20000220 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000207

y MSWFo?
M d y?M
M M1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
January 10, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
000,2.2Q
DAVID McCOY
SECRETARY

Buncombe County, SR 2435, replace Bridge No. 512 over Swannanoa River;
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2435(1); State Project No. 8.2843101; TIP No.
B-2931.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 512 over Swannanoa River on SR 2435. The existing bridge will be replaced on new
alignment within the existing corridor on a 440 m radius (4 degree curve). SR 2436 and SR 2435
from the southwest will be a through movement and SR 2435 from the east will be stop sign
controlled at the intersection. SR 2435 approach work will extend approximately 182 m (600 ft)
northeast and 100 m (330 ft) southwest of the proposed bridge. Traffic during construction will
be detoured along existing roads.
The new structure consists of a bridge that is approximately 64 m (200 ft) in length that
will accommodate a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 1.2 m (4 ft) shoulders. The approach roadway
will consist of a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 m (4 ft) paved
shoulders. The right-of-way for the project is 39.6 m (130 ft) wide. No wetlands will be
impacted by the proposed work. Bridge replacement over the Swannanoa River is scheduled to
be let to construction on July 18, 2000.
If the water level rises, NCDOT suspects a temporary causeway will be needed for the
construction of the drilled piers and will be placed on the south side of the river west of the

existing road (drawings included). As a result the temporary fill in surface waters will be 0.006
ac.
In addition a water utility pipe 10 inches in diameter will be placed inside the right-of -
way of the project (drawings included). It will be bedded in a flat-bottom trench. The trench
will be backfilled in loose 6 in. layers compacted to the top of the trench using local excavated
material, if approved by the engineer, or select material. All material shall be free of rocks,
foreign material, and frozen earth. Compaction shall be to approximately 95% density. The total
length of the pipe is 594 ft. The pipe extends 78 ft. at the stream crossing and will be buried a
minimum of 2 ft. below the stream bed. Surface area affected by the pipe at the stream crossing
is 0.0054 ac. Total instream impacts equal 0.011 acres.
The existing bridge will be removed. Bridge demolition issues have been discussed with
agency personnel and resolved prior to this letter.
The Categorical Exclusion document prepared for the project includes several
environmental commitments. The NCDOT commits to the project construction between April
and November to minimize impacts on fish reproduction in the river and to minimize impacts on
school bus traffic.
A comprehensive archaeological survey has been conducted for this project. Two sites
were recorded during the survey. The SHPO has concurred with the results and
recommendations of the survey. A letter of concurrence from David Brook of SHPO has been
attached. Since Buncombe County is designated a trout county by the Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), NCDOT requests comments from WRC to be sent directly to the Corps of
Engineers (COE).
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). A copy of this document has been attached to this letter.
The NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to
proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23, 33 and 12 in accordance with 33 CFR 330
issued by the COE. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.
The NCDOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved CE
will apply to this project. A copy of the CE document has also been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Ms.
Shannon Simpson at ext. 332.
Sincerely,
/,/, C- -
William D. Gillmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analyses
WDG/sls
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Legget, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Ray Arnold, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Mark Davis, NCWRC
Mr. W. D. Smart, Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, Division 13 Environmental Officer
Mr. John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1/10/2000
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 23, 33,
and 12
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development and
Environmental Analysis
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
r
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Buncombe NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Swannanoa
I
2
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: French Broad
Swannanoa River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
Swannanoa River is a trout water
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ I NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [XI IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: NA
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0 acres
f
3
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours)
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
FT
N/A FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: See cover letter for details. Temporary placement of rip rap
in surface waters for a causeway and placement of a water pipe which
crosses the river.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See cover letter for details. Bridge No. 512 will be replaced
on new alignment. The existing bridge will be removed. Temporary
placement of Class II Rip Rap to facilitate the movement of heavy
machinery (backhoe, heavy duty trucks, dozer) will be needed if water
levels rise. A water pipe will be placed parallel to SR 2435 and
crosses the river adjacent to the proposed bridge.
c
4
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge Replacement
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project is water dependent. Minimization efforts are outlined in
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see CE (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See CE
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [ ] NO [X]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [ ] NO [X]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].

5
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR
1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
. L . a ? b- '/ ru 1 1ol2oo.
OWNER'S/AGENT' S SIGNAT URE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
October 7, 1999
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1543
Division of Archives and History
1ellrey 1. Crow, Director
Re: Bridge #512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River, B-2931, Buncombe County, ER 95-9035, ER 00-7379
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1999 transmitting die report of test excavations for the above project from Coastal
Carolina Research.
The testing indicated that site 31BN662 does not contain significant information and is recommended as not eligible for listing
on the National Register of Historic Places. We concur with this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of die National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800, and to
Executive Order 11593, "Protection uid Enliancement of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
LDIavi4d-13roo?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:bjs
cc: Claggett/Moore
Loretta Lautzenheiser, Coastal Carolina Reserrch
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Lucatiun \lailin \ddress -
\DNIINI-STIt.\TION :07 N 1311nWnt St., Raleigh NC -11,17 `.Ltil Servic, Centar
,\RC LAEOLOCY .21 N. fhl„unt St., R:tleii lh `;C 1017 `.;ail Cent,;r
RESTORATION S 15 N fll„unt St- R.J,;i;h ';C 1613 '.1ad Seri;,: C.-wer
SI I Z \ 1-1Y & 1'L.\NNINC : I? N 19L,unt St lialcigli `.C 101! '.L,il S.nn:a C:nt?r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh NC 76')9-1617
Ral.:iyh NC 27699-4619
R.dl ti t NC 27699.1613
RA,:igh NC 27699-1,13
Telephone/Pas
[phone]:733-8653
[phone]:715-2671
(91))733.6517 715-1801
19:'1)713-051` 715-1801

