes and ridgetops in uplands of low rolling hills.
Surface runoff is slow where forest litter has not been disturbed and is rapid where there
is no litter. Hayesville soils have moderate permeability. Crusting may cause water to
pond in concave areas or where outlets have been blocked. Good tilth is difficult to
maintain in these soils because of the high clay content and crusting after rains. Clods
form if the soil is worked when wet and are difficult to crush. Crusting and clods
interfere with seed germination. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. Hayesville
clay loam, 15-30 % slopes, eroded is a non-hydric soil.
Saunook loam (ScB), 2-8% slope consists of gently sloping, very deep, well drained soils
in coves, drainageways, and on toe slopes in the low mountains. Mapped areas in coves
are bowl shaped in the lower part, and extend as narrow bands along drainageways.
Mapped on toe slopes and benches are long and narrow. Individual areas range from 1 to
40 acres in size. Saunook soils have moderate permeability. Surface runoff is slow
where forest litter has not been disturbed and is medium where there is no litter. Runoff
from the adjacent higher land is concentrated in the concave areas. The seasonal high
water table is more than 6.0 feet below the surface. Depth to bedrock is more than 60
inches. The organic matter content of the surface layer ranges from moderate to high.
Saunook loam, 2-8 % slope is a non-hydric soil.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Little Tennessee
River Drainage Basin (Subbasin 40401, N.C. Hydrologic Unit 06010202). The Little
Tennessee River Basin covers 1800 square miles located within the Blue Ridge Province
of the Applachian Mountains of western North Carolina. The majority of the surface
waters in the basin are of good quality based on Division of Water Quality Monitoring
Data (NCDEHNR. 1997).
Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Rabbit Creek. The depth of Rabbit Creek at the
project study site at the time of the visit was approximately 6-8 inches and the width was
3-4 feet. The substrate is composed of bedrock directly under and upstream of the bridge
however sand and sediment has been deposited downstream of the bridge due to livestock
disturbance in the stream. Rabbit Creek converges with the Little Tennessee River
approximately 6.0 kilometers (3.75 miles) downstream from the project.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDENR. The best
usage classification of Rabbit Creek is C (Date 9/1/74, Index No. 2-(1)). Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. No water resources classified as High Quality'Waters
(HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-;I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW's)
are located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All
basins are reassessed every five years. The Little Tennessee River in this subbasin has
maintained Good-Fair to Good water quality since 1983 (NCDEHNR, 1997).
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network assessed water quality by.sampling for
Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
Many Benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six
months to a year. Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome
until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances
to pollution, thereby, long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by
population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa).
Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of
long term water quality conditions. There are no BMAN sampling stations in the project
vicinity (NCDEHNR, 1997).
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal
communities. The index incorporates information about species richness and
composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition (DWQ 1995).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the
cumulative assessment of'12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by these metrics
are converted into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions expected
for undisturbed streams in the specific river basin or ecoregion, while a score of 1
indicates that the conditions vary greatly from those expected in an undisturbed stream of _
the region. The scores are summed to attain the overall NCIBI score (DEM, 1995). The
NCIBI score is then assigned an integrity class which ranges from No Fish to Excellent.
No NCIBI monitoring sites are located on Rabbit Creek or within the project vicinity.
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no
NPDES sites located within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of non-point source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal coliform bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Excluding road runoff and
sediment/pesticide runoff from cropland in the project vicinity, there was one identifiable
non-point source that could be observed during the site visit. A cattle pasture is located
adjacent to the stream allowing the cattle direct access to the stream causing
sedimentation, increased turbidity, and the introduction of waste runoff into the stream.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of this project will result in impacts to water resources. Land clearing and
grubbing activities from project construction will directly result in soil erosion leading to
increased sedimentation and turbidity in Rabbit Creek. These effects may extend
downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality. The
vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease in
dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with DEM and
DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
There is no potential for components of Bridge No. 112 to be dropped into waters of the
United States during construction. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of the
stream banks and substrate. This concern applies especially to Alternative 3 which
involves stream relocation. If this alternative is chosen, natural stream design will be
required for the relocated stream. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils
are revegetated and streambanks stabilized with native vegetation. Wooded buffers
