20021074 Ver 1_Complete File_20020701

A&-
wno
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
021074
DEPAR4MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY J
LYNDO TIPPETT
GovERNOR SECRETARY
June 202 IVt?i! ?,S.il _
r? QA},'liaft? "„
U.S. Army Corps of E31d Ie rs
Asheville Regulatory Office
151 Patton Avenue / Room 208 . k €
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 157 (which was washed out) on SR 1316 over Shelton
Laurel Creek. Madison County in Division 13. Federal Project No.
BRZ-1316(2), State Project No. 8.286090 1, T.I.P. No. B-4181.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project,
along with a project site map, preconstruction notification form, and permit drawings. Bridge No.
157 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 1 with a 110-foot (33.5-meter) long bridge just
downstream of the existing alignment, at approximately the same roadway elevation. Traffic will
be maintained during construction using the on-site detour bridge [90 feet (27.4-meter) in length]
located on the site of the washed out bridge.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
The construction of the bridge will require the use of a temporary rock causeway to provide
access to the site by the construction equipment. This causeway will consist of riprap as
described on Sheet 4 of 6 of the attached drawings. The resulting temporary fill of surface waters
will be 0.04 ac (0.016 ha). Construction of the proposed temporary rock causeway is also
depicted in the attached drawings (Sheets 1 to 6). No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
the proposed project.
Restoration Plan:
The material used, as temporary fill in the construction of the causeway will be removed after its
purpose has been served. The temporary fill area will be restored to its original contour.
Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed causeway are available from field survey
notes. The project schedule calls for a September 17, 2002 let date. It is expected that the
contractor will choose to start construction of the causeways shortly after that date. The
causeway will be in place for approximately twelve (12) months. After the causeway is no longer
needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all material. All causeway
material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a
reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all material off-site.
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.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
-Ak.
Bridge Demolition:
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge Demolition and
Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 157. The superstructure was removed by the Bridge
Maintenance Unit after being damaged by a flood in August 2001. The substructure is composed
of masonry abutments and interior bents. There is a potential for components of the substructure
to be dropped into waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the abutments and interior bents is approximately 120 yd3 (92 m3).
SUMMARY
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. Thus we anticipate that comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
It is anticipated that the construction of the causeway 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 construction of the causeway. 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 propose to
proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of January 15,
2002). We anticipate 401 General Certification will apply to this project. We are providing two
copies of the CE document and the application information to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Thank you for your assistance in this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
V. Charles Burton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachments
Mr. John Domey, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. Owen Anderson, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
w/o attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wihnington Field Office
Mr. Burt Tasaico, PE, Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, EPT, Roadside Environmental Unit
Mr. F.Daniel Martin, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, Division Environmental Officer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E., Bridge Replacement Unit
i
Np?
Office Use Only: Q A1?o?Form Versiapp 001
4
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
f
f
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. 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 & NW 33
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
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Proiect Development & Environmental Analvsis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
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 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: Replacement of No. 157 on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel Creek between
SR 1314 and NC 212 in Madison Countv
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4181
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Madison Nearest Town: Whiterock
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-40 West to Asheville. US 19/23
North to Weaverville US 25/70 North to NC 212, NC 212 North to Whiterock.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°57' N Lat, 82°12' W Long
(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: Existing
Bridge # 157 was washed out during a flood in August 2001 A temporary one lane bridge
was installed by the Division 13 Bridge Maintenance Unit to maintain traffic until the new
bridge is completed.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Shelton Laurel Creek
9. River Basin: French Broad River Basin
(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/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
r
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: To replace an inadequate bridge (which was
washed out August 2001). The new structure will be a 110-foot (33.5 meter) long bridge just
down stream of existing alignment.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: heave duty construction
equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Existing land uses include forested and
maintained communities. The area has a mixture of residential and undeveloped landuse
SR 1314 and NC 212 are rural routes that run through the project area with (temporary bridge
replacing washed out Bridge No. 157) serving residential uses
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.
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
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8

1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact Area of Located within Distance to
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact 100-year Floodplain** Nearest Stream Type of Wetland***
indicate on ma) (acres) (es/no) linear feet)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

-3 C11 H11Fa,,E xpalaLely a11u luenuly 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 http://www.fema?.
*** 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 Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream Name** of Stream Intermittent?
indicate on ma) linear feet) Before impact leasespecify)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1..1SE caC11 impact separately and Iaentay 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.usga.&(Ly. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.to_pozone.com,
www.mgRguest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: N/A
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U. S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
Name Waterbody Type of Waterbody

(lake
pond
estuary
sound
(indicate on ma)
(acres) (if
applicable) ,
,
,
,
bay, ocean, etc.)
Site 1 Temporary Fill 0.04 ac Shelton Laurel Creek Perennial
1.1sL cae11 ullpaci separately and taenuty temporary unpacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Page 4 of 8
A-
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.
NCDOT will adhere to the "Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and
Removal" during the removal of the tempora bridge (replacing washed out Bridge No 1571
NCDOT will adhere to the "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to
or Crossing Trout Waters". NCDOT will also comply with all USACE and NCWRC permit
conditions in order to minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
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
Page 5 of 8

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/ELqwqt!andaLgrMgide.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 http112o.enr state_nc.us/wrp/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
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 ?
Page 6 of 8

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
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
XI.
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
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.
The guidelines for the NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds" will be followed. These include minimizing the project footprint and diverting
stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
Page 7 of 8

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.
1 T,.
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
-/Z--402
Applicant/Agentrs Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

C109
C 6 8 J' ALUM 1308 C 9 4 Lourel
KNOB 1.3
1414 85
C4 8 1307 .4 Z.
W 1309 1314
CZ)
1307 SITE # 12 50 -
1306 14-46
-7L
2 / U J Whirarock 157 NNC CRID
AD 83
15
3 s 1329
12 ?? rL J a
?` - ,151 - `'
1316 1330
3.5 - 1317 so •0 Big Laurel
Guntertown
.
155 .9%
'
158'-' - • 8
3
- 1319' 1318 1318 131 F
16/1319 ??- ,11 7'• - ?/ 61
1424
Cf9E+1 '
N 2.1 / {'? 1322 ?57 1 ? ?3 6
213
25 N 1319 i
70 1320 m \ , - 1334
45 ,
;-
} Revero 2 `?-'
WALNUT 1447
KNOB 1321 X313 rO 132;3 1425 .2
SODOM .? 1324
M T. ' 1321 •?A 7
1440 1325
co 1326
1319 •2 q
\ 1?' 1323
1441
1 Ci/r Mp?N ( P
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY MADISON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2860901 (B-4181)
MAP BRIDGE V157 ON SR1316
OVER SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
BETWEEN SR 131.4 AND NC 212
SHEET I OF LO
/
/