Buncombe County
SR 2435
Bridge No. 512 Over Swannanoa River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2435(1)
State Project No. 8.2843101
T.I.P. No. B-2931
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE JdH. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE N ch s L. Gra , P. E.
Fpr Division Administrator, FHWA
Buncombe County
SR 2435
Bridge No. 512 Over Swannanoa River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2435(1)
State Project No. 8.2843101
T.I.P. No. B-2931
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
NOVEMBER 1996
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Engineer
'L 4,4 -4 _4.4?j Z' L_a
a s ang, Ph.D., P.E.
?rhsident
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. Gail rimes, t.E, Unit Head
Consultant Engiring Unit
amen A. Buck, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Buncombe County
SR 2435
Bridge No. 512 Over Swannanoa River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2435(1)
State Project No. 8.2843101
T.I.P. No. B-2931
Bridge No. 512 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1997-
2003 Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Construction will be scheduled between April and November to minimize impacts on fish
reproduction in the river and to minimize impacts on school bus traffic.
3. During construction a school bus turnaround point or a safe walk zone will be established on
the southwest side of the bridge for the elementary school children who live in that area.
4. Location of any required deck drains will be determined during final design phase.
5. A comprehensive archaeological survey will be conducted within the APE for the proposed
project prior to right of way acquisition.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 512 will be replaced on new alignment within the existing corridor as illustrated in
Figure 2. It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 9.6 m (32 ft) and
an approximate length of 64 m (200 ft).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders,
including 1.2 m (4 ft) paved shoulders.
During construction, traffic will be maintained on an off site detour along existing roads.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,025,000 including $175,000 for right-of-way
and $850,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT
1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $1,190,000 including $40,000 for right-of-
way and $1,150,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 2435 is classified as a urban collector route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. Land use is primarily residential and commercial in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. SR 2436 (River Road) intersects SR 2435 approximately 61 m (200 ft) northeast of the
bridge and SR 2435 intersects US 70 approximately 180 m (600 ft) southwest of the bridge.
There are narrow bridge warning signs on each approach.
This section of SR 2435 is designated as a bicycle route on the Buncombe County Bicycle
Suitability Map. SR 2435 is used by bicyclists traveling to and from Swannanoa.
The southwest approach is on a horizontal tangent for approximately 46 m (150 ft) before
curving to the west with a 260 m radius (6.75 degree) curve to intersect with US 70. The
northeast approach is a 100 m radius (18 degree) curve that ends at the bridge. The vertical
alignment is relatively level. The bridge is within corporate limits and the speed limit is not
posted; therefore, assumed to be a statutory speed of 50 km/h (35 mph).
The projected traffic volume is 5250 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 6690 vpd for the
design year 2017. The volumes includes one percent tractor-trailer semi-trailers (TTST) and
three percent dual-tired vehicles (Dual) . The weight limit is not posted.
Near the bridge, SR 2435 has a 4.9 m (16.2 ft) pavement width with 1.0 m (3 ft) shoulders. The
roadway is approximately 7.2 m (24 ft) above the creek bed.
The existing bridge was built in 1920 (Figure 3). The overall length of the bridge is 39.0 m (128
ft). The clear roadway width is 5.4 m (17.8 ft). The superstructure consists of reinforced
concrete deck girders with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced
concrete abutments and piers.
Bridge No. 512 has a sufficiency rating of 45.6, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
No accidents were reported within the project area during the period from January 1, 1992 to
December 31, 1994.
The City of Asheville, Water Engineering Department, has a 0.2 m (8 inch) water line crossing
the creek under Bridge No. 512. This pipeline is visible from the bank, lying on the creek bottom
approximately 4.5 m (15 ft) downstream from and parallel to the bridge.
According to the Metropolitan Sewerage District (MSD) of Buncombe County, a 0.5 m (21 inch)
sewer line located east of the bridge. Manhole covers are visible in the southeast and northeast
quadrants.
Overhead telephone lines and powerlines cross the bridge on all corners. Utility impacts will be
low.
Buncombe County school buses cross the bridge thirty (30) times daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 512 include a new bridge approximately 64 m
(200 ft) in length that will accommodate a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 1.2 m (4 ft) shoulders.
The approach roadway will consist of a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders,
including 1.2 m (4 ft) paved shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and as follows:
Alternate A (Recommended): Replace the existing bridge on new alignment within the existing
corridor on a 440 m radius (4 degree curve). SR 2436 and SR 2435 from the southwest will be
a through movement and SR 2435 from the east will be stop sign controlled at the intersection.
SR 2435 approach work will extend approximately 182 m (600 ft) northeast and 100 m (330 ft)
southwest of the proposed bridge. Traffic during construction will be detoured along existing
roads.
Alternate B: Replace the bridge at existing location with roadclosure. Traffic will be
maintained by an off-site detour along existing roads. A horizontal design exception will be
required due to the existing 100 m radius (18 degree curve) on the northeast approach to the
bridge. This alternate will maintain the existing 50 km/h (30 mph) design speed.
Approximately 76 m (250 ft) of approach work will be required on SR 2435 on both sides of the
bridge.
Other Alternates:
Replacing the bridge at existing location with an on-site detour is not desirable due to excessive
cost, undesirable environmental consequences and two relocations.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2435.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternates studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B
$ 16,220 $ 16,220
$ 368,640 $ 368,640
$ 181,040 $ 149,740
$ 174,100 $ 160,400
$ 110,000 $ 105,000
$ 175,000 $ 165,000
TOTAL $ 1,025,000 $ 965,000
3
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An eight month road closure period is anticipated. Traffic will be detoured on SR 2435, SR
2727 , and US 70 an approximate distance of 1.6 kilometers (1.0 miles). The roadway, traffic
lights and bridge are adequate to accommodate detoured traffic during the construction period.
The Buncombe County Director of Transportation has requested that NCDOT during
construction provide a "school bus turnaround or a safe walk zone" south of the bridge, so
transportation services can be furnished to the elementary children who live in this area.
Construction will be scheduled between April and November to minimize impacts on fish
reproduction in the river and to minimize impacts on school bus traffic.
Provision of an on-site detour is undesirable due to impacts to the trout waters, costs
associated with the on-site detour and two relocatees.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Because of the better design and lesser impacts, Bridge No. 512 will be replaced on new
alignment (Alternate A) within the existing corridor. The design speed will be 80 km/h ( 50 mph)
in the project vicinity.
A 9.6 m (32 ft) clear roadway width will be provided on the replacement structure in accordance
with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy and AASHTO's standard bicycle accommodations. This
will provide a 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 1.2 m (4 ft) shoulders across the structure.
A 7.2 m (24 ft) travelway with 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders, including 1.2 m (4 ft) paved shoulders, will
be provided on the proposed approaches.
The major traffic pattern at the intersection of SR 2435 and SR 2436 will be revised. The
existing SR 2435 traffic pattern is a through movement with an 18 degree curve approaching
the bridge from the northeast and SR 2436 intersecting half-way through the curve. The
existing SR 2436 is stop sign controlled. The intersection will be realigned to improve the sight
distance at the intersection and the northeastern approach to the bridge. SR 2435 from the
east will be stop sign controlled. SR 2436 will be a through movement at the intersection of SR
2436 and SR 2435 (see Figure 2).
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced on new
alignment.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 64 m (200 ft). The elevation of the new
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. Cofferdam sheeting may be
required for bridge footings in water. The length and height of the bridge may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic
studies.
4
VIII. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project lies within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province in Buncombe County
(Figure 1) in the town of Swannanoa, North Carolina. Buncombe County's major economic
resources include agriculture, industry and tourism.
Methodology
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: United States Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Oteen, 1990); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200);
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Buncombe County (1981); U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); National Wetlands Inventory Map (Oteen, 1995); FWS list of protected species
and federal species of concern (1996); and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats (1996). Research using these resources was conducted
prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 27, 1996.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows).
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 24.4 m
(80.0 ft) wide right-of-way limits, the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of
the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific
replacement structure design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the worst case was assumed for
the impact calculations.
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: "project study area", "project
area", and "project corridor" denote the specific area being directly impacted by each
alternative. "Project vicinity" denotes the area within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) radius of the project
area.
Topography and Soils
The topography of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills to flat in some places.
Project area elevation is approximately 670 m (2200 ft).
This portion of Buncombe County contains soils from the Tate-Urban land association. The
Tate-Urban land mapping unit consists of Tate soils and Urban land on alluvial fans, terraces,
footslopes and benches. Tate soils have a dark brown loam surface layer 22.86 centimeters (9
inches thick) with a yellowish brown sandy clay loam subsoil 1.0 m (3.0 ft). Urban land is land
covered by streets, parking lots, houses and other closely spaced structures associated with
urban areas.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the French Broad River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
The Swannanoa River (stream index no. 6-78) is a perennial tributary within the French Broad
River basin. The stream banks are variable in height from 0.15 m (0.5 ft) upstream (south) of
the bridge to 1.2 m (4.0 ft) high in the northwest quadrant. Vegetation along the banks includes
river birch and mountain laurel. The Swannanoa flows northeast through the proposed project
area with a width of 32 m (105 ft) at Bridge No. 512. The depth of the river was approximately
0.2 to 0.6 m (0.5 to 2.0 ft) on the day of the investigation. The Swannanoa River has a Class C
rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the
creek's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map for Buncombe County (1980) indicates the project area lies in Zone A (see Figure 4).
The NCDEM does not maintain a macroinvertebrate sampling station within the project area.
There is a sampling station on the Swannanoa River at Azalea Road approximately 12.8 river
kilometers (8.0 mi.) downstream from the project area. Another sampling station is located
more than 16 river kilometers (10 mi.) downstream at US 25 in Asheville. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as some benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic sample
based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different ecoregions (mountains,
piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina. Data for the Swannanoa River taken at Azalea Road
in January 1993 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 31 which is a bioclassification of good-
fair. Data from the US 25 station taken in July 1992 indicated an EPT taxa richness value of 27,
which has a bioclassification of "Good-Fair".
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The scores
derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody and may not
necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable to high elevation trout
streams, lakes or estuaries. Data for the Swannanoa River at US 25 in June 1993 indicated an
NCIBI score of 44, which has an integrity class of "Fair".
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission( NCWRC) the Swannanoa
River is Hatchery Supported Public Mountain Trout Waters (PMTW). Although no current fish
sampling data was available, this river supports some wild trout, according to NCWRC. Data
collected in 1964 and reported by the Division of Inland Fisheries (Fish, 1968) indicate that, at
the time, Swannanoa River's ecological classification was "E/C smallmouth", indicating the
presence of smallmouth bass, rock bass and crayfish.
The Buncombe County Watershed Ordinance provides regulations to limit the exposure of
watersheds in Buncombe County to pollution. The Critical Area is defined as being one-half
mile from a lake or where water is taken from a river. According to James Coman of the
Buncombe County Planning and Development Department, there is no watershed associated
with Bridge No. 512, thus the Swannanoa River is not within a Critical Area and restrictions
outlined in this Watershed Ordinance will not be applicable to the replacement of this structure.