effectively trap organic nutrients and sediments before they reach water resources. This
will increase long-term water quality and provide wildlife habitat.
Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Fish, 1960, Martof et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985; Rohde et
al.. 1994; Potter et al., 1980).
Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community, disturbed montane oak hickory forest, and riparian fringe. Much of the
wildlife in the project study area likely use various communities for forage, cover, and
nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests
and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, such
that both are required for survival and reproduction.
Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses three types of habitats that have recently been or
are currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder, livestock field, and
abandoned cropland.
Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained habitat that is kept in a low-growing, early
successional state. Herbs, grasses and vines located here include fescue (Festuca sp.),
English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild
onion (Allium canadense), periwinkle (Vinca minor), muiltiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
and grape vine (Yitis riparia).
The abandoned cropland is located east of the project both to the north and south of the
stream. Herbs and grasses located here include goldenrod (Solulago sp.), broom sedge
(Andropogon virgtmcus). foxtail grass (Alopecurus sp.), and fescue.
The livestock field is located west of the project on the south side of the stream.
Herbaceous flora found here includes henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), clover (Tr• 161ium
repens), plantain (Plantago major), and fescue.
Montane Oak Hickory Forest (Previously Disturbed)
This community is located southeast of the existing bridge. The herbaceous laver is
comprised of pipsissewa (Chinaphila maculata), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera
pubescens), and poison ivy (Rhus radicans). Trees and shrubs located in this community
include white pine (Pinus strobes), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple r
(Ater rubrum), northern red oak (Ouercus rubrus), privet (Ligustrum sp.), American
holly (Ilex opaca), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia).
Riparian Fringe
This riparian fringe community is located adjacent to Rabbit Creek. Vegetation
consists of Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, trout lily (Erythronium americanum),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), greenbrier (smilax laurff lia), pipsissewa,
ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and cranefly orchid (Tibularia discolor).
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, mountain perennial stream, is located in the project
study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the water
influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities.
Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of
flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing water. Amphibians and reptiles
commonly observed in and adjacent to small mountain streams include three-lined
salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), two-lined salamander (E. bislineata), Mabee's
salamander (Ambystoma mabeei), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickeral frog (R.
palustris), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), and banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata).
Rabbit Creek provides habitat for chain pickerel (Esox niger), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), madtom (Notorus sp.), and
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki).
Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project area likely use various communities for forage,
cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of
forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon* (Procvon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist upland forests as well as urban areas. A raccoon track was observed in the
bottomland hardwood swamp. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are
occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests, old fields, and crop
lands. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways.
The red fox* (l ulpes vulpes) prefers areas with interspersed crpplands, woodlots, and old
fields.
The least shrexN (Cr}Ptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs
hunnilis). and hispid cotton rat (Signrudon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern
cottontails (Svlvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on
woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis). gray squirrel (Sciurus c•arolinensis). and white-footed
mouse (Peromn'scus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer
of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
.fa.sciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus) inhabits woodlands where they are known to forage at night and
spend the day in burrows under logs, stones, and leaf litter. The spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer) inhabits woodlands where it may be observed under forest litter or brushy
undergrowth. Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) are commonly observed
throughout forested habitats where they feed on plants and small animals.
The American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is common in abandoned fields. Blue jays
(Cyannocitta cristata) and northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos) frequent
maintained yards. The pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern parula (Parula americana), and blue-gray
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) are often observed in wet, deciduous woods.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well..
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire ROW width and length presented earlier. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
wmmumry Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Disturbed Community 0.24/0.6 0.05/0.13 0