z_za h /

?? LJ
000
000
Ww
b? (n F-
$ n
3a
o ? l
ZZa \
w?
? :
Z 4-VI, ZuM
Dzvyo I
LLZ<
NC GRID
NAD 83
? ddQ
8
lr
l?
C '
rr
r r,
I.
r
r
l

i$
W
o ?
-z ?
`4 V U
x-
Mc"?aa
ax?
C'n
F+i U ? n M ?
09
Z
w
p
0-4 A F 0 ?
wz N
a ? w Axw
a o E
u ? a ?w x
Z O as v

i
0
w
U
J
LL
C >.
N
?
Q W
K ?
qqOQ
w w
r.. u
N Q
W W
O ?
= N
Q =

A[

zz
Dn oo?
On
CDX
C05
AND
DENNIS A. TWEED )RAIN WITH
D.B. 146, PG. 325 TRACT °RIP RAP
_T
13+40.72=
/0+75.09
F AI
N/4 5`
DENNIS A. TWEED
D.B. 146, PG. 325 TRACT II
\ ` ? ? ` \ N/43Yp0 f
?PEARLE GENTRY
D.B. 100, PG. 105
F
-L - \
/e'-zr asPH
T] O F TRANSPORTATION
;ION OF HIGHWAYS
OISON COUNTY
;C .8.286®9®1 (B-4181)
)GE 157 ON SR1316
F5? TS DENOTES TEMPORARY IELTON ]LeAURIEL CREEK
IN SURFACE WATERS
N SR 114 AND NC 212
AREA OF TEMPORAR
SURFACE WATERS =
2- OF
r
QLO
N u3,c?,
:??
Uo
O~
? oa
LLJ

?
I I ? m
m 00

w
J
W
? / I
3
l z

N /

II
/ I
m I
? o
jI
O
C'
7
r
Q
F-

Q
Zi
I

° I
r-I 10 ?°
00 00 00
r- r- r--
Q
0
M
r
I
1
+
N
P-
r..
o w
?
(? N

`ti
'„
? ai
.moo U U
0 3 H ? ?wA

? -'? U o° Oar
W ? [? M
o z ° ?
H ?? c

a a
in A ?a
xe
`?
W > p A
0: cn W E?
?
U ?" ? W x
z c?
w
a
U ,w_1
z?
N U
O W
x ?
b b
0 0
N ?
I?

40
4
E
Q
o >- O
a
Q
CL
Y 3 n_
w
o?
o ?H Q?
3 UCr)
1(n
U Q O -J
Q?U Q
m
L6
::::4:

E" ?,
CO .o U U
z

x U 0
"'a
E' O c R 0'
ZO C

Z
?
C4
A ? Awz ?
F ,..,
W
rA
o, ua x
v W
OW ?
z

LSD
\
co
W CD\
J
I
W Q
wl
3 ~'
Z U? I
I
ICJ
N
W
r
a
N
W
O
N
w
r
r
Z
a
O

M U)
Q)
L CL
>' U Q
O p cr-
O
oo O
a ?? N
a a
d ? U
? a
N - o
N - O
Q N ~
J N
V Q
J =
U- U
o w
w o r
? a
J W r
o 0? N
] Q W
Ia

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MADISON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2860901 (B-4181)
BRIDGE x157 ON SR1316
OVER SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
BETWEEN SR 1314 AND NC 212
SHEET 9 OF b
PARCEL NO. NAMES A Y%T\D L0000
A-

0

Z Y N
O we
W
< CD CD M
F-
? 'IT M JZ
LU LL ?O a co W 0 (O
=

E a
? cn?Q
c Q=° CD
<

M
LL Z 000
Z
U)
N O
w
ao
LL
t w
LL ZD
q
to w
000 W W Z
2
w 0Uw v)
w
0 0 O m w
U a om
z

r
°a

M
N

LL'
E
O
LL

d
d
m c
o m? o
-y L
? U
c c °?
? ,,in lC0 lU0 ? p

a w U E

a

a' c

Q aU ? °
o ?
? 0
F
W
Q

? C Q N O

LLZ
?