6
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of
the project study area.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and mountain levee forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas are discussed under the community description. Many species are adapted to the entire
range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in
each community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the residential lawn in the southwest quadrant, and a
paved RV park in the northwest quadrant (Figure 2). Many plant species are adapted to these
disturbed and regularly maintained areas. The lawn is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.),
ryegrass (Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild
onion (Allium canadense), and common plantain (Plantago rugelil). Around the perimeter of the
lawn and the paved RV park, are a few sparse trees including American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia), with dogwood (Comus florida) and
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) in the understory.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, including vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds) and
living and dead faunal components. Although only a raccoon (Procyon loto?) and an American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) were observed during the site visit, the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), the Northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are often attracted to these
disturbed habitats.
Mountain Levee Forest Community
This forested community occurs along the Swannanoa River in the northeast and southeast
quadrant. The dominant canopy trees includes American sycamore, river birch, tulip poplar,
American beech, mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and black willow (Salix nigra). The
understory consists of dogwood, ironwood, and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia). The shrub
and herbaceous layers are sparse and include species such as blackberry (Rubus sp.), dog's
hobble (Leucothoe fontanasiana) and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Although not observed during the site visit, the animals previously listed may be found in this
community along with the Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within the Swannanoa River. Within the
project area the Swannanoa River is approximately 32 m (105 ft) wide. On the day of the field
investigation, the river was 0.2 to 0.6 m (0.5 to 2.0 ft) deep. The water was fast moving and
turbid and the stream bottom was only visible in a few shallow areas. The bottom consists of a
fine micaceous silt with some cobbles and boulders. The cobbles and boulders are covered
with silt and algae probably from upstream sediment and nutrient runoff.
Animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), Northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) may
reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as catfish (Ictalurus spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp. ),
and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieut) likely inhabit the river. Due to the large size,
depth, and silt laden conditions of this river, macroinvertebrates such as the mayfly
(Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would be confined to
the shallow rocky areas and snag habitats along the creek banks. The macroinvertebrate fauna
within the channel may be dominated by chironomid larvae (midges) and oligochaetes
(segmented worms). No macroinvertebrates were observed within the project area during the
site investigation.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic communities by habitat type. Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations
exhibiting steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as
a consequence of erosion. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, as applicable, will be implemented to ensure sediment does not leave the
construction site.
8
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
HECTARE (ACRE)
Bridge No. 512 Man- Mountain Aquatic Combined Total
Replacement Dominated Levee Community
Impacts Community Community
Alternative A 0.87 (2.15) 0.01 (0.03) 0.08 (0.19) 0.96 (2.37)
(Recommended)
Alternative B 0.83 (2.06) 0.10 (0.24) 0.08 (0.19) 1.01 (2.49)
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Of the two terrestrial communities in the project area, the man-dominated community will
receive the greatest impact from construction, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the Swannanoa River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.08 hectare (0.19 acre) of stream
bottom. This represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance may be less. The new
replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the
river in the short term. Impacts to the stream community are not confined to the 0.08 hectare
(0.19 acre) impact zone. Construction related sedimentation can be harmful to local
populations of invertebrates which are an important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential
adverse effects will be minimized through the implementation of the NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable, and the use of erosion
and sediment control measures as specified in the NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Contract Construction (January 1995).
SPECIAL TOPICS
Jurisdictional Issues
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
9
Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Swannanoa River has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Project
construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters. Up to
0.08 hectare (0.19 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts may occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 512.
Permits
A Nationwide Permit No. 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to Waters
of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency
or department where:
1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act;
2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice to the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
The NCWRC made several potential recommendations pertaining to the permit application for
this project in an April 10, 1996 memorandum (see Appendix). Since the proposed project is
located in a designated "Trout" county, the authorization of a Nationwide Permit by the COE is
conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation will include test
borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining samples for laboratory testing.
This may require test borings in streams. The NCDOT will apply for Nationwide Permit No. 6
authorization for this activity. Nationwide Permit No. 6 authorizes "survey activities including
core sampling, seismic exploratory operations, and plugging of seismic shot holes and other
exploratory-type bore holes".
Mitigation
Since this project will not impact jurisdictional wetlands, compensatory mitigation will not be
required. However, mitigation requirements on projects covered by Nationwide permits are left
up to the discretion of the USACOE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline either due to natural
forces or due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for
10
Buncombe County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists eleven
federally protected species for Buncombe County as of August 23, 1996, (see Table 2).
i
,i
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status
(Common Name)
A/asmidonta raveneliana E
(Appalachian elktoe)
Falco peregrinus E
(Peregrine falcon)
Felis conco/or cougar E
(Eastern cougar)
G/aucomys sabrinus co/oratus E
(Carolina northern flying squirrel)
Geum radiatum E
(Spreading avens)
Gymnoderma lineare E
(Rock gnome lichen)
Hybopsis monacha T*
(Spotfin chub)
Myotis grisescens E***
(Gray bat)
Sagittaria fasciculata E*
(Bunched arrowhead)
Sarracenia jonesii E"
(Mountain sweet pitcher-plant)
Spiraea virginiana T
(Virginia spiraea)
NOTES: Indicates no specimens have been found in this county for at least 20 years.
Indicates an incidental/migrant record (the species was observed outside of its normal range or
habitat.)
T Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range)
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.)
11
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to 8.0 cm (3.2
inches). Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juvenile
have a yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina; the Nolichucky River
(including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and the Little Tennessee
River and its tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse
sandy substrates.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Appalachian elktoe as it requires silt
free substrates. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this
Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The peregrine falcon is a bird of prey having long pointed wings, dark blue or slate barred
underparts, pale bluish bills, yellow cere and feet, black top of head and cheeks contrasting with
a white throat and sides of neck. The tail is long, narrow, blue-gray and rounded with narrow
black bands and a broad subterminal bar is tipped white.
Historically, the peregrine falcon was a cosmopolitan species ranging from Alaska and
Greenland south through the Americas to Argentina. However, worldwide populations were
reduced during the 1950's and 1960's due to the use of DDT. The peregrine falcon nests on
cliffs, bluffs, talus slopes, pinnacles, and in the hollows of old trees or in old nests of eagles,
hawks, and ravens. In winter, the peregrine falcon forages in coastal ponds and mudflats.
No habitat exists in the project area for the peregrine falcon. Since no cliffs, bluffs, or
tall buildings exist in the area for the falcon to use to nest, it can be concluded that the
project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Cougars are tawny colored with the exception of the muzzle, the backs of the ears, and the tip
of the tail, which are black. In North Carolina, the cougar is thought to occur in only a few
scattered areas, possibly including coastal swamps and the southern Appalachian mountains.
The eastern cougar is found in large remote wilderness areas where there is an abundance of
their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 40
kilometers (25 miles), and they are most active at night.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the eastern cougar. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
12
The Carolina northern flying squirrel has a large well furred flap of skin along either side of its
body. This furred flap of skin is connected at the wrist in the front and at the ankle in the rear.
The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from tree to
tree. It is solely nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North
Carolina, along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found at elevations above 1524 m (5000
ft) in the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types
are used to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. Since
the project area elevation is approximately 670 m (2200 ft), it can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are
kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee section of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant has been found to occur at
elevations of 1535-1541 m (5060-5080 ft), 1723-1747 m (5680-5760 ft) and 1759 m (5800 ft).
Other habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These
soils contain a composition of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam and clay loam. Most
populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the spreading avens. Since the project area
elevation is approximately 670 m (2200 ft), it can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies which are born singly or in clusters, black in color, and are found
at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high
humidity environments occur on high elevation (1220 m/ 4000 ft) mountaintops and cliff faces
which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (762 m/2500 ft) deep gorges in the
Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is
almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The
major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alternation/loss of
13
high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forest usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe,
Avery, Buncombe, Graham, Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The lower elevation
habitat of the rock gnome lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and
Transylvania.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the rock gnome lichen. Since the project
area elevation is approximately 670 m (2200 ft), it can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The spotfin chub is a small species growing to a maximum size of 92 millimeters (0.36 inches)
standard length. The body is elongate and the mouth is inferior. The scales are somewhat
small in size and a distinctive large black spot is present in the caudal region. Juveniles and
adult females are olive above with the sides silvery and the underparts white. Males have
brilliant turquoise-royal blue coloring on the back, side of the head, and along the mid-lateral
part of the body.
The spotfin chub is restricted to the Tennessee River drainage and presently is only known in
North Carolina in the Little Tennessee River. The spotfin chub inhabits moderate to large
streams, 15 to 70 m (4.5 to 21 ft) average width, with a good current, clear water, and cool to
warm temperatures. These streams have pools frequently alternating with riffles. The fish has
been taken from a variety of substrates, although rarely , if ever, from significantly silted
substrates.
No habitat exists in project area for the spotfin chub as it requires clear, silt free waters.
I t can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The gray bat is the largest member of its genus in the eastern United States, weighing from 7
to 16 grams. Its forearm ranges from 40 to 46 millimeters (0.16 to 0.18 inches) in length. The
uni-colored dorsal fur distinguishes this species from all other eastern bats. Also, the gray bat's
wing membrane connects to the foot at the ankle instead of at the base of the first toe, as in
other species of Myotis.
Gray bat colonies are restricted entirely to caves or cave-like habitats. During the summer, the
bats are highly selective for caves providing specific temperature and roost conditions. Usually
these caves are all located within a kilometer of a river or reservoir. In winter, gray bats utilize
only deep, vertical caves having a temperature of 6 to 11 degrees Centigrade (43 to 52 degree
F).
No habitat exists in the project area for the gray bat since no caves are within the project
study area. It can be concluded that the subject project will not impact this Endangered
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
14
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has spatulate leaves that
steam from the base of the plant. The erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers
on it, the male being above the female. Flowers of bunched arrowhead are present from April
to June.
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping bogs with a slow, continuous flow of
cool, clean water, underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water temperatures are variable, soil
and water pHs are between 4.8 and 6.6, and water depths are constant. These plants occur
naturally in shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas and have smaller, less
vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as sandy loam below a muck layer ranging in depth
from 25 to 60 cm (9.8 to 23.6 inches).
No habitat exists in the project study area for the bunched arrowhead. Due to the swift
flow and silt laden conditions in this portion of the Swannanoa River, it can be
concluded that the subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this
plant grow erect and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet shaped, almost
tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood. Pitchers are a waxy dully green color and
reticulately veined with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely haired and
usually partially filled with liquid and decaying insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are
borne singly on erect stapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present during late May
and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitch-plant is found in bogs and streams in southwestern North Carolina
and northwestern South Carolina. This habitat is characterized by deep, poorly drained
wetlands with soils that are combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic content and
medium to high acidic pH. Sites are intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant is an early
successional plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation, periodic fire, and ice damage to
maintain its habitat.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the mountain sweet pitcher-plant since no
wetlands exist within the project area. It can be concluded that the subject project will
not impact this Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The Virginia spiraea has arching and upright stems that grow from 1.0 to 3.0 m (3 to 10 ft) tall.
Virginia spiraea often grows in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size,
shape, and degree and serration. They are green above and usually somewhat glaucous
below. The cream colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in branched,
flattoped inflorenscences. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late fall while herbaceous
growth is minimal and the leaves are down.
Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the mountains of North Carolina.
Habitats for the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams, on meander scrolls,
point bars, natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour must be sufficient to
15
prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely remove small, woody species.
The species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various other
disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in area with full sunlight, but can survive
in shaded areas until it is released from competition.
No habitat exists in the project study area for the Virginia spiraea. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Threatened species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species,
or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Table 3 includes FSC species listed for Buncombe County and their state classifications.

TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat Present
(Common Name) Status
Myotis leibii SC No
(Eastern small-footed myotis)
Aimophila aestivalis SC No
(Bachman's sparrow)
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii SC No
(Rafinesque's big-eared bat)
Sorex palustris punctulatus SC No
(Southern water shrew)
Neotoma floridana haematoreia SC No
(Southern Appalachian woodrat)
Dendroica ceru/ea SR Yes
(Cerulean warbler)
Clemmys muhlenbergii T No
(Bog turtle)
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis SC Yes
(Hellbender)
16
i
v
l?
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
(continued)
Percina macrocephala SC No
(Longhead darter)
Polyodon spathula E No
(Paddlefish)
Cambarus reburrus SR Yes
(French Broad crayfish)
Thryomanes bewickii altus E No
(Appalachian Bewick's wren)
Speyeria diana SR No
(Diana fritillary butterfly)
Phycoides batesii SR No
(Tawny crescent butterfly)
Juglans cinerea NL Yes
(butternut)
Calamagrostis cainii E No
(Cain's reedgrass)
Senecio millefolium T No
(Divided-leaf ragwort)
Saxifraga caroliniana C No
(Carolina saxifrage)
Abies fraseri NL No
(Fraser fir)
Hexastylis rhombiformis C Yes
(French Broad heartleaf)
Lilium grayi T-SC No
(Gray's lily)
Silene ovata C No
(Mountain catchfly)
17

TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
(continued)
Hexastylis contracta E Yes
(Mountain heartleaf)
Buckleya distichophylla E No
(Piratebush)
Monotropsis odorata C Yes
(Sweet pinesap)
Lysimachia fraseri E No
(Fraser's loosestrife)
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatoloba C Yes
(Pinnate-lobed black-eyed susan)
Euphorbia purpurea C No
(Glade spurge)
NOTES:
C Denotes Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and
needing population monitoring).
T Denotes Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
E Denotes Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SC Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Denotes Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation
action is recommended).
NL denotes species whose status is not listed at this time.
NCNHP database indicated one Federal species of concern, Appalachian bewick's wren
(Thryomanes bewickii altus), documented occurrence within the project vicinity. No individuals
were observed at the time of the site visit. No impacts to protected species will result from any
of the proposed project.
18
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded limited state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. The NCNHP records indicate seventeen state-listed protected
species for Buncombe County (see Table 4), that were not listed on the USFWS list of Federal
protected species and federal species of concern (FSC).
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Scientific Name Status Habitat
(Common Name) Present
Aegolius acadicus SC Yes
(Northern saw-whet owl)
Ambystoma talpoideum SC No
(Mole salamander)
Apalone spinifera spinifera SC No
(Eastern spiny softshell)
Coragyps atratus SC Yes
(Black vulture)
Hemidactylium scutatum SC No
(Four-toed salamander)
Necturus maculosus SC No
(Mudpuppy)
Parus atricapillus SC Yes
(Black-capped chickadee)
Percina burtoni E No
(Blotchside darter)
Plethodon dorsalis SC No
(Zigzag salamander)
19
TABLE 4
STATE PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY
(continued)
Regulus satrapa SC No
(Golden-crowned kinglet)
Sorex dispar Sc No
(Long-tailed shrew)
Sorex hoyi winnemana SC No
(Southern pygmy shrew)
Filipendula rubra E No
(Queen-Of-The-Prairie)
Hydrastis canadensis E/SC No
(Goldenseal)
Juncus trifidus E No
(Highland rush)
Pamassia grandifolia C/PT No
(Large-leaved grass-of-parnassus)
Senecio shweinitzianus E No
(Schweinitz's ragwort)
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range)
T Denotes Threatened(species which are afforded protection by state laws)
C Denotes Candidate(species which are considered by the state as being rare and needing
population monitoring)
Sc Denotes Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws.)
PT Denotes Proposed Threatened(species which are proposed for official listing as
threatened)
Habitat is present in the project area for three state protected species. No individuals were
observed at the time of the site visit. NCNHP database did not document any occurrences of
state protected species within the project vicinity.
20
IX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a Concurrence Form, dated April 11, 1996, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potential effect. A copy
of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated April 4, 1996, requested a comprehensive survey be
conducted for any alternative on new alignment. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included
in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project will be conducted prior to
right-of-way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted by the FHWA to the SHPO
for review. Further consultation will be conducted if necessary.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocates are expected with
implementation of the proposed Alternate A.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project
will impact farmland soils and to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.
Inasmuch as the SCS did not respond within the 45 days, in accordance with SCS Regulation
(7 CFR 658.4(a)), the Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply to this project.
21
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Buncombe County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Buncombe County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
detailed 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain
area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
22
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North
America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, R.J. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Feb. 1996. List of Rare Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters of the New River Basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Preston, R.J. and V.G. Wright. Identification of Southeastern Trees in Winter. North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.1981.
General Soil Map Buncombe County, North Carolina.
23
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992 (updated 1996). Endangered and Threatened
Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeastern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. August 23, 1996. List of Endangered and Threatened
Species of North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeastern Region, Atlanta,
Georgia.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Oteen
quadrangle.
United States Geological Survey. 1990. Topographic map - Oteen quadrangle.
Wherry, E.T. 1995. The Fern Guide to Northeastern and Midland United States and adjacent
Canada. Dover Publications, New York.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
24
1
F:a u xs
¦ >L .

mAt 4q*4
? ? 4
kAiii

Y
i
5 £

Z 45 ? `.

I d 3? ?
?
j
?
f b

m ?
Cyr.

F
T
i
' d
L
1
,
'?(
YES
,(
x%
1'1

-?
z
m
?. ©
irn

AV'
'r•
ZcS,A?`??av
RP, r°

e

Z.

A. N
EMY
3
Nt y M
3 ?
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 512
B-2931
LOOKING NORTHEAST
LOOKING SOUTHWEST
LOOKING NORTHWEST
DOWNSTREAM
FIGURE 3A
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 512
B-2931
SR 2435 NORTHEAST
APPROACH
INTERSECTION OF
SR 2435 AND SR 2436
FIGURE 3B
r
N
SCALE 1:12000
0 500 1000
meters
FIGURE 4
BUNCOMBE
COUNTY
B-2931
ZONE A
259 ???/? ?,? I l
\\
100 YEAR rn

FLOOD ZONE \
OLD U..
\\\ HIGHWAY
Z1 „7
/ 1
280\
.7
J M15,0 21
i?
S
\, an
i anoa
10 BRIDGE 512
I
HWY !i ``\ I
I-
11103

``

I I
NE
a0.
??k a
RM102
HWY
.1
1
ZONE C

II
?? ZONE B
II Q v
lilt .?_? ???