Riparian Fringe 0.02/0.06 0.02/0.06 0.02/0
05
Disturbed Montane Oak Hickory Forest 0.08/0.2 0.05/0.13 .
0.45/1
1
TOTAL (see note) 0.34/0.86 0.12/0.32 .
0.47/1.15
10
Notes:
-Values are cited in hectares/acres
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community
due to rounding of significant digits.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting. foraging. and shelter
habitat for fauna. A majority of the project study area is located in disturbed habitat.
This area is currently in a highly altered state and plants and animals here are well
adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in the disturbed community
are common throughout North Carolina because of their ability to persist in disturbed
habitats. Moreover. similar additional disturbed habitats will be re-established after
project construction.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms. fish. and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls must be maintained during the
entire life of the project.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely
impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and
highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area.
Quantitative differences with regard to cumulative impacts in the proposed impact width
exist between alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 2 have reduced stream impacts and
quantitative cumulative biotic community impacts when compared to Alternative 3.
Alternative I requires no stream relocation and is the preferred alternative from a natural
systems point of view.
Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
§328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and
flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place fill material into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Rabbit Creek is considered jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Potential jurisdictional wetland communities were examined pursuant to the
1987 U.S. Armt° Corps of Engineers 41'etland Delineation Manual. The manual is a
technical guideline for wetlands. According to the manual, an area is considered a
wetland if three parameters, hydric soils, hvdrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic
characteristics concurrently exist. No wetlands exist within the project area.
Summan, of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. Permanent impacts
to Rabbit Creek are clearly summarized in Table 3. NCDOT proposes to span Rabbit
Creek entirely with a bottomless culvert. The amount of surface water impacts may be
modified by any changes in roadway design.
Table 3. Stream Im
Alternate
1
3
12 in (39.4 ft.)
26 m (85.3 ft.)
37 m(121.4 ft.
The superstructure for Bridge No. 112 is composed of a timber deck on steel I-beams.
The substructure is composed of masonry abutments. Neither the superstructure nor the
substructure will create any temporary fill in the creek. However, the removal of the
substructure may create some disturbance in the streambed. Conditions in the stream will
not raise sediment concerns due to a bedrock substrate and therefore a turbidity curtain is
not recommended. This project can be classified as Case 2, allowing no work at all in the
water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas. Macon County is designated by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) as a trout county.
Permits
Impacts to surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from project construction.
In accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act §404, a permit will be required
from the USACE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Due to surface water impacts expected at the project study area, a Nationwide 23
Permit will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning applicable
permits rests with the USACE. Macon County is one of the 25 counties designated as
having trout waters. Projects in these trout water areas must be reviewed and approved
by the NCWRC prior to issuance of the USACE permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance
of a Section 404.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
12
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to maintain and restore the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measure should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Impacts to the
wetland could be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project
through the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths; (2)
installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction; (3) strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands; and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts. which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 450 linear meters (150 linear feet) of
streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project
construction, NCDOT will follow these regulations.
Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-.
protected, be subject to review by the FWS. Other species may receive additional
13
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of March 22, 2001, there are seven
federally-protected species listed for Macon County (Table 4).
Table 4. Federally-Protected Species for Macon County.
?)UILN 111-IC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E
Hybopsis monacha spotfin chub T
Pegias fabula little-wing pearly mussel E
Clemmys muhlenbergii bog turtle T(S/A)
Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E
Isotria meloides small whorled pogonia T
Spiraea vir iniana Virginia spiraea T
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" denotes Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Date Listed: 9/3/93
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to
8.0 cm. 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 juveniles have a yellowish-brown color.
Three known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina; the
Nolichuckv River (including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River),
the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries, and the Pigeon River. The Appalachian
elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed with cobble and boulders, in
cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse sandy substrates.
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
Rabbit Creek is a tributary to the Little Tennessee River; however, it does not
sustain adequate enough flow to provide habitat for the Appalachian elktoe. The NHP
database of rare species does not list any populations of Applachian elktoe within the
project vicinity. This project will not effect the Appalaehian elktoe.
Hybopsis monacha (spotfin chub) Threatened'
Formerly: Cyprinella monacha
Date Listed: 9/9/77
14
The spotfin chub is a small minnow that is olive green above with silversides and
the females are whitish below. The males have a brilliant turquoise blue coloring on their
backs, sides of the head, and mid-lateral part of the body, fins are tipped with white
during peak development. Males and females are both characterized by a prominent
black spot on the lower part of the caudal fin.
The spotfin chub now occurs in the Little Tennessee River drainage system found
in Swain and Macon Counties. This minnow inhabits moderate to large streams, 1-70
m(49-230 feet) in width. These streams should have a good current, clear water, cool to
warm temperatures, and pools alternating with riffles. Specimens of spotfin chub have
been taken from a variety of substrates but rarely from significantly silted substrates. The
spotfin chub feeds on insect larvae. It is considered to be a "sight feeder" that selects its
prey off of clean substrates.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Rabbit Creek is much to small with too little flow to support habitat for the spotfin chub.
Rabbit Creek drains into Lake Emory; therefore, the dam prevents the spotfin chub from
moving upstream in this tributary. The NHP database of rare species does not list any
populations of spotfin chub within the project vicinity. This project will not effect the
spotfin chub.
Pegias fabula (little wing pearly mussel) Endangered
Date Listed: considered 6/22/84
The little wing pearly mussel is a small mussel having the anterior portion of its
shell evenly rounded and semi-circular. The periostrium is usually eroded, giving the
shell a chalky or ashy white appearance. If the periostracum is present it is light green or
yellowish-brown with dark rays on the anterior surface that vary in width. It has well
developed but incomplete hinge teeth and the lateral teeth are either vestigial or
completely lacking.
The little wing pearly mussel inhabits small to medium sized streams with low
turbidity, cool water, and a high to moderate gradient. This mussel can be found buried
in gravel or beneath boulders and slabrock, lying on top of the substratum in riffles, and
partly buried or on the surface of the substratum in the transition zone between long pools
and riffles. It has been suggested that the best times to find this mussel are in late spring
and in the late fall, when they are on top or partly buried in the substratum during
spawning (Ahlstedt 1986).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
In the vicinity of the project, Rabbit Creek contains a substantial sediment load
below the bridge due to cattle activity in the stream, consists of some bedrock beneath the
bridge and has low flow; therefore, it does not provide habitat for the little wing pearly
mussel. The NHP database of rare species does not list any populations of little wing
pearly mussel within the project vicinity. This project will not effect the little wing
pearly mussel.
15
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Federally listed: 5/2/97
Clemmys muhlenbergii is a small semiaquatic turtle, usually with a bright orange
or yellow blotch on the side of head; carapace elongated, brown to black, often with a low-
median keel and concentric furrows or traces of them. The bog turtle measures 7-10 cm
(3-4 in) in length. It is found in damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains
and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when disturbed.
The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians, and seeds. In June or July,
three to five eggs are laid in shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about
fifty-five days (Martof, et. al.. 1980).
Individual bog turtles in the southern population closely resemble individuals in
the northern population, causing problems in enforcing prohibitions protecting the
northern population. As a result, the bog turtle is designated Threatened due to similarity
of appearance. This designation prohibits collecting individual turtles from this
population and bans interstate and international commercial trade (Fish and Wildlife
Service). They are listed for their protection. These species are not biologically
endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation (Endangered
Species Act); therefore, a survey is not required.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) Endangered
The Indiana bat is a medium sized, monotypic species (there are no subspecies) of the
genus Myotis that is known to occur in much of the eastern half of the United States.
Head and body length of individuals range from 41 to 49 millimeters (mm) (1 5/8 - 1 7/8
inches) (USFWS 1999). The Indiana bat often has a distinctly keeled calcar. The hind
feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter hairs than its cogeners. The fur
lacks luster (Barbour and Davis 1969, Hall 1981). The ears and wing membranes have a
dull appearance and flat coloration that do not contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest
and belly is lighter than the flat (not glossy), pinkish-brown fur on the back, but does not
contrast as strongly as does that of the little brown or northern long-eared bat.
Indiana bats hibernate primarily in caves (and some mines) that provide specific climatic
conditions, preferring hibernacula with stable winter temperatures below 10 degrees
Celsius (optimal temperature is 4-8 degrees Celsius) and relative humidities above 74
percent (USFWS 1999). Stable low temperatures allow the bats to maintain a low rate of
metabolism and conserve fat reserves through the winter until spring (Humphrey 1978,
Richter et al. 1993). Indiana bats undergo swarming prior to hibernation, an activity