N
=
C ? O U
L M r R O

C

L C N
O '0
_
Q ? N A O
C
C
a U
x
w c
W D
a g
LL
o ?
Z W N N O

y
C ?
C
? N
O
LL N
d a
7 ? V1

`
N R
U

d
O
O O
O
O
M li M
N p
I J
Z Q
F
-
O
LL
og?
F-
-9. - 4
Madison County
Bridge No. 157 on SR 1316
over Shelton Laurel Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1316(2)
State Project No. 8.2860901
T.I.P. No. B-4181
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
i
i
J!
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
,5.24-02
' v
DATE William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, PE
"Division Administrator, FHWA
1111,,
Madison County
Bridge No. 157 on SR 1316
over Shelton Laurel Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1316(2)
State Project No. 8.2860901
T.I.P. No. B-4181
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Jr-
DATE ?oelohns
Project Development Engineer
DATE William T. Goodwin Jr., P.E., lYnit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
DATE Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 157
on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel Creek
Madison County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1316(2)
State Project No. 8.2860901
TIP. No. B-4181
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and
Dew
Division 13 Resident Engineer/Roadside Environmental Unit/Structure. Design
UnitlDivision 13 Design & Construct Engineer
Bridge Demoition:
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for `Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 157. The
superstructure was removed by the Bridge Maintenance Unit after being damaged
by a flood in August 2001. The substructure is composed of masonry abutments
and interior bents. There is a potential for components of the abutments and interior
bents to be dropped into waters of the United States during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with the abutments and interior bents is
approximately 120 cubic yards (92 cubic meters).
Revegetation:
The existing approaches will be removed to the natural ground line after
the new bridge is completed, and the area will be revegetated with
appropriate plant species.
Division 13 Resident Engineer/Hydraulics Unit/Structure Design Unit/Division
13 Design & Construct Engineer
Due to the classification of Shelton Laurel Creek as a trout stream, NCDOT will
adhere to the following commitments:
1. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone
will be prohibited during the trout spawning season of November 1 through
April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
2. If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete
does not contact stream water.
3. A stone causeway will be installed on the north bank in order to build Bent
2. The causeway may be extended a minimum distance into the active
channel if needed for drilled shaft construction. After construction, stone
placed in the active channel will be removed.
4. Stringent erosion control measures should be installed where soil is
disturbed and maintained until project completion.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Document
5/24/02
Page 1 of 1
Madison County
Bridge No. 157 on SR 1316
over Shelton Laurel Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1316(2)
State Project No. 8.2860901
T.I.P. No. B-4181
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 157 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is
eligible for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 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 No. 157 was programmed in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as abridge replacement project due to its low structural evaluation and
deficient cross section. The bridge was Structurally Deficient and had a sufficiency rating
of 39.6 out of 100. On August 1, 2001, the bridge was washed out during a flood.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel Creek just north-west of
Whiterock in Madison County (see Figure 1). Development in the area is agricultural and
residential in nature.
SR 1316 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and it is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated
bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this
roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1316 has a 16-foot (4.9-meter) pavement width
with 8-foot (2.4-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is flat in
the area of the bridge with a slight rise in grade to the south. There is a sharp horizontal
curve on the south end of the project. The existing bridge was on a tangent. The roadway
is situated approximately 15.0 feet (4.6 meters) above the creek bed.
Bridge No. 157 was a three-span structure that consisted of a timber deck with an
asphalt wearing surface on steel beams. The substructure consists of masonry abutments
and reinforced concrete interior bents. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed
in 1951. The overall length of the structure was 91 feet (27.7 meters). The clear roadway
width was 19.0 feet (5.8 meters). The bridge was posted 11 tons single vehicle and 16
tons truck-tractor semi-trailer.
A temporary one-lane bridge is being put in service at this time by the Bridge
Maintenance Unit in order to maintain traffic until Bridge No. 157 can be replaced with a
new bridge. The temporary bridge is necessary to eliminate a 12 mile detour for
commuters and school buses.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Aerial power lines are
over the bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be normal.
The current traffic volume of 250 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase
to 500 VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes one-percent truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and two-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed
limit in the project area.
No crashes were reported at the intersection of SR 1316 and NC 212 during a
recent 3-year period.
Two school buses used this bridge each morning and each afternoon. However
since an on-site detour is being provided, school bus routing should not be affected.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a 110-foot (33.5-meter) long cored slab
bridge. The bridge will be 39 feet 9 inches (12.1 meters) in width to provide for two 12-
foot (3.6-meter) lanes with a 3 foot (0.9 meter) offset on each side and additional width
for the lanes to flare out to a width of more than 16 feet (4.9 meters) with a 3 foot (0.9
meter) offset on each side at the north end of the bridge where it ties in with NC 212. It is
more economical to use a wider cored slab bridge than a narrower reinforced concrete
bridge with a flared section on one end.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the
existing grade at this location.
The new roadway cross section on the southern approach will be a variable
pavement width from 18 feet (5.5 meters) where it ties in with the existing roadway to 36
feet (10.9 meters) at the fill face of the bridge. This will provide for two 12 foot lanes.
The short northern approach is flared to provide the turning radius required for traffic
turning onto NC 212. This roadway will be designed as a rural minor collector.
2
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The one alternative that was studied is described below.
Alternative I Replace Bridge No. 157 with a new 110-foot (33.5-meter) long
bridge just downstream and at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. To facilitate drainage, it is recommended that a minimum 0.3% roadway gradient
be used on the new bridge. Traffic will be maintained using a temporary on-site detour
located on the site of the washed out bridge during construction. The temporary bridge
will be approximately 90 feet (27.4 meters) in length.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
Road closure and replace in place is not a practical alternative because of a 12
mile detour. A school is located just west of the bridge on NC 212 and several school
buses would have a 30 minute longer trip twice a day. Many commuters use this bridge.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge.
This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1316.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to the fact that the bridge
was washed out during a flood in August 2001.
D. Recommended Alternative and Reasons for Recommendations
Bridge No. 157 will be replaced just west of the existing location as shown by
Alternative 1 in Figure 2. Alternative 1 is recommended because the existing bridge was
washed out during a flood in August 2001. A temporary one lane bridge will be installed
by the Bridge Maintenance Unit to maintain traffic until the new bridge is completed.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost for Alternative 1 is:
Alternative 1
Structure $ 325,600
Roadway Approaches $ 749419
Detour Structure and Approaches $ 75,000
Structure Removal $ 14,560
Misc. & Mob. $ 789421
Eng. & Contingencies $ 82,000
Total Construction Cost $ 650,000
Right-of-way and Utility Costs $ 23,600
Total Project Cost $ 6739600
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography can
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
the quality of the water resources, potentially limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of
these resources.
A.1 Regional Characteristics
Madison County lies in the Blue Ridge (Southern Appalachian) Mountains
Physiographic Province of western North Carolina. The county encompasses 452 square
miles (1,171 square kilometers) and is primarily rural. The county ranges in elevation
from approximately 1,280 feet (390 meters) above mean sea level (msl) where the French
Broad River flows into Tennessee to 5,516 feet (1,681 meters) msl. Elevations. within the
project area range from 1,850 to 2,000 feet (564 to 610 meters) msl, with the streambed
in the vicinity of the bridge lying at approximately 1,850 feet (564 meters) msl.
The headwaters of the French Broad River and its tributaries are located within
the mountain physiographic region of North Carolina. The French Broad River flows to
4
the Gulf of Mexico via the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. The basin
encompasses all of Haywood, Madison, Yancey, and Mitchell counties, as well as
portions of Transylvania, Henderson, Buncombe and Avery counties. There are 24
municipalities located in the resource basin with several areas of the basin being
classified for water supply use. Over one-half of the land in the French Broad River
basin is covered in forests (NCDWQ, 2000).
A.2 Soils
The portion of Madison County within which the project area lies (MRCS map panel
# 9-13) has not yet been mapped by NRCS under the current provisional soil survey.
Soils information set forth in previously published soil surveys for Madison County are
reported to be no longer valid and should not be used (Scott Sanders, NRCS, Asheville
Field Office, 2 August 2001 personal communication). A brief description of unofficial
soil types observed during field investigation is as follows:
• Sandy cobbly fluvaquents along the stream bed.
• Unmottled to weakly mottled, poorly to moderately drained loams on 0 to 3
percent slopes in backwater areas away from the channel (similar to the French
loam of other mapped areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001)). Should
NRCS apply this map unit to portions of the project area, the soils would be
- classified as non-hydric.
• Well-drained, dark reddish brown loams on 30 to 50 percent slopes (similar to the
Evard-Cowee complex and the Marshill-Walnut complex of other mapped areas
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2001)). Should NRCS apply this map unit to
portions of the project area, the soils would be classified as non-hydric.
A.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of water resources, along
with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface
water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
A perennial stream, Shelton Laurel Creek, comprises the single water resource
within the project area. Shelton Laurel Creek is located within the French Broad River
Drainage Basin. The French Broad River watershed encompasses 2,842 square miles
(7,361 square kilometers).
Under the federal system for cataloging drainage basins, the drainage basin
containing the project area is designated as USGS hydrologic unit 06010105 (the Upper
French Broad drainage basin). Under the North Carolina DWQ system for cataloging
5