2189

181 co

SWAN
R/V6
? "
? ?' R
TIP # t - 2,11y1 Federal Aid # 1K 7- ' 'ZA3? County 6u"40M&E,
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
lF-G.Pi,A ?iairE I.ic. SPZ ewJ 41L 1A754- ?N'EC SwANN,i?dl. ?yEfL tO?C G?uP 1%)
On kPr?l? it 1'17(, , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
?- North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as PadPEtutEg # 2 ,w.?? b *NC gr-uoog ?J.. StZ-- are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
4/11/.J(,
L" ,z i
w , for the DivisV
Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Daie
Date
Re resentativ6,'SHPO at
State Historic Preservation Office are
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
?. Y
?S
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Flunt Jr.. Govcrnot
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highwpys
Department of Trans--p rtati?on,
FROM: David Brook L' GJV l y
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River, 8-
2931, Buncombe County, ER 96-8517
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
G?1VEp
1 \qah
?y? O?J?r'Nv^l ???s ?
tii NAG ??
?' ? ENVIR?
Thank you for your letter of March 11, 1996, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structure of historical or architectural importance within the general area of this
project:
Bridge 512 was constructed in 1920.
We recommend that an architectural historian on your staff identify and evaluate
any structures over fifty years of age within the project area, and report the
findings to us.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the
location or significance of archaeological resources. We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should
be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities. The survey is
necessary only if a new alignment is selected.
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.
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Public Schools
- ? Buncombc County
Transportation Department
74 Washington Avenuc
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Phone: [phone] -Fax: [phone]
C E
April 3. 1996
O
APR R 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick. P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch DiVISIC'V of
North Carnlina Den?rt,mert of Tr?rsportatinr GHw?
P. 0. Box 25201 YS
?L`??RvN;?t p
Raleigh. NC 27611-5201
RE: Replacement of Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
Swannanoa River in Buncombe County
Dear Mr. Vick:
I am writing in response to your request concerning the number of school buses that
cross bridge number 512 in Buncombe County. Fifteen school buses currently cross
this bridge twice daily: however, these buses can be rerouted across bridge number
190 at the Swannanoa traffic light.
We will need the assistance of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) in one area before the bridge is closed. There are at least five elementary
school children who live on the southwest side of the bridge on Wray Avenue, and
between the bridge and U.S. 70. A school bus turnaround point will need to be
established on the southwest side of the bridge or a safe walk zone provided; so
transportation services can be furnished to the elementary children who live in this
area while the bridge is under construction.
Please notify our department at the address above, when a date has been set for the
beginning of this project. This will allow us sufficient time to establish new bus
routes with the schools that are affected, and the opportunity to work with the NCDOT
to meet the needs of those students who live on the southwest side of the bridge.
If you need further information. please contact me at the address or telephone number
listed above.
Sincerely.
i:7
Harold F. Laflin
Director of Transportation
A
• RELOCATION REPORT
E.I.S. CORRIDOR FIDESIGN

North Carolina Depspent of Transportation
r: 2
? + • • ` RELOCATION OFFICE
,.0- n'!
PR J
ECI: COUNTY
e, I

relate of Alternate
he
_
I.D. NO.: F. ROJE
DESCRIPTIO F PROJECT':
/05 4N*t9 '4
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals ..?-- ---- - ?'- ?--- ?-
Families O --
Businesses VALUE OF DWEI.rING DSS DWELLnva AVAILABLE
Farms -- - - Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit - r.-- 0-20M SO-150 0- 20M .?-- $0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
150-25o
20-40M
15o-ie
Ye. No Explain aU "YES" answers. 10-70M .? 250-100 10-70M 250-100
I. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 100-60 70-100M 100-6 0
2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 600 ur 100 up 600 UP
displacement? TOTAL
3. Will business services still be available after RmAUrcie (Respond b Number
project? xx
3 W i ( /1(Jl e is
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
7 C -e c -
,o P,4,4 ?C.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? l?t f ,u 4 L Ae
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Giq? c
4
'
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? ? Pe
e S?S/ A / OV 1
t?• S?? /-f/11ti?
G
? r T"h
10. Will public housing be needed for project? ,
IL Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period? 44 d A/ Pe 0% A%N 1"V
13. Will there be a problem of housing withi
financial means? n
n
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source). f
N
? ?
15. Number of months estimated to com fete ?
/yv
r AI
relocation? mea eW,6,/C
/1 O e e,4 2,5fns I`l e- lh7 fiAS A O 'I?IV -Ar m 1' -e /f4 Y, Ml414?
/' ,,,/ Is /I (-C' ?

2 S 7 7-
ZZ
- e
?.
Relocation ent ate Approved by - Date
Fm 15 4 Reaaa 990
Original & I Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
11 RELOCATION RET'OR'T
North Carolina Department of Transportalit
AREA RELOCATION OFFI(
E.I.S. CORRIDOR FIDESIGN
PR U-M COUN'T'Y _ At mate of 2 Alternat
I. D. NO.: R ROLE
0014
S
?
DESCRit-r iO F PROJECT: /
!d

.... ...
ESTiMA7Rb n.RPLACEES

. -
INCOME LEVEL
..
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
E25-35M
35-50M
50 UI
Individuals .?-.-- -?-- '- "'-- ?-

rannilies - ? '
Businesses ?1 VALUE OF DWELI.IIV(3 :.::: :: : DSS DwE1.i.tN6 AVAILABLE
Farms ?--- -- - Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit _
_ 0-20m -?- so-ISO 0-20M S.0-150
0
-256
2010M . 150-250 20-40M 15
veq No
Explain aU "}ES" answers.
10-70ht .?- 250-100 _ 10-70M ,- 25OA00
Will special relocntion services be necessary? 70-100M 100-600 70-100M 100-600
2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 tM 600 UP 100 UP -" 600 UP
displacement? torn L /
3. Will business services still be available after k" Am Res and b Number
project?
4. Will any business be displaced? lfso,

5. indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
Will relocation cause a housing shortage? /

4
6. Source for available housing (list). 1
7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Ilousing be considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
l l . Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing witlwn
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number of months estimated to complete
relocation?