which enta is bats congregating around the hibernacula, flying into and out of the cave,
and roosting in trees outside (Kiser et al. 1996). During the summer months, Indiana bats
typically roost during the day beneath loose or exfoliating bark in snags or living trees.
To a limited extent, tree cavities or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs also provide
suitable roost sites (Gardner et al. 1991a, Kurta et al. 1993b).
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Habitat for the Indiana bat in the form of loose barked trees, caves, or an open
stream does not exist within the project area. The NHP database of rare species does not
list any populations of Indiana bat within the project vicinity. This project will not effect
the Indiana bat.
16
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a
hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that
are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the
stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests. with an open canopy, open shrub laver, and sparse herb layer. It
prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub
coverage or high sapling density. -
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Deciduous-coniferous forest with an open canopy and sparse herb layer provides
habitat for small whorled pogonia at the project site. A plant by plant survey was
conducted in suitable habitat by Tim Savidge and Shannon Simpson on July 12, 2000.
No populations of small whorled pogonia were found. The NHP database of rare species
does not list any populations of small whorled pogonia within the project vicinity. This
project will not effect the small whorled pogonia.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) Threatened
Federally Listed: June 15, 1990
Flowers Present: June - July
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall.
Virginia spiraea often grows in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly
in size, shape, and degree of serration. The leaves are green above and usually somewhat
glaucous below. The cream colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in
branched, flattoped inflorescences. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late fall
while herbaceous growth is minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the mountains of
North Carolina. Habitats for the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams,
on meander scrolls, point bars, natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The
scour must be sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely
remove small, woody species. This species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at
the water's edge with various other disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful
in areas with full sunlight, but can survive in shaded areas until it is released from
competition.
Biological Conclusion No Effect
Habitat for Virginia spiraea in the form of point bars or scoured banks does not
exist within the project area. The NCNHP database of rare species does not list any
populations of Virginia spiraea within the project vicinity. This project will not effect
Virginia spiraea.
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may or may
not be listed in the future. Thirty one FSC are listed for Macon County (Table 5).
.17
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC
Aneides aeneus Green salamander E
Contopus borealis Olive-sided flycatcher SC
Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC/PT
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender SC
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler SR
Moxostoma sp. Sicklefin redhorse SR
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian woodrat SC*
Percina squamata Olive darter SC
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail SR
Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren E
Macromia margarita Margarita River skimmer SR*
Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave spider SR
Phyciodes batesii maconensis Tawny crescent butterfly SR
Skistodiaptomus carolinensis Carolina skistodiaptomus SR/PSC
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR
Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E
Carex manhartii Manhart's sedge PE
Euphorbia purpurea Glade spurge C
Grammitis nimbata West Indian dwarf polypody E
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5
Lvsimachia fraseri Fraser's loosestrife E
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C*
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage C
Senecio millefolium Divided-leaf ragwort T
Silene ovata Mountain catchfly C
Cephaloziella obtusilobula A liverwort W2*
Plagiochila sharpii A liverwort C
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii A liverwort C
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana A liverwort C
Porella japonica var. appalachiana A liverwort C
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or
collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of
Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are
also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with I -
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its
range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or
the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
"W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North Carolina, but
is not necessarily declining or in trouble.
"W5"--A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its
18
habitat; populations may or may not be known to be declining.
"/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any
of its provisions. including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T) or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A reviex of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal
the presence of these species or unique habitats in or near the project study area. Surveys
for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed during the site visit.
19
N
i
i i
Bridge No. 112
/
F
r
1504
,y
\
RcDp'
9
53
7 Holly Spring
152
pG P
P?
NORTN C,9O
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
\0FTFj
Macon County
Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
Over Rabbit Creek
B-3352
FiLlure One
tree
i