drainage basins, the drainage basin containing the project area is designated as Subbasin
04-03-04 (the Spring Creek, Ivy River, Little Ivy, and Big Laurel Creek Subbasin).
A.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Streams and rivers have been assigned a best usage classification by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The assigned best usage classification
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries
receive the same classification as the named streams to which they flow.
The single water resource located in the project area, Shelton Laurel Creek, is
designated as DWQ Stream Index Number 6-112-26. Shelton Laurel Creek in the project
vicinity has been assigned a primary water resource classification of "C" and a
supplemental water resource classification of "Tr". Class "C" refers to waters that are
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and
survival, agriculture, and other uses found suitable for Class C waters. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with
water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental
manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development or types of discharges in
Class C waters.
The surface water classification of "Tr" is a "supplemental classification intended
to protect freshwaters for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout". As
stated in the standards, this designation affects wastewater quality but not the type of
discharges, and there are no watershed development restrictions except stream buffer
zone requirements of the NC Division of Land Resources.
No surface waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-
I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 0.6 mile (1.0 km) of
the project area. This finding is based on review of the most recently updated state-
maintained databases as made available through the date of preparation of this report.
A.3.2 General Physical Characteristics of the Stream and Surface Waters
As previously discussed, Shelton Laurel Creek comprises the single water
resource within the project area. The proposed project crosses Shelton Laurel Creek on
SR 1316 approximately 2,000 feet (610 meters) north/northwest of the community of
Whiterock. Shelton Laurel Creek is approximately 40 feet (12.2 meters) wide within the
project area, with observed depths ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 feet (0.2 to 1.1 meters) at the
time of field investigation. Field investigation occurred the day following a significant
rain event and, as a result, surface waters were slightly turbid in morning hours to clear
by afternoon. Due to the preceding rainfall, water levels appeared to be 0.5 to 1.0 feet
(0.2 to 0.3 meter) above the ordinarily high water level at the time of investigation.
The substrate of Shelton Laurel Creek in the project area is comprised of
6
sediments ranging in size from fine sand to boulders - with the dominant sediment regime
being sandy cobble gravels. Scattered bedrock outcrops occur along the stream bed and
stream banks. The stream within the project area is relatively straight and appears to
exhibit a relatively simple trapezoidal cross-section. No sand bars or channel meanders
were observed. A scour pool approximately 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) in depth was observed
immediately upstream of the central bridge pier at the time of field investigation.
The left stream bank (looking upstream) downstream of the existing bridge
exhibits strong indicators of past erosion and has been armored with large riprap to
protect the embankment along SR 1316. The left stream bank upstream of the existing
bridge is steep and exhibits moderate indicators of past erosion; however, armoring is
restricted to the area immediately upstream of the bridge. The right stream bank (both
upstream and downstream of the bridge) is well vegetated and exhibits indicators of low
to moderate erosion. The right stream bank is bounded by a 30-foot-wide to 40-foot-wide
(9-meter-wide to 12-meter-wide) floodplain terrace perched approximately 4.0 to 4.5 feet
(1.2 to 1.4 meters) above the stream bed. The stream banks are comprised of
unconsolidated poorly sorted sediments of alluvial and colluvial origin, with intervening
bedrock outcrops. Vertical concrete abutments remaining from demolition of a previous
bridge occur along both stream banks 75 to 100 feet (22.9 to 30.5 meters) upstream of the
existing bridge.
A.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point and
non-point sources are, evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published
resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. This data provides
insight into the value of the water resources within the project area. with respect to their
ability to meet human needs and to provide suitable habitat for aquatic organisms.
A.3.3.1 Biological Monitoring
The Basinwide Monitoring Program, managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing
ambient water quality monitoring program that addresses long-term trends in water
quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms that are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa of intolerant groups
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera or "BPT") present and a taxa richness value (EPT
S) is calculated. A biotic index value that summarizes tolerance data for all species in
each collection is also calculated for the sample. The two rankings are given equal
weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa richness values primarily
reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such
physical pollutants as sediment.
No previously monitored or presently monitored benthic monitoring stations exist
7
on Shelton Laurel Creek within the project area or upstream of the project within the
project vicinity. Benthic monitoring site B-25 is, however, located on Hickey Creek
approximately 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) upstream of the project site. Only monitored in
1990, the water quality rating based on bioclassification of station B-25 was found to be
"excellent". Although not within the project vicinity, benthic monitoring station B-24 is
located on Shelton Laurel approximately 3.2 miles (5.1 kilometers) downstream of the
project area. Water quality ratings based on bioclassification of station B-24 was found
to be "excellent" in 1990, "good" in 1992, and "good" in 1997 (NCDWQ, May 2000).
A.3.3.2 Point and Non-point Source Discharges
Point source discharge is defined as "any discharge that enters surface waters
through a pipe, ditch, or any other well-defined point (DEM, 1993). The term
commonly refers to discharges associated with wastewater treatment plants. Discharges
from stormwater collection systems at industrial sites and in large urban areas are also
considered point source discharges. Point source discharges within North Carolina are
regulated through the National Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any point source discharger is required to apply for a permit.
No registered point discharges are located in or directly upstream of the project
study area. Laurel Elementary School is a registered point discharge source (NPDES
Permit Number N00034207) located on Shelton Laurel Creek approximately 1,050 feet
(320 meters) downstream of the project area. The industry class applied to the discharge
is identified as "X" (an industry that has not been categorized under EPA's Effluent
Limitation Guidelines), but it is assumed that the NPDES permit applies to wastewater
discharge from a package sewage treatment facility. No violations appear on-record
(EPA, 2001).
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt (DEM, 1993). Agricultural activities may serve as a source for
various forms of non-point source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to
a degree where they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in
streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of non-point sources pollution in North
Carolina (DEM, 1993). Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal
waste can be transported to receiving streams and waterways via runoff - potentially
elevating concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be
the source of bacterial contamination and can elevate the biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils can contribute to the influence of
stormwater pollutants into surface waters (DEM, 1993).
Under the NC Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) program, the upper French
Broad River hydrologic unit (06010105), within which the project area is located, is
classified by DWQ as a UWA Category "I-P" watershed for non-point source pollution.
Under this classification, the watershed is identified as a watershed "needing restoration"
at a "high priority" level. The basis for assigning a high priority restoration status to this
8
hydrologic unit is the fact that approximately 15 percent of the streams within the unit are
rated as "impaired". Most of the impaired streams upon which this rating was based are
located within the central portion of hydrologic unit 06010105, and none are located
within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area.
A.4 Summary of Anticipated Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts consist of
clearing and grubbing along stream banks, removal of riparian canopy, instream
construction, use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of revegetation operations, and
installation of pavement. The following impacts to surface water resources are likely to
result from the aforementioned construction activities:
• Short-term increases in sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing
associated with increased erosion potential in the project area during and
immediately following construction.
• Short-term changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased
sedimentation rates and vegetation removal.
• Short-term alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions of surface water and groundwater during construction.
• Short-term increases in nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
temporarily exposed land surfaces.
• A short-term increase in the potential for the release of toxic compounds (such as
petroleum products) from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Changes in and possible destabilization of water temperature regimes due to
removal of vegetation within or overhanging the watercourse.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface water
and groundwater drainage patterns.
• Increased concentrations of pollutants typically associated within roadway runoff.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in and downstream of the
project area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
(NCDOT, 1997) will be strictly enforced during the. construction phase of the project.
Means to minimize impacts will include (1) utilizing construction methods that will limit
instream activities as much as practicable, (2) restoring the stream bed as needed, and (3)
revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of grading. Because the
project is located in a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) trout
county, the WRC may require a moratorium for in stream construction from November to
March.
9
B. BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the biotic communities observed within the project area, as
well as the basic relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Biotic
resources assessed as part of this investigation include discernable terrestrial and aquatic
communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the study
area are a function of topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Terrestrial systems are discussed primarily from the perspective of dominant plant
communities and are classified in accordance with the Classification of Natural
Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990)
where applicable. Representative animal species likely to inhabit or utilize biotic
communities of the project area (based on published range distributions) are also
discussed.
B.1 Biotic Communities
Boundaries between contiguous biotic communities are gradational in certain
portions of the project area, •making boundaries sometimes difficult to delineate. Seven
discernable terrestrial communities are located within the project area. Of these
communities, four have been altered to the extent that they cannot be classified as a