004
'oe
J
Date
Reloc on ant ate roved b
Original & 1 Copy: 01° a "°'0%-v •e. "
F-" 15 A P..med 5190
2 Copy Area Relocdion Office
?P
1

APn 1 5 1996.
z
°wrsIC,V
tw OH/GHF
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 10, 1996
SUBJECT: Comments on Group IX Bridge Replacements, Alleghany, Cleveland, McDowell,
Buncombe, and Catawba Counties.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding eleven
proposed bridge replacements in western North Carolina. Biological field staff of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have reviewed the information in your letter dated 11 March 1996
and have examined our records fish sampling data.
Our comments on these projects are listed below. All species and common names follow
"Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada" by Robins et al. 1991
(American Fisheries Society Special Publication 20). Species listed in bold print are considered to be
intolerant to stream degradation under the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity used by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management to assess the biological integrity of streams.
B-2803 - Alleghany County, Bridge No. 52 over Little River, Bridge No. 56 over Pine Swamp Creek
Both the Little River and Pine Swamp Creek are designated Hatchery Supported Public Mountain
Trout Waters (PMTW) in the project area. We recently provided you with a memorandum dated
12 July 1995 with our scoping comments on this project (see attached).
B-2815 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
No fish data are available for Persimmon Creek, nor have we identified any special concerns
associated with this project.
B-2816 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. According to WRC
district files, the following fish species were collected in Buffalo Creek in 1980:
Group IX Page 2 April 10, 1996
Common Name
rosyside dace
bluehead chub
greenfin shiner
spottail shiner
yellowfin shiner
swallowtail shiner
Scientific Name
Canostomus funduloides
Nocomis leptocephalus
Cyprinella chloristius
Notropis hudsonius
Notropis lutipinnis
Notropis procne
sandbar shiner Notropis scepticus
creek chub Semodlus atromaculatus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Other species collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
gizzard shad Dorosoma cepe&wmm
rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
fieryblack shiner Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
highback chub Notropis hypsinotus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
redhorse Moxostoma sp.
bullhead Ameiurus sp.
pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
warmouth Lepomis gulosus
largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
B-2847 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. No fish sampling
data is available for Muddy Creek, but we would expect the species assemblage to be
similar to that of South Muddy Creek (see B-3002 below).
B-2931 - Buncombe County, Bridge No. 512 on SR 2435 over Swannanoa River
The Swannanoa River is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW at the project site. The
river also supports some wild trout. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced
with another spanning structure.
B-2940 - Catawba County, Bridge No. 82 on SR 1165 over Clark Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) collected the following
fish species in Clark Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
flat bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus
Group IX
redbreast sunfish
pumpkinseed
bluegill
largemouth bass
B-2941- Catawba Cou
Page 3 April 10, 1996
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus salmoides
aty, Bridge No. 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Menhinick of the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte collected the following species in 1991:
Common Name Scientific Name
common carp Cyprinus carpio
rosyside dace Canostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
white sucker Catostomus commersoni
silver (v-lip) redhorse Moxostoma anisurum
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
channel catfish k1alurus punctatus
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
B-2998 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 41 on SR 1147 over Second Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in the Second Broad River in 1988:
Common Name
fieryblack shiner
Santee chub
bluehead chub
highback chub
greenfin shiner
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
white sucker
striped jumprock
silver (v-lip) redho
flat bullhead
margined madtom
rock bass
redbreast sunfish
fantail darter
Scientific Name
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Cyprinella zamema
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis hypsinotus
Cyprinella chlorisdus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomus commersoni
Moxostoma rupiscartes
rse Moxostoma anisurum
Ameiurus platycephalus
Noturus insignis
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis auritus
Etheostoma Jlabellare
Group IX Page 4 April 10, 1996
B-2999 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. The following
fish data were collected by Messer et al. of the WRC in 1964:
Common Name
thicklip chub
fieryblack shiner
bluehead chub
yellowfin shiner
creek chub
redhorse
margined madtom
redbreast sunfish
bluegill
smallmouth bass
largemouth bass
Piedmont darter
seagreen darter
Scientific Name
Cyprinella labrosa
Cyprinella pyrrhomelas
Nocomis leptocephalus
Notropis lutipinnis
Semotilus atromaculatus
Moxostoma sp.
Noturus insignis
Lepomis auritus
Lepomis macrochirus
Micropterus dolomieu
Micropterus salmoides
Percina crassa
Etheostoma thalassinum
B-3002 - McDowell County, Bridge No. 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Schneider of the
DEM collected the following fish species in South Muddy Creek in 1993:
Common Name Scientific Name
rosyside dace Chnostomus funduloides
bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
greenhead shiner Notropis chlorocephalus
striped jumprock Moxostoma rupiscartes
margined madtom Noturus insignis
redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare
tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
Piedmont darter Percina crassa
Other species collected by Louder (1963) include:
central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum
creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
yellow perch Perca flavescens
B-3140 - Cleveland County, Bridge No. 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project. Fish sampling
data for Buffalo Creek are listed above under B-2816.
Group IX Page 5 April 10, 1996
Although we do not have any special concerns regarding several of these bridge
replacements, we recommend that the NCDOT incorporate the following measures into all bridge
replacement projects to minimize impacts to aquatic organisms:
1) Erosion controls should be installed where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
2) If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering water chemistry and causing a fish
kill.
3) Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants
into streams.
4) Multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts should be designed so that all water flows
through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
5) Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Katie Cirilis, Resource Southeast
?u , (I ?'a n5
M
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissi
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 29, 1995
AUG 3 1 V95
`, Otvlu!?y Gr
??Hrq.+rvAys . Q
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 512 on SR 2435 over the
Swannanoa River, Buncombe County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2931.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on
fish and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and our comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete roadway bridge. We
anticipate that a spanning structure will be required for the site, given the size of the
existing bridge. The Swannanoa River is managed as Hatchery Supported Public
Mountain Trout Waters in the project area, and the proposed work may impact habitat for
trout. Construction impacts on other fisheries and wildlife resources will depend on the
extent of disturbance in the stream bed and surrounding floodplain areas. Environmental
documentation for this project should include description of any wetlands on the project
site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by
construction.
Because Buncombe County is a "trout water county", the NCWRC anticipates
review of the environmental document for this project when a 404 permit application is
submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands be avoided. If wetland
areas are identified during project planning, alternatives to avoid or minimize impacts on
these areas should be examined during project design. Erosion and sedimentation control
measures should be implemented and maintained on the project, and all concrete work
B-2931 Memo Page 2 August 29, 1995
should occur in a dry work area. If possible, the project should be scheduled for
construction between April and November to minimise impacts on fish reproduction in the
river.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can fiuther assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 26, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
2 1,996
v' -ilGH1A?.Yb
-? air
V ?t?oN?
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Alleghany. Buncombe.
Catawba. Cleveland, and McDowell Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of March 11. 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (Service) Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office (we
received it on March 18. 1996). Our office handles project reviews and
requests of this nature for the western part of the state, including the
above-mentioned counties. The followina comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided in your letter, the following
bridges will be replaced: Bridge Numbers 52 and 56 on SR 1172 over the
little River (Alleghany County): Bridge Number 512 on SR 2435 over the
Swannanoa River (Buncombe County): Bridge Number 82 on SR 1165 over Clark
Creek (Catawba County): Bridge Number 94 on SR 1722 over McLin Creek
(Catawba County): Bridge Number 35 on SR 1001 over Persimmon Creek
(Cleveland County): Bridge Number 230 on SR 1908 over Buffalo Creek
(Cleveland County): Bridge Number 13 on NC 198 over Buffalo Creek
(Cleveland County): Bridge Number 65 on SR 1760 over Muddy Creek
(McDowell County): Bridge Number 41 on SR 1147 over the Second Broad
River (McDowell County): Bridge Number 317 on SR 1267 over Cove Creek:
and Bridge Number 60 on SR 1764 over South Muddy Creek.
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts
the proposed bridge replacement projects could have on federally listed
species and on Federal species of concern and (2) the potential impacts
to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project areas.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should
evaluate possible impacts to the following federally listed species
and/or Federal species of concern (these include aquatic animal species

2
known from a particular stream system for one of the proposed bridge
projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
Alle hang County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
This species generally is found beneath large flat stones or logs in
shallow clear-running streams and rivers. It is presently known
from at least one location in the Little River, 7 miles east of
Sparta.
Kanawha minnow (Phenocobius teretulus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to large clear streams within the New River
drainage of North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is
presently known from at least one location in the Little River,
0.5 mile downstream of the NC 18 bridge.
Buncombe County
Hellbender (Crvptobranchus alleganiensis) - Federal species of concern.
There is a record of this species in the Swannanoa River near Black
Mountain.
Spotfin chub (Hvbopsis monacha) - Federally threatened. A species
endemic to the Tennessee River drainage. The Little Tennessee River
presently supports the only extant population in North Carolina:
however. there is a historical record from the Swannanoa River in
Asheville.
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
This species is endemic to
occurs in the riffle areas
gravel substrates. There
the Little Tennessee River
River systems. There is a
River.
raveneliana) - Federally endangered.
the upper Tennessee River. It generally
of large rivers that have cobble and
are only a few extant populations left in
Toe River, Cane River, and Nolichucky
historical record from the Swannanoa
French Broad crayfish (Cambarus reburrus) - Federal species of concern.
This species is endemic to North Carolina and is known from the
headwater portions of the French Broad River and one stream in the
Savannah River drainage. It was once found in the Swannanoa River
near Black Mountain.
French Broad heartleaf (Hexastvlis rhombiformis) - Federal species of
concern. This species is generally found in association with other
acidophiles, such as ericaceacous shrubs, hemlock, rhododendron, and
mountain Laurel.
3
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) - Federally threatened. This
species occurs within the scour zone on the banks of high-gradient
streams or on braided features such as point bars, natural levees,
or meander scrolls of the lower reaches of streams. It may occur
within the floodplain, but it is most often found at the water's
edge. There is a historical record of this species along Hominy
Creek near Asheville.
Catawba County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several creeks in the county,
including Brushy Creek, Sandy Run, and Poundingmill Creek.
Cleveland County
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Federally threatened.
This species has been found along several tributaries to the Henry
Fork River.
McDowell County
Bennett's Mill Cave water slater (Caecidotea carolinensis) - Federal
species of concern. This species is presently known from one
locality in North Carolina at a cave located on the banks of Muddy
Creek east of Marion.
Butternut (Juglans cinerea) - Federal species of concern. This species
is generally found in cove forests and rich woods, including
floodplain forests.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Federal species of concern. This
species is generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
There is one known population located along the banks of South Muddy
Creek in the headwaters area.
Northern oconee-bells (Shortia galacifolia var. brevistyla) - Federal
species of concern. This species grows in various habitats, from
rocks near water falls, in sand at the edge of running water, in
shady deep moist loam soils, and on dry hillsides. It favors cool,
damp, shady stream banks with fertile, moderately acid, soils.
4
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project
impact areas should be addressed in any environmental document prepared
for these projects. Please note that the legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative with regard
to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of
the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also,
please note that Federal species of concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in
protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the
proposed projects should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation
of the various bridge replacement alternatives and structures (e.g.,
replacement at the existing location versus upstream or downstream of the
existing structure), (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction: and (3) any measures that will be
implemented to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g.,
protecting riparian vegetation whenever possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In
any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-96-057.
Veely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / W-wo
ivision of Environmental Management
D
volot
James B, Hunt, Governor
Jr_ ID F F4
Jonathan B, Howes, , Secretary G
A, Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Buck
From: Eric GalambZ ?
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group IX Bridge Replacement Projects
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-c onsumer paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

« - WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
May 14, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
CE%
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
M,q Y 1 7 1995
HIGH
WAYS. ,
D
50"
I
.aunir,u u /
This is in response to your letter of March 11, 1996 subject: "Request for
Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Western North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
. i , ?. - LU)" ?, -?
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence): continued
Ms. Barbara Miller
Chief, Flood Risk Reduction
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
Mr. Jamie James (CEORN-EP-H-M)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Nashville
Post Office Box 1070
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070
Mr. Larry Workman (CEORH-PD-S)
U.S. Army Engineer District, Huntington
502 Eighth Street
Huntington, West Virginia 25701-2070
May 13, 1996
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
All of the bridges, except for Alleghany and Buncombe Counties, are within the
planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington
District. With the exception of Alleghany and Cleveland Counties, these bridges are
located within counties which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). Alleghany County has flood hazard areas identified on Flood Hazard Boundary
Maps, but has not had detailed mapping done and does not participate in the program.
Cleveland County has mapping done on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
anticipation of future participation in the NFIP, but does not currently participate in the
program. From the various FIRMs, it appears that both approximate study and detail
study streams are involved. (Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information
pertaining to these bridges is contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the
county flood insurance study unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm
52/56 SR 1172 Alleghany Little River Approx 7/77
35 SR 1001 Cleveland Persimmon Ck.** Detail 7/91
230 SR 1908 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Approx 7/91 ***
65 SR 1760 McDowell N. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
512 SR 2435 Buncombe Swannanoa R. Detail 8/80
82 SR 1165 Catawba Clarks Ck. Detail 8/94
94 SR 1722 Catawba McLin Ck. Detail 9/80
41 SR 1147 McDowell Second Broad R. Approx 7/88
317 SR 1267 McDowell Cove Ck. Approx 7/88
60 SR 1764 McDowell S. Muddy Ck. Approx 7/88
13 NC 198 Cleveland Buffalo Ck. Detail 7/91 **"
* County is not a participant in NFIP. Map is a Flood Hazard Boundary Map.
Stream is shown as Muddy Fork on the FIRM.
**'' County is not a participant in NFIP.
May 13, 1996
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
Buncombe County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE, Nashville
District, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with respect to any construction or
development involving the flood plains. The Nashville District does not currently have
projects that would be affected by this proposed project. Mr. Jamie James may be
contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the Nashville
District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section 26a
permitting process. A 26a permit is required for all construction or development
involving streams or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. Mr. Roger
Milstead at [phone] should be contacted for information on the TVA 26a
permitting process. The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and be in compliance with all local ordinances. The
engineering point of contact for the NFIP in this FEMA region is Ms. Bel Marquez, who
may be reached at [phone]. Specific questions pertaining to community flood
plain regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
Alleghany County is within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE,
Huntington District. The Huntington District does not currently have projects that would
be affected by the proposed project. Mr. Larry Workman may be contacted at
[phone] for further information and comments from the Huntington District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh and Asheville Field Offices,
Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.

4V
May 13, 1996
Page 3of4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)J as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categcrical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
May 13, 1996
Page 4 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group IX Bridge Replace Projects" in various Western
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Alleghany County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Buncombe County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Cleveland, McDowell, and Catawba
Counties