rsa r--r
? M .
low
.:5 t1?. I+tis?'

?-

tJ
' A?a?vaa Sr?'o
n
7
<noH ,
J+

I
= i i
z z -
? -

- ? _ = I I
N - j

i F
r ?

i -
--t 7

L
w
t

Li-"17-
s
z

d
,w
i \ 'r y

? I
Looking! \N est Across
Bri&_,c No. 1 I2
Looking East Across
Bridge No. 112
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
=? ?Q Division of HighN%avs
Project DeNelopment S
En,ironmental Analssis Branch
Macon County
Replac e Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504
0%er Rabbit Creek
B-3352
FiLure Three
IF /. •' a. - ?,?•?'.; '. ...
North Carolina Wildlife Resc-i;irees C?? :? ?_sss
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch - NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 112 on SR 1504 over Rabbit Creek,
Macon County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3352.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, 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 replacement of an obsolete roadway bridge. We anticipate
that a spanning structure will be constructed on the site. Rabbit Creek is not designated trout
water, but may support a small population of wild rainbow trout in the project area. Construction
impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources will depend on the extent of disturbance in the stream
bed and surrounding fl6odplain areas. Environmental documentation for this project 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.
Because Macon County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the NCWRC
will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the project. The following conditions are
likely to be placed on the 404 permit:
TIP No. B-3352 Page 2 March 7, 1998
1. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of
pier construction. Channel relocations have catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and
disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream
erosion problems, possibly affecting adjacent land owners.
2. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be completed in a dry work area.
Sandbag or rock berms, coffer dams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
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.
4. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
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.
5. If concrete is used during construction of piers and abutments, a dry work area should
be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water.
Uncured concrete affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other organisms.
A-
00%
6. Aff nstream work should be conducted between January 1 and April 15, to avoid
impacts on trout reproduction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
?VTATI

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
I)a? id L. Bn)„k, Adi-nInlsirat()r
James I Hunt Jr.. G ,? ernl ;
Betty 16% McCaw. St:creta-"
March 1. 2000
Nicholas L. Graf
Di, ision Adnliiosti-1io1
Federal Hi_rh\\a\ .-administration
Department of Transportation
310 Ne\\ Bern Akenue
Raleigh. N.C. 27601-1442
131cisiun of .?rcai?.'es anti ] iist,)r?
Jeffrey. J. C'170W, I 11'ect,)r
Re: Replace Bridle No. 122 on SR 150-4 o\er Rabbit Creel:. TIP No. B-3352. iMacon Count-,. ER 98-
863_
Dear Mr. Graf:
On June -i. 1998. Debbie Be% in of our office met \\ ith John Williams \\ ith NCDOT's Bridge Di\'ision
concerning the above project. At that meeting no architectural sur)e% was recommended ifne\&
alignment or an on-site detour \\ III be part of the project.
Our comments concerning the abo\ e project remain the same as they were on June 4. 1998.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
ad\ isor. Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thant: \'ou for your cooperation and consideration. If}ou have questions concernin, the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earle. environmental review coordinator. at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely.
David Brook i
Depute State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:scb
cc: \k. Gilmore -
B. Church
T. Pad<=ett
Locarion \laihn_ Address Telephone%Faz
\D\ll\Itil'R\1'I(>\ \ Blouri S;. It.ilc:_L \( - ?I,ul ?•r. c_ (,n, ;. R.ilc,ch \t' '-nV)_1hl- )I,), - :_)'!,; • ' :_x,,:;
ARCH \FOLO(il 131nun, i1.. R.;I„"h \(' - \Lii: ti,? i%1, (cnlrr. Ralr12h \('
RFSTOR \l Ill\ \ itL unt RAC: ._'h \laJ ?sc:% ,. t :nter.
S1,R\Fl \ IT ,\\\I\(; \ 131m111 )1. Ralw_t \( \1.111 r, 1._ ( nlcr. Rulrrvh
e „a STA 7[ o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January- 4, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore
Project Development and Environmental :Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Archaeolol 'cal Survey Report, Replacement of Bridge 112, Macon Count,',
TIP No. B-3352, Federal Aid No. BRZ-164(1), ER 98-8635
Thank you for tour letter of November 14, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy and Nick Bon-Harper concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey one archaeological site, 31hIA549, was located within the
project area. This authors have recommended that additional archaeological be
undertaken, if this site cannot be avoided by construction activities. We concur with this
recommendation since the project may involve significant archaeological resources.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, Environmental Review Coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Deborah Joy and Nick Bon-Harper, Legacy Research Associates, Inc.
FHwA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807