natural vegetation community under the Classification of Natural Communities of North
Carolina. These altered communities consist of: (1) altered right-of-way and
successional communities, (2) landscaped areas, (3) fallow pastureland, and (4) cropland.
The remaining three communities within the project area retain enough of their natural
characteristics as to be classifiable under the Classification of Natural Communities of
North Carolina. These natural communities consist of (1) Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest, (2) Canada Hemlock Forest, and (3) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest.
As discussed in following sections, portions of the Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest underlain by hydric soils have been mapped as wetlands. In addition
to the aforementioned terrestrial components, the aquatic community associated with
Shelton Laurel Creek was assessed within the project area.
B.1.1 Altered Right-of-Way and Successional Communities
These communities are located along the rights-of-way bordering on NC 212 and
SR 1316 and along an unpaved private road traversing the southwest quadrant of the
project area. Vegetation within these areas has been maintained in an early succession
through mechanical and possibly chemical vegetation management practices.
Dominant tree species (saplings and seedlings only) observed at the time of site
investigation within altered rights-of-way and successional communities of the project
area include sycamore saplings (Platanus occidentalis), tulip tree saplings (Liriodendron
tulipifera), hickory saplings (Carya spp.), Canada hemlock saplings (Tsuga canadense),
10
American elm saplings (Ulmus americana), black locust seedlings (Robinia
pseudoacacia), American beech saplings (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple saplings (Acer
saccharum), and pine seedlings (Pinus sp.). Dominant shrub species observed at the time
of site investigation include sassafras (Sassafras albidum), American holly seedlings (Ilex
opaca), pale rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), and witch-hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation
include common plantain (Plantago major), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), galactia (Galactia
volubilis), lily of the valley (Convallaria majalis var. montana), wild columbine
(Aquiligia canadensis), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), and unidentified grasses
(Poaceae). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site investigation include
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
glaucous greenbrier (Smilax glauca), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinguefolia).
. Two highly fractured bedrock zones at the base of slope immediately north .
SR 1316 also support small populations of yellow jewelweed (Impatiens pallida), Joe-
pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica). These areas
exhibit a thin soil layer atop fractured and weathered bedrock and, although not springs,
appear to be subject to seasonal groundwater discharge.
B.1.2 Landscaped Areas
This community consists of cleared, landscaped, and vegetatively managed areas
around a residential dwelling (a trailer) located in the southeast quadrant of the project
area.
Dominant plant species observed at the time of site investigation include
unidentified grasses (Poaceae), assorted cultivars, common plantain (Plantago major),
common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum).
B.1.3 Fallow Pastureland
This community consists of a fallow pastureland located in the southwest.
quadrant of the project area. The slopes within this community are moderately to steeply
sloping. The successional nature of the vegetation community suggests that the pasture
has lain fallow for several growing seasons.
No mature trees or shrubs have yet become established within the fallow
pastureland. Dominant woody species observed at the time of field investigation include
tulip tree saplings (Liriodendron tulipifera) and black locust seedlings (Robinia
pseudoacacia). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site investigation
include red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), thistle (Carduus
altissimus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), common plantain (Plantago major), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), frost aster (Aster pilosus), Joe-pye-
weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberoses), Curtis'
11
goldenrod (Solidago curtisii), New York ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), common ragweed
(Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), daisy fleabane
(Erigeron annuus), joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and
unidentified grasses (Poaceae). The only vine species observed at the time of site
investigation was common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
B.1.4 Cropland
This community consists of recently cultivated croplands located in the northwest
quadrant of the project area. This community is located on gently sloping land surfaces
adjacent to a floodplain terrace, which separates the cropland from Shelton Laurel Creek.
At the time of field investigation the croplands were supporting a near-mature
crop of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Other invasive or opportunistic species observed in
and around the edges of the cropland at the time of field investigation include common
plantain (Plantago major), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), bitter nightshade
(Solanum dulcamara), red clover (Trifolium pratense), small dog-fennel (Eupatorium
caplillifolium), curly dock (Rumex crispus), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), galactia
(Galactia volubilis), chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), and unidentified grasses
(Poaceae).
B.1.5 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
This community occurs along the southeastern banks of Shelton Laurel Creek in
the southwest and southeast quadrants of the project area. The Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest occurs upon a gently sloping floodplain terrace perched approximately
3.5 to 4.5 feet (1.1 to 1.4 meters) above the stream bed. The terrace is largely underlain
by moderately drained silty soils exhibiting relatively high chromas but, where poorly
drained conditions prevail, hydric soil inclusions are observed. Portions of the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest underlain by these hydric soils have been mapped
as wetlands and are discussed in section CA of this report.
Dominant tree species observed within the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
at the time of site investigation include red maple (Ater rubrum), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black walnut (Juglans nigra), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), American
elm (Ulmus americana), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), sugar maple (Ater saccharum), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadense), and
white pine (Pinus strobus). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of
site investigation include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
yellow buckeye saplings (Aesculus flava), hickory saplings (Carya spp.), highland dog-
hobble (Leucothoe axillaries var. editorum), pale rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), flowering
dogwood (CornusFlorida), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Dominant herbaceous
species observed at the time of site investigation include lily of the valley (Convallaria
12
majalis var. montana), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), violets (Viola sp.), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), Curtis' goldenrod (Solidago curtisii),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum). Dominant vine
species observed at the time of site investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), glaucous greenbrier (Smilax glauca), summer grape (Vitis aestivalis),
riverside grape (Vitis riparia), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Wetlands Component: The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest contains
narrow (generally less than 3 feet (0.9 meter) wide) discontinuous bands of wetlands
along the lowermost stream banks of Shelton Laurel Creek. These wetland bands are
dominated by hydrophytic vegetation including sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red
maple saplings (Ater rubrum), ironwood (Carpinus carolinana), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), blackberry (Rubus sp.), giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), sedges (Carex spp.), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),
joint head (Arthraxon hispidus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), common avens (Geum
canadense), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), and creeping
grass (Microstegium vimineum). The soils underlying the wetlands are comprised of a
thin layer (generally less than 4 inches (10 centimeters)) of gleyed to weakly mottled
gravelly sands over cobbles and boulders. These soils were saturated within the upper 8
inches (20 centimeters) at the time of investigation. The wetlands also exhibited
sediment deposits and drift lines.
B.1.6 Canada Hemlock Forest
A Canada Hemlock Forest occurs along a steeply sloping, northwest-facing, rocky
slope within the southwest quadrant of the project area. This community contains several
rock ledges and it appears that the topography was altered in the past through
construction of a now-abandoned roadway.
Dominant tree species observed within the Canada Hemlock Forest at the time of
site investigation include Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadense), scrub pine (Pinus
virginiana), and white pine (Pinus strobus). Dominant sapling and shrub species
observed at the time of site investigation include pale rhododendron (Rhododendron'
maximum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and highland dog-hobble (Leucothoe
axillaris var. editorum). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the time of site
investigation include bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera
repens var. ophioides), and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Dominant vine species
observed at the time of site investigation include common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia) and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
B.1.7 Montane Oak-Hickory Forest
A Montane Oak-Hickory Forest occurs along a steeply sloping, northwest-facing
and southwest-facing slope within the southwest quadrant of the project area. It appears
13
that the topography of this community was altered in the past through construction of a
now-abandoned roadway and that the vegetation adjoining the fallow pasture to the south
was cleared or thinned at some time in the past. Soils within this community are
relatively thin and scattered rock outcrops are present.
Dominant tree species observed within the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest at the
time of site investigation include white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Quercus
rubra),.mockernut hickory (Carya alba), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), white pine
(Pinus strobus), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), black walnut (Juglans nigra), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadense),
yellow buckeye (Aesculus (lava), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and American elm
(Ulmus americana). Dominant sapling and shrub species observed at the time of site
investigation include ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American holly seedlings (11ex
opaca), common privet (Ligustrum sinense), pale rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), cucumber tree (Magnolia acuminata), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), witch-
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), highland dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaries var. editorum),
and flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida). Dominant herbaceous species observed at the
time of site investigation include lily of the valley (Convallaria majalis var. montana),
bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), violets (Viola sp.), dolls' eyes (Actaea pachypoda),
Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana), hairy bedstraw (Galium pllosa), false
Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), partridgeberry
(Mitchella repens), heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.), southern lady fern (Athyrium Filix femina
var. asplenioides), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), and rattlesnake plantain
(Goodyera repens var. ophioides). Dominant vine species observed at the time of site
investigation include poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
B.1.8 Terrestrial Fauna of the Project Area
Most of the communities within the project vicinity have been altered or affected
by man's activities to varying degrees. Due to forest tract fragmentation common to the
project region, species that require large contiguous tracts of forests are not likely to
utilize the site on a normal basis. Heavily browsed herbaceous layers observed at the
time of field investigation indicate that certain opportunistic wildlife species, such as
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), and eastern
cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus Floridanus), utilize edge habitat present within the project
area. Due to the relatively small size of the project area and the fact that many wildlife
species are capable of moving between and/or utilizing adjoining communities, no
distinct terrestrial wildlife habitat can be assigned to any one terrestrial plant community
within the project area.
Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) was the only mammal observed in the project
vicinity at the time of field investigation; however sign for the following mammals were
observed: tracks and scat of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), scat of eastern
cottontail rabbit (SylvilagusFloridanus), tracks and scat of raccoon (Procyon lotor), tracks
14
of gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and burrows and tracks of woodchuck
(Marmota monax). Although not observed, other mammals common to the project region
which can be expected to periodically utilize habitat of the project area include: Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews and moles (Insectivora), beaver (Castor
canadensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), white-footed mice
(Peromyscus leucopus), golden mice (Ochrotomys nuttalli), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus),
woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), black rat (Rattus
rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), meadow jumping
mouse (Zapus hudsonius), woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), black bear (Ursus americanus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata),
eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bobcat
(Felis rufus).
The forest tracts of the project site provide suitable habitat and forage areas for a
wide variety of birds. Birds observed at the time of field investigation include common
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), American goldfinch
(Carduelis tristis), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), and mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura). Songs and/or calls of the following birds were also noted within the project
vicinity at the time of field investigation: downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee
(Parus carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), brown thrasher (Taxostoma rufum),
and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus). A wide variety of resident and migratory songbirds
can be expected to periodically utilize habitat present in the project area. The fallow
pasture and the croplands within the project vicinity provide probable hunting grounds
for birds of prey, such as hawks and owls.
The only reptile observed on the project site at the time of field investigation is
the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Tracks of an unidentified turtle were
observed along the banks of Shelton Laurel Creek. Juvenile blackbelly salamanders
(Desmognathus quadramaculatus) and adult green frogs (Rana clamitans) were observed
in shallow, slower-flowing pockets of water along Shelton Laurel Creek. Audibles of
spring peepers (Hyla crucifer) originating from the bottomland forests in the project area
were heard at the time of site investigation. Fish species are discussed in following
sections.
Rams-horn snails (Planorbidae) were observed on and around concrete bridge
piers during field investigation. Terrestrial insects and other invertebrates observed in the
project area include organpipe mud daubers (Tryploxylon sp.), yellow jackets (Vespula
sp.), cloudless sulfur butterfly (Phoebis sennae), common sootywing butterfly (Philosora
caullus), West Virginia white butterfly (Lycaena phlaeas), cicadas (Magicicada sp.), an
unidentified horned forest spider, and banded millipedes (Narceus sp.).
15
B. L9 Aquatic Community
B.1.9.1 Flora
No aquatic vegetation was observed below the ordinary high water line of Shelton
Laurel Creek at the time of field investigation. A narrow fringe (generally less than 3 feet
(0.9 meters) wide) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along portions of the stream banks.
This hydrophytic vegetation is discussed as a component of the Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest of section B.1.5.
B.1.9.2 Fauna
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission has posted the segment of Shelton
Laurel Creek flowing through the project area as "Hatchery Supported" trout waters.
Aquatic or water-dependent vertebrates observed within the project area at the
time of field investigation includes the following: northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon), green frogs (Rana clamitans), numerous juvenile blackbelly salamanders
(Desmognathus quadramaculatus), numerous unidentified juvenile finfish, juvenile brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), numerous rosyside daces (Clinostomus funduloides), two
unidentified minnow species (Cyprinidae), an unidentified sucker, and creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus). Aquatic or water-dependent invertebrates observed within the
project area at the time of field investigation includes the following: numerous crayfish of
two unidentified species (Cambaridae), gilled snails (Pleuroceridae), six-spotted fishing
spiders (Dolomedes triton), abundant case-making caddisflies (Trichoptera), abundant
flatheaded mayfly nymphs (Heptageniidae), adult mayfly, abundant fingemet caddisfly
larva (Philopotamidae), occasional net-spinning caddisfly larva (Hydropsychidae),
occasional slender winter stonefly nymph (Capniidae), abundant whirligig beetles
(Gyrinidae), abundant water striders (Gerridae - two species), occasional water penny
(Psephenidae), a single hellgrammite (Megaloptera), a single dragonfly nymph
(Odonata), and a single short-stalked damselfly (Argia sp.).
B.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
B.2.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the project will result in certain unavoidable impacts to biotic
resources within the project area. Temporary and permanent impacts to terrestrial biotic
communities will result from clearing and paving portions of the project area. Table 1
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction.
Calculated impacts, to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project
lengths described in section II, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 80 ft. (24.38
m) for the bridge replacement. However, project construction often does not require the
entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Practicable
16
means to avoid or minimize impacts will be evaluated and recommended, where
applicable.
Tahln 1_ Antirinatod fmnacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
Community Acres (Hectares)
Altered Right-of-Way and Successional 0.31 (0.125)
Landscaped Areas 0.02 (0.008)
Cropland 0.05 (0.021)
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 0.03 (0.012)
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest 0.07 (0.028)
Totals 0.48 (0.194)
B.2.2 Aquatic Impacts
The replacement of the bridge over Shelton Laurel Creek at SR 1316 will result in
certain unavoidable impacts to the aquatic community of the creek. Probable impacts
will be associated with the physical disturbance of the benthic aquatic habitat and water
column habitat disturbances resulting from changes in water quantity and quality.
Significant disturbance of stream segments can have an adverse effect on aquatic
community composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic
habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to
aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation, which can
lead to increased nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can, in turn, lead to algal
blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen levels.
• Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can, in turn, lead to clogging of
feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and sediment
loading.
• Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and snags.
• Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of riparian
canopy.
• Burial of benthic organisms and associated habitat.
Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and immediately downstream
of the project area will be minimized to the fullest degree practicable through strict
adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
(NCDOT, 1997) and other applicable guidelines pertaining to best management practices.
17
C. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
The following sections provide an inventory of resource areas and species and an
assessment of possible impacts for (1) waters of the United States and (2) rare and
protected species. Waters of the United States and rare and protected species are of
particular significance when assessing impacts because of federal and state mandates that
regulate their protection. The following sections address those measures that will be
required in order to comply with regulatory permit conditions prior to project
construction.
C.1 Waters of the United States
Certain surface waters considered significant to interstate commerce and wetlands
adjacent to these waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" (as
defined in codified federal regulation 33 CFR 328.3). The discharge of dredged or fill
material to waters of the United States is regulated by the Corps of Engineers under the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Regulated
surface waters typically consist of standing or flowing waters that have commercial
and/or recreational value to the general public. As a category of waters of the United
States, wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions".
To determine whether wetlands exist within the project area, vegetation, soils, and
hydrology was assessed using criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). As specified in the Manual, wetlands are
identified based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands
hydrology - all three of which must be present for an area to meet the federal definition
of a wetland.
C.1.1 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, Affected by Project Construction
No wetlands have been mapped within the project area under the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) program. Although not mapped under the NWI program (because of
their limited extent), a narrow discontinuous fringe (generally less than 3 feet (0.9 meters)
wide) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs along the lowermost portions of the stream banks.
This hydrophytic vegetation is associated with seasonally saturated, gleyed and/or
mottled soils, and is discussed as a component of the Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland
Forest of section B.1.5.
Despite the fact that the aforementioned stream bank wetlands are located adjacent
to a perennial waterway, their relatively steep slopes and small size limit certain of their
values. Utilizing NCDENR's Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North
Carolina, the stream bank wetlands within the project area have been estimated to have the
18
following ratings for values assessed: 4 of 20 for water storage, 16 of 20 for bank/shoreline
stabilization, 10 of 25 for pollutant removal, 8 of 10 for wildlife habitat, 20 of 20 for aquatic
life value, and 4 of 5 for recreation/education - for a total rating of 60.
The NWI map for the White Rock 7.5-minute quadrangle depicts the portion of
Shelton Laurel Creek flowing through the project area as a permanently flooded, upper
perennial, riverine habitat with an unconsolidated bottom (R3UBH of USFWS
classification). The riverine habitat is located channelward of stream banks supporting
trees, shrubs, and persistent herbaceous vegetation, and is considered to be "waters of the
United States".
C.1.2 Permits
Based on wetland field indicators observed at the time of field investigation, waters
of the United States, including wetlands, subject to regulation under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and the North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification program have
been delineated and mapped within the proposed project area. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters are anticipated to occur as a result of project construction. As a result,
proposed construction activities will require permits and certifications from the various state
and federal regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
As a categorically excluded Action and a public linear transportation project in non-
tidal waters, bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement impacting less than one-
half acre of waters of the United States at a stream crossing could be authorized under the
provisions of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 23 Permit for Categorical
Exclusions or a Nationwide 14 Permit for Linear Transportation Projects, respectively. The
proposed project is located in a designated "Trout" county; therefore, authorization of the
project by the Corps of Engineers under the provisions of a nationwide permit is conditional
on concurrence of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
If the proposed work cumulatively impacts more that one-half acre of non-tidal
waters of the United States, an Individual Permit may be required at the discretion of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unless authorization is granted under the provisions of
Department of the Army General Permit Number 198200031 (for NCDOT bridge
crossings). If the proposed work involves greater than one acre of wetland impacts, a
discretionary determination regarding Nationwide Permit applicability could not be made
by the Corps nor could the General Permit option be exercised and, therefore, an Individual
Permit would be mandatory.
In addition to the aforementioned permit requirements, a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) will be required for the project prior to issuance of a
Corps of Engineers permit. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue
or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
19
result in a discharge to waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
disturbance. A DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior to
the issuance of a Section 404 Individual Permit.
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land
Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is also required
for all construction or development involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee
River drainage basin.
C.1.2.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 157 is located on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel Creek in Madison
County. The bridge superstructure was removed after flood damage in August 2001. The
masonry abutments and reinforced concrete interior bents remain and could cause
components to be inadvertently dropped into waters of the United States during bridge
demolition. Should this occur, such materials would be removed from waters of the
United States as soon as possible, where conditions allow. The resulting temporary fill
associated with bridge demolition will be 120 cubic yards.
C.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The 14 December 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA and
the Department of the Army on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines sets forth
the policy and procedures to be used in the determination of the type and level of
mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act. The purpose
of the MOA is to implement the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including
wetlands. As part of the MOA, a project assessment procedure is set forth requiring a
sequential assessment of (1) impact avoidance, (2) impact minimization, and (3)
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Adherence to sequencing during
project planning and design stages is intended to assist in attaining a goal of no net
overall loss of wetland functions and values.
The impact avoidance stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment of
all appropriate and practicable alternatives for avoiding impacts to waters of the United
States. Cost, existing technology, significant adverse environmental consequences to
other resources, and logistics in light of overall project purposes are considered in
identifying "appropriate and practicable" avoidance alternatives.
The impact minimization stage of the sequencing procedure entails an assessment
of all measures that would minimize unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States
to the fullest degree practicable. The final determination regarding the availability of
practicable minimization measures lies with the reviewing regulatory agencies and, if it is
determined that additional minimization measures are available, such measures will be
20
required through project modifications and/or permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation measures are not considered until such time that it has
been demonstrated that no practicable avoidance alternatives exist, and that all practicable
measures for minimizing unavoidable impacts have been incorporated into project design.
Compensatory mitigation includes such measures as restoration, creation, enhancement,
and preservation. Where possible, mitigation should be in-kind and within the same
watershed as near to the impacted area as conditions allow. Compensatory mitigation is
conventionally required for projects authorized under Individual Permits or certain
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare)
of all wetlands and/or 150 feet (46 meters) of streams within or adjacent to tidal waters.
Under the nationwide permit program, the District Engineer must be notified if proposed
discharge to wetlands will exceed 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare). Discharges to wetlands
exceeding 0.1 acre (0.04 hectare), for which authorization under a Nationwide Permit 14
is being sought, require submittal of compensatory mitigation plan as part of the
Notification.
C.2 Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that any action likely
to adversely affect a species listed as a federally protected threatened or endangered
species be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other
species (such as state-listed threatened or endangered species) may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
C.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of endangered (E), threatened (T),
proposed endangered (PE), and proposed threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 22 March 2001, the USFWS lists three federally protected species for
Madison County (Table 2).
A review the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare
species and unique habitats indicates no occurrences of federally protected species in the
project area. Suitable habitat for the spotfin chub and the oyster mussel were observed
within the portion of Shelton Laurel Creek flowing through the project area. Surveys have
been conducted and a biological conclusion of no effect was determined.
21
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Endangered No Effect
Hybopsis monacha Spotfin Chub Threatened No Effect
Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel Endangered No Effect
Note:
• "Endangered" denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
• "Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
C.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
A federal species of concern (FSC) is defined as a species that is under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 12 federal species of concern in Madison
County (Table 3). Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of the provisions included in
Section 7 until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. The
status of these species is subject to change so their status should be periodically
monitored prior to project construction if individuals or suitable habitat is present within
the project area. In addition to the federal program, organisms that are listed as
endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program on its list of Rare Plants and Animal Species are afforded state
protection under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979..
Table 3 lists federal species "of concern, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area. This
species list is provided for information purposes, as the protection status of these species
may change in the future.
The NCNHP database of rare and unique habitat (as updated through January
2001) was reviewed. The database shows no occurrences of federal species of concern
(FSC) within 0.6 mile (1.0 kilometer) of the project area. Determinations regarding the
presence of suitable FSC habitat, as indicated in Table 3, were based on site conditions
observed at the time of field investigation and search of published literature.
22
Table 3 Federal Species of Concern for Madison County
Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status Habitat
Present
Corynorhinus rafenesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat SC Yes
Neotoma floridana haematoreia Southern Appalachian Woodrat --- Yes
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender SC Yes
Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon SC No
Percina squamata Olive Darter SC Yes
Polyodon spathula Paddlefish E No
Paravitrea ternaria Sculpted Supercoil T Yes
Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E Yes
Euphorbia purpurea Glade Spurge C Yes
Juglans cinera Butternut --- Yes
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage C No
Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly C Yes
Note:
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 any native or once native species that is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act.
C A "Candidate" is any species that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction.
SC A "Special Concern" species is one that 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 Statues (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation
Act (plants). Only propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are
listed as Threatened or Endangered.
23
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A meeting was held on March 11, 2002 with The State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO) to evaluate potential effects of the project. The area of potential effect
(APE) was reviewed by an NCDOT staff architectural historian, representatives of the
Federal Highway Administration, and the SHPO. Bridge No. 157 was determined to be
not eligible for the National Register. The Concurrence Form for Properties Not Eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places is included in the appendix.
C. Archaeology
On April 5, 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) reviewed the
subject project. Subsequently, the SHPO recommended no archaeological surveys be
conducted in connection with this project (see attachment).
VII. GENERAL 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.
24
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 proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from
any land protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
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. 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 air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and no additional reports
are required.
Madison County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There
are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in an impact area of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not
anticipated to increase the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
25

276-
J•
1 \

315
314 L-
496! 1341
? N
`ml HELI1
KNOB
/ 72
131
91
1311
X45 j 725
I WALNUT 4
KNOB
? 1379
kd 2!
1432
OF NOHTN qH? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
71 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
`?'I'?ov 1Rr??
MADISON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 157 ON SR 1316
OVER SHELTON LAUREL CREEK
B-4181
I Figure One I
I,
7313
`• G
T ?
C97' ` P123 I•?
F
?f
Looking South at the Bridge
Downstream face of the Bridge
B-4181 FIGURE 3

View of edge No. 157 after the August 2001 flood
B-4.81
FIGURE 4
`_'' t? i . .. . .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jetlrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Otiice of Archives and History
April 5, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
n (l ?(?. r" N FROM: David Brook ? t?? / us'-L?? O- u zc- L..?
SUBJECT: Archaeological Stud, Replacement of Bridge No. 157 on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel
Creek, State Project 8.2860901, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1316(2), TIP B-4181,
Madison County, ER 02-9136
Thank you for your letter of February 26, 2002, concerning the above project.
Because of the location and topography of the project area, it is unlikely that any archaeological sites which
may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
StATF ?
41
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh . NC
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Flailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center, Ralcieh 2 7 699-4 6 1 8
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] .715-4801
[phone] •715-4801
Federal Aid # BRZ-1316(2) TIP # B-4181 County: Madison
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace washed-out Bridge No. 157 on SR 1316 over Shelton Laurel Creek
On 3/11/2002, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT )
/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
r] , Scoping meeting
7' Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
0 '- Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the prperty
not identified Bible afor s the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
\ There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
X There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
Representative, NCDOT
MAi'C_7,CF02
Date

FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Representative, HPO
77

State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
.. - , P d oa SfA7F ^,?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

rln?

MICHAEL F. EASLEY JDo TIPPI
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 28, 2002,
Memo To: Mr. Steve Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, US Army Corp of Engineer
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS `
Mr. Owen Anderson, Western Mountain Regional Coordina?o? .
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P. E., Structure Design
From: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager LURd?t-t
U Office of the Natural Environment
Subject: CE Document for B-4181
Please find the attached document for TIP Project B-4181. The week of June 24, 2002 you
should have received a Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 157. The CE Document that goes with the application did not make it into the
envelope with the other information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the
project specialist. Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC