20020343 Ver 1_Complete File_20020307

NOV i U 1997
a ? EWIRONMENTALSCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 7, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
0 z(-) 3
MqJ,
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. Stat6.,Route Planning Engineer
B-3305 Bladen No. 43 NC 53. Jeff Ingham
B-3194 Iredell No. 67 US 64 Jeff Ingham
B-3200 Lenoir No. 153 SR 1152 Bill Goodwin V-11,
B-3204 Madison No. 25 US 25-70/NC 213 John Williams ?
B-1303 Northampton No. 76 US 258 Bill Goodwin
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information and the related review procedure is to have an
early "meeting of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the projects. Scoping meetings for these projects. are scheduled for
December 17, 1997 in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 2:00 P. M. in the order shown
above. These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project, so all attendees should plan to
arrive at the beginning of the 2:00 P. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with your
comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg.
Attachments

WRC comments:
Moratorium recommended - for
Sediment and Erosion control recommended -
DWQ comments:
Utility conflicts:
Historic properties:
Anticipated wetland issues:
Other cultural/natural resource issues:
checklist:
avoid wetlands, show alternatives in document
maximize bridging (i.e. cost of mitigation vs. cost of extra bridging)
replace with bridge if possible, need rational for culvert
discuss temporary impacts and restoration c,¢. /I/ w 3 3
any geotechnical work?
prefer bridge to culvert
anadromous fish
any stream rechannelization or new wetland impacts (mitigation)?
hazardous spill basins
erosion/side slope problems
approach work impacts
any associated highway projects?
Stream name: DWQ Index No. River Basin:
DWQ Classification: NWI Info:
NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT SCOPING MEETING
DATE: T.I.P. No.: Project Engineer:
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. over on in County
Existing bridge built 19 Sufficiency Rating Paved/Unpaved
Right of Way 19_ Let/Construction 20_ Design Year 20_
Posted limits: mph; lbs cars tbs trucks
dimensions existing: wide x long travel lanes elevation above stream
proposed: wide x long travel lanes elevation above stream
structure existing:
proposed:
school buses accidents
current use v.p.d., anticipated use v.p.d. Design Year
Classification:
Division Engineer recommendations:
Hydraulics recommendations:
Detour type/rationale:
Design constraints:
Right-of-Way issues:

J

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
10/15/97
TIP PROJECT: B-3204 DIVISION: Thirteen
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-25(10) COUNTY: Madison
STATE PROJECT: 8.1861001 ROUTE: US 25-70/ NC 213
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridse No. 25 on US 25-70/ NC 213 over Haves Run Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): _ Marshall NC Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Minor Arterial
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 0,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 350,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 7700 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2020) 13000 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 4 % -
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 24 feet
paved, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 72 METERS WIDTH 9.8 METERS
236 FEET 32 FEET
COMMENTS:
N

? #*V'
C-
4a,/-Q-3 ?t/v, C-ec? - h
FI- e,., 0,--j,0,af ?C
AP??OF"ORTh CggOG1 North Carolina Department of
` Transportation
1q ?? Division of Highways
9F?I se°?P Planning & Environmental Branch
OF TRPN
Madison County
Replace Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70/NC 213
Over Hayes Run Creek
B-3204
Figure One

.moo
0203 43

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 14, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subjeci: Madison County, Replacement of Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70 over Hayes
Run Creek and SR 1198, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-25(10), State
Project No. 8.1861001, TIP Project No. B-3204.
Please find enclosed a copy of the project planning report for the above-referenced
project. Bridge No. 25 will be replaced at its existing location with a new 230-foot (70-
meter) long bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15 meters) south of the
existing structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
No jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters will be affected by construction of the
proposed project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 25 is located on US 25-70 over Hayes Run Creek (DWQ
Index No. 6-98, 7/01/73, Class C) and SR 1198. It is composed of a four-span concrete
and steel structure. Th'4'-deck is 236 feet (72 meters) long and 24 feet (7.2 meters) wide
and constructed of reinforced concrete slab. The deck rests on steel I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete piers and abutments. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be applied to prevent debris from
falling into the stream. Therefore, Bridge No. 25 will be removed without dropping any
components into waters of the United States. However, if any material falls into the
stream it will be removed as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
. RALEIGH NC

The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permit 23 in
accordance with Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number
241:
It is anticipated that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of
this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests
that NCWRC forward comments to the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr. Chris Rivenbark
at (919)-733-9513.
Sincerely,
} William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue; USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. F. Daniel Martin, P.E., NCDOT Division 13 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD & EA

oz03 4$
Madison County
Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1198 and Hayes Run Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-25(10)
State Project 8.1861001
TIP No. 13-3204
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9-14-00
Date
8 ° f s-0o
Date

William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Madison County
Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1198 and Haves Run Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-25(10)
State Project 8.1861001
TIP No. B-3204
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2000
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
Date John L. Williams, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
CAR''''?..
???pFF,SSIpy?
4 SEAL
c
022552
f r
g of
wez h 0-1 ?fia?
Date Wayne lliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
O -? 4' O O
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
r`
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3204, Madison County
Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1198 and Hayes Run Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-25(10)
State Project 8.1861001
Resident Engineer
The design of this project will be such that Hayes Run Creek will be entirely spanned by
the new structure with no work in-stream. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition & Removal are still in place to prevent debris from falling into'the stream.
Proper application of Best Management Practices should address the concerns of all
concerned agencies.
Emergency Service Facility: There is an Emergency Service Facility located on the
North Ramp of the project. The design should insure that emergency services are not
disrupted during construction.
Structure Design
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (Permits)
s The design of this project will be such that Hayes Run Creek will be entirely spanned by
the new structure with no work in-stream. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition & Removal are still in place to prevent debris from falling into the stream.
Proper application of Best Management Practices should address the concerns of all
concerned agencies.
s
Roadwa%Design
r
Emergency Service Awility. There is an Emergency Service Facility located on the
North Ramp of the project. The design should insure that emergency services are not
disrupted during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
r,rppn Rhppt

Madison County
Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1 198 and Hayes Run Creek
Federal Project BRSTP-25(10)
State Project 8.1861001
TIP No. B-3204
Bridge No. 25 is located just east of Marshall in Madison County over SR 1198 and
Hayes Run Creek. It is programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project due to deteriorating structural integrity and
a deficient cross section. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement
and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical
Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 25 will be replaced with a new 230-foot (70-meter) long bridge on new
alignment approximately 50 feet (15 meters) south of the existing structure (see Figure
2A). The cross section of the new bridge will be 40 feet (12 meters) wide including two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) wide offsets (shoulders). There will be
27 feet (8.2 meters) of vertical clearance between SR 1198 and the girders of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction .
There will be 1085 feet (331 meters) of new approach work to the west and 784 feet (239
meters) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width on the approaches will be
24 feet 7.2 (meters) including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 8-
foot (2.4 meter) shoulders of which 4 feet (1.2 meters) is paved. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed should be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The estimated cost of the project is $2,126,000 including $2,000,000 in construction costs
and $126,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2002-2008
TIP is $1,400,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 25-70 is classified as a Rural Arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. On the bridge and from the east approach there are currently 3900 vehicles per
day projected at 6400 for the year 2025. Other traffic data for the adjoining ramps and
roads can be found in Figure 5 and Figure 6. There is a posted speed limit of 45 mph in
the vicinity of the bridge. The area has mixed residential and business development. A
Madison County Emergency Services Facility is located on the north ramp.
The existing bridge was completed in 1957. It is composed of a four-span concrete and
steel structure. The deck is 236 feet (72 meters)long and 24 feet (7.2 meters) wide
reinforced concrete slab. The deck rests on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed

of reinforced concrete piers and abutments. There is vertical clearance of approximately
32 feet (9.8 meters) between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and streambed. The
bridge carries two lanes of traffic.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records. the sufficiency rating of the bridge is
45.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is not posted with weight restrictions.
Both vertical and horizontal alignment are fair in the project vicinity. The pavement
width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 24 feet (7.2 meters). Shoulders on the
approaches of the bridge are approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) wide.
In reviewing a recent three-year period'no accidents were reported.
There are 16 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. Since that traffic will be
maintained onsite during construction, there will be no burden to the school system.
A sewer line runs along SR 1198. Aerial power and telephone lines cross the project to the
southeast. A 15-inch (381-millimeters) water line hangs from the bridge.
IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There is one "build" option considered in this document as follows:
Replace Bridge No. 25 on new alignment to the south of the existing structure.
Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
design speed would be approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
An offsite detour was not considered feasible due to the high volumes of traffic and no
practical detours available.
"Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. The bridge was originally programmed for deck
rehabilitation. However, because of the design of the structure, it was not possible to
close one lane while maintaining traffic on the other lane. Therefore a temporary
structure and alignment would have been necessary. All persons participating in
preliminary engineering agreed that it would be more practical and cost effective to
simply build a new bridge on new alignment. Rather than simply rehabilitating the deck
the entire bridge could be replaced for the same cost.
y
V. ESTIMATED COST (Table I
COMPONENT ALTERNATE I
New Bridoe
Brid-e Removal
Roadway & Approaches $ 630.000
21,000
661,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 460,000
Engineering & Contingencies 228,000
Total Construction $ 2,000,000
Right of Way $ 126,000
Total Cost $ 2,126,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 25 will be replaced with a new 230-foot (70-meter) long bridge on new
alignment approximately 50 feet (15 meters) south of the existing structure (see Figure
2A). The cross section of the new bridge will be 40 feet (12 meters) wide including two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4=meter) wide offsets (shoulders). There will be
27 feet (8.2 meters) of vertical clearance between SR 1198 and the girders of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction
There will be 1085 feet (331 meters) of new approach work to the west and 784 feet (239
meters) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width on the approaches will be
24 feet 7.2 (meters) including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 7-
foot grass shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be
approximately 50 mph (80 kph).
The proposed alignment will have no relocatees and takes place almost entirely on a
cleared and developed tract of land. Environmental disturbance will be minimal. One
significant concern is raised regarding the maintenance of traffic at all times to an
Emergency Response Facility located on the north ramp of the project.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this
document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change inland use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project.
will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have
any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on
noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
On December 17, 1997, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the
subject project. Subsequently, the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to
affect any resources of architectural or archaeological significance (see attachments).
4
y
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
Physical Resources
Topography, soil, and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are
discussed below. In addition, a general description of the project vicinity and project
region is also described.
Topography
The project study area lies within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province and is
characterized by mountainous terrain with somewhat incised stream banks along Hayes
Run. Elevations within the project study area range from 564 to 610 meters (1850 to
2000 feet) above mean sea level.
Soils
Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of
flora and fauna in any biotic community. This section describes the soil characteristics of
the project study area.
Soil Classifications
Based on information received from the Madison County NRCS office, the soils within
the project study area are composed of Marshall-Walnut Complex, Urban - Disturbed,
and French series soils. Marshall-Walnut Complex soils (785E)(30 to 50 percent slopes)
occur on steep uplands and are well drained. Urban-Disturbed soils (Ur) occur along the
roadways and in the developed areas to the northeast of the project study area and consist
of areas where greater than 75 percent of the area is covered with pavement or buildings.
French loam soils (87A) occur along the streambanks of Hayes Run Creek and consist of
moderately well drained nearly level soils that occur along floodplains. Depth to seasonal
high water table is generally greater than 1.8 meters(6 feet) for Marshall-Walnut Complex
soils and between 0.3 to 0.8 meters (1 to 2.5 feet) for French soils. Permeability is
moderate to moderately rapid for both series. Soil borings taken during field
reconnaissance confirmed these soil series.
Hydric Soils
The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil.
Such soils usually support hydrophytic vegetation. French loam soils have hydric
inclusions in some areas but based on information from the NRCS, the soils in the project
study area are not hydric. No hydric soils were identified during field reconnaissance.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources' relationship to
major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and water quality of
the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.

Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The project study area lies within the French Broad River drainage basin that
encompasses 7,360 square kilometers (2.842 square miles) in North Carolina. The
proposed project will involve one new crossing of Hayes Run Creek (NC Department of
the Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Index No.
6-98), for the proposed permanent structure. The existing structure will be used to
convey traffic until the new structure is completed. This stream (sub-basin 04-03-04)
flows south in the vicinity of the project study area and is the only stream to be impacted
by the project.
Hayes Run Creek has a base flow width of approximately 1-meter (3 feet) and an average
depth of 10 centimeters (4 inches) in the area of the proposed project. -Substrate consists
of small gravel and silt and varies throughout the riffle/pool system in the project vicinity.
The new permanent crossing of Hayes Run Creek would be approximately 15 meters (50
feet) to the south of the existing bridge.
Best Usage Classifications
Hayes Run Creek has been classified by DWQ as a Class C waters which includes uses
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. This is not a designated trout water as defined by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC). No water resources classified as High Quality Waters
(HQW's), Water Supply Watersheds (WS-I or WS II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW's) are located within the project vicinity.
Water Quality
Based on information obtained from the Broad Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan (DWQ 1998), the larger sub-basin 04 (Hayes Run Creek is 04-03-04) is considered
to be impaired and partially supporting of its classification and identified uses due to
agricultural runoff. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) data was not
available from Hayes Run Creek but data.taken from a monitoring station on the French
Broad River approximately 1.2 kilometers (0.75 miles) northwest of the proposed project
study area near Marshall indicated a Good-Fair rating in July of 1997.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a NPDES permit. No Point Source Dischargers were identified in
the project vicinity. The potential for non-point source discharges in the project study
area is moderate and includes runoff from existing roads and driveways as well as some
agricultural runoff.
Trout Waters
According to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), Madison County is a
"trout water county" and as such any nationwide or general 404 permits must be reviewed

by WRC even though the proposed impacts are not to a designated trout stream. The
following conditions are likely to be imposed on the project by WRC:
• Rock, sand or other materials may not be dredged from the stream channel except in
the immediate vicinity of pier construction.
• All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbao or rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing waters.
• Grading and backfilling should be minimized and tree and shrub growth should be
maintained if possible.
• Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained to avoid downstream impacts. Temporary or permanent herbaceous
vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground disturbance.
• Uncured concrete should not come into contact with stream water. All concrete work
should be performed in dry work area.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Hayes Run Creek is the only water resource that will be impacted by the proposed
project. Within the permanent right-of-way, 30.5 meters (100 linear feet) of stream will
be impacted.
Table 2
Approximate Impacts of Proposed Project to Water Resources
Type of Impact Permanent Right-of-way
Meters Linear Feet
Hayes Run Creek 30.5. 1 100
*All impacts are approximate based on uniform corridor width and project
sketches provided by NCDOT.
The new permanent structure will completely span Hayes Run Creek with no construction
in-water. Permanent impacts will be limited to shading over a different section of the
creek. Utilizing the full 30-meter (100-foot) right-of-way for the new permanent structure
will yield the impacts shown in Table 2 above. Usually project construction does not
require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. Short-
term impacts include erosion and sedimentation of the streambed, which may occur
during construction activities.
Impacts to water quality will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters." In addition, a detailed sediment and erosion
control plan consisting of best management practices will be developed for the proposed
project. Sedimentation and erosion can be reduced through sediment controls such as
retention/detention basins, limits on the extent of disturbed areas, turbidity curtains, and
discharging stormwater over vegetated buffers. Cut and fill areas should be appropriately
7
graded and vegetated promptly. Best management practices to control non-point source
pollution would aid in delaying the entry of hazardous material spills into the waterway.
Hazardous spill containment basins will be considered during the design phases.
Adhering to the guidelines set forth by the WRC (Appendix 3) and through the use of
approved erosion and sedimentation control plans can also minimize impacts.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section describes those
communities encountered in the project study area, as well as the relationships between
flora and fauna within those communities. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project study area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial communities are
present in the context of plant community classifications. Representative animal species
that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also
cited.
Scientific and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to common name
only.
Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area through aerial
interpretation and field reconnaissance conducted on April 10, 2000. The communities
identified included mixed pine/hardwood forest and maintained/disturbed areas.
Photographs of the project study area are included in Appendix 2.
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood Communities
Within the project study area, fragmented forested communities occur between SR 1198
and the US 25-70 right-of-way to the south of the existing bridge and along the toe of
slope for the southern ramps of US-25-70. These disturbed, mixed pine/hardwood forests
are dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadense), red maple (Ater rubrum), and
scrub pine (Pinus virginiana). Understory composition includes saplings of the overstory
as well as flowering dogwood (Cornus florida).
Mixed pine/deciduous forest provides food, shelter, and nesting resources for a relatively
diverse population of wildlife. These areas may be particularly suited to wildlife
diversity when located adjacent to successional and maintained/disturbed areas as they
provide corridors for movement of wildlife as well as a variety of food and other
resources. Canopy species common in such areas, hickory and oak forests in particular,
provide valuable materials for browser forage as well as materials for nesting, shelter, and
cover. An eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), a Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and a gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), were observed in the project study area.

}
Mammalian fauna likely to inhabit forested areas include the gray squirrel, raccoon
(Procyon lotor), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana). The transitional areas are likely to be inhabited by the eastern cottontail
(Si,lvilagus.florid(inus), woodchuck (Marmota nionax), and many varieties of small
rodents such as field mice and voles.
Common reptiles and amphibians found in forested communities include the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), wood frog (Rana
sYlvatica), and redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus). In addition to these species, the
black racer (Coluher constrictor), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) are likely to be found in the transition areas.
Avian species likely to be found in these forested communities include the blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). The common crow, American
robin (Turdis migratorius), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius) are most likely to be
found in the transitional areas.
Maintained/Disturbed Areas
Disturbed areas are present in the project study area along the maintained right-of-way for
SR 1198 and US 25-70 as well as the areas within the ramps for US 25-70. These areas
are mainly maintained grasses with scattered ornamentals and a few small red maples.
Dominant vegetation includes fescue (Festuca sp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum ofjicinale), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonic) and multiflora rose
(Rosa multijora).
In the project vicinity, mixed pine/hardwood forests are the dominant communities. The
project study area is dominated by this community type and as such the faunal species
present are likely to reflect those of the adjacent communities as well as those species
particularly tolerant of disturbance. Species likely to inhabit these areas are American
robins, eastern cottontails, woodchucks, and eastern garter snakes.
Aquatic Communities
This category typically includes streams and waterbodies within a project study area and
may or may not include a vegetative component. Hayes Run Creek is the only aquatic
community that will be impacted by the proposed project.
No fish or aquatic organism surveys were performed on the stream. According to WRC,
typical fish species that are likely to inhabit such areas include the creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), common sucker (Catostomas commersoni), longnose dace (Rhinichthys
cataractae), and blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus).
Common benthic invertebrates found in such communities would include stoneflies
(Plecoptera), caddisflies (Tricoptera), and crayfish (Cambarus spp.). In addition to these
invertebrate species, the pickerel frog (Rana palustris), bullfrog (Rana catesbiana),
9
mountain dusky salamander (Des177ognathus ochrophaeus). and northern water snake
(, erodia sipedon) are likely to occur within the stream as well.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the new bridge will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have a potential
to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the
natural resources in terms of area impacted and community affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Within the proposed 30.5 meters (100 foot) right-of-way limits for the new permanent
alignment impacts to plant communities associated with the construction or widening of a
roadway through natural ecosystems would consist largely of community modification
resulting from clearing, filling, paving, and creation of borrow areas. As shown in Table
3, the permanent right-of-way will result in approximately 0.7 hectares (1.8 acres) of
permanent impact to mixed pine/hardwood communities and 1.4 hectares (3.4 acres) of
permanent impact to maintained/disturbed communities.
Table 3.
Approximate Impacts of Proposed Project to Terrestrial Communities
Type of Impact Permanent Right-of-way
Hectares Acres
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Communities 0.7 1.8
Maintained/Disturbed Lands 1.4 3.4
*All impacts are approximate based on umtorm comdor width anti protect sketches
provided by NCDOT.
The terrestrial communities found within the project study area will be altered as a result
of project construction. These communities serve as nesting, foraging and shelter habitat
for fauna. Forested areas account for a small portion of the impacts to terrestrial
communities for the proposed project while the existing roads and residences disturb the
remainder of the project study area. Impacts to forested areas can contribute to habitat
fragmentation and eliminate nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for wildlife. This may
force animals into a smaller area, which can cause degradation of remaining habitat and
increased mortality due to predation, disease and starvation. Some mortality to smaller
animals is likely to occur directly from construction activities. These impacts can be
minimized by clearing and grading only the areas necessary for construction and leaving
natural vegetation along the remaining right-of-way. Due to the size and scope of this
project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction related
work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may
{

10
be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in
long term or irreversible effects. Table 2 summarizes the anticipated impacts to aquatic
communities by the proposed Alternate.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased scouring and
channelization of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and
may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce
siltation that clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter feeders and deposit feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can
also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover
or repopulate a stream.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis related to two
jurisdictional topics: Waters of the U.S. and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of
the U.S." under 33 CFR 328.3 (a). Waters of the U.S. include most interstate or intrastate
surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Any action that proposes the placement of
dredge or fill materials into Waters of the U.S. falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE,
and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (33 CFR 328.3) as:
"areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."
In accordance with this definition, wetlands must possess three essential parameters:
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology (USACE Wetlands
Delineation Manual, 1987). Besides providing valuable habitat for a diverse number of
plant and animal species, wetlands also control floodwaters and erosion, replenish
groundwater, filter contaminants and excess nutrients from runoff, and protect municipal
water supplies.
An evaluation of wetlands within the project study area was conducted on April 10, 2000.
The location, extent, and quality of potential wetlands within the proposed right-of-way
were determined by:
Interpretation of 1:1250 scale black-and-white aerial photography.
Review of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and NWI wetland maps (Marshall,
NC quadrangles).
Review of the NRCS soil/hydric soil data for Madison County.
Field reconnaissance of the project study area.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Hayes Run Creek is the only jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of OVA that
Neill be impacted by the proposed project. The biological, physical, and water quality
aspects of this jurisdictional system is described in previous section of the report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated impacts to
surface waters were determined using the entire right-of-way width of the new alignment.
Impacts are summarized in Table 2. The amount of surface water impacts may be
modified by any changes in functional design and may lead to increased stream impacts.
The permanent alignment impacts 30.5 meters (100 feet) of Hayes Run Creek. Typically,
project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore,-actual surface
water impacts may be considerably less. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed
project.
Permits
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), permits will be required
from the USACE for any activities that encroach into jurisdictional wetlands or "Waters
of the U.S.." In addition, Section 401 of the CWA requires each state to certify that state
water quality standards will not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a
federal permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "Waters of the U.S.." The Corp of
Engineers cannot issue a 404 permit until 401 water quality certification is approved by
the N.C. Department of the Environment and Natural Resources -- Division of Water
Quality.
It is anticipated that a Nationwide Section 404 Permit Number 23 will be required from
the USACE for a waterbody crossing. These permits authorize activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by another federally
funded agency or department to fill Waters of the U.S. for those activities categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because they are determined by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to be within the category of actions which are deemed
to neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the natural
environment. A permit will be required for this project for the impacts of construction
and as Madison County is a designated trout county by WRC, approval through WRC
will be needed in conjunction with permitting.
Mitigation
The USACE has adopted,.through the CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which embraces
the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of the
U.S., specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts to wetlands, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
the three general aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must
12
be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the U.S.. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, in determining "appropriate
and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the U.S.. Implementation of these steps could be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms
to minimize impacts to Waters of the U.S. crossed by the proposed project include: strict
enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during
the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity;
reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious use of pesticides and herbicides;
minimization of "in-stream activity"; and litter/debris control.
Bridge demolition must minimize the impacts to watercourses. This project should
follow Case 3 guidelines as established in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal. The superstructure of Bridge No. 25 is composed of a
reinforced concrete floor on steel I-beams. The substructure is composed of reinforced
concrete bents. The vast bulk of the structure is over SR 1198. Hayes Run Creek is very
small. It should be possible to completely avoid any temporary fill in the creek resulting
from bridge demolition. Due to the size of Hayes Run Creek, a turbidity curtain will not
be required. Impacts to Waters of the U.S. will be minimized by adherence to NCDOT's
BMP's for Bridge Demolition during this stage of the project.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until the anticipated impacts to
Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It
is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of Waters of the U.S. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Although the 1989
MOA between the USACE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not
require compensatory mitigation with Nationwide Permit 23, the DWQ has stated in 15A
NCAC 211 .0506(h), that compensatory mitigation may be necessary with Nationwide
13
Permit No. 23 if more than 46 meters (150 feet) of stream is filled or altered.
Rare and Protected Species
Any action which has the potential to result in a negative impact to federally protected
plants or animals is subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. North Carolina
laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals that are endemic to North
Carolina or whose populations are in severe decline.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal status of Listed Endangered (LE), Listed Threatened
(LT). Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Federal actions (permits) or federally-
funded actions with potential adverse impacts to protected species require prior
consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. Even in the absence of federal
funds or permits, the provisions of Section 9 of the ESA authorize the USFWS to
exercise jurisdiction on behalf of the protected species.
A review of USFWS and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
databases (as of April 200) identified the following federal and state listed species that
may occur in Madison County as listed in Table 4 and described in the following
paragraphs.
Table 4
Federally Protected Species for Madison County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal State
Status* Status*
Cyprinella monacha** Spotfin Chub LT T
Epioblasma Oyster mussel LE PEPNE
capsaeformis*
*LE and E= Endangered; LT and T = threatened; FSC= Federal Species of Concern;
SC-State Species of Concern, PEPNE = Proposed Experimental Population, Non-
Essential **=historic records (>50 years).
Federally endangered species (LE) are species that are threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Federally threatened species (LT) are
species that are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
14
Cyprinella monacha (spotfin chub) Federally Threatened
Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9 September 1977
The spotfin chub, a federally and state threatened species, is a small olive-colored
cyprinid which is restricted to Tennessee River drainage and to the Little Tennessee River
in North Carolina. It is found only in moderate to large streams and requires good current
and little siltation (USFWS 1991). Potential habitat does not exist within the project
study area for the spotfin chub (Cyprinella monacha) and it is not known to occur in this
river basin. Based on the information above and field reconnaissance, no impacts to this
species are anticipated as a result of the proposed project construction.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Epioblasma capsaeformis (Oyster Mussel) Federally Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 10 January 1997
The oyster mussel, a federally endangered species and a state proposed experimental
population, non-essential species, is a small freshwater mussel which has a dull to sub-
shiny yellowish- to green-colored shell with numerous narrow dark green rays. The shells
of females are slightly inflated and quite thin towards the shell's posterior margin. Based
on the information obtained from a phone conversation with Harry LeGrande from the
NCNHP, the oyster mussel is unlikely to be found in the Hayes Run Creek. The only
recorded oyster mussels found in the Broad River Basin were dated before 1918. Based
on the condition of the stream and the fact that it appears to have been significantly
altered by the construction of the existing bridge and road, the oyster mussel is not
expected to occur within the project study area and no impacts are expected to this
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
included in the Section 7 process. These species are those that merit further study to
determine their status or which may be listed in the future if certain criteria are met. In
addition, those species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
by the NCNHP database are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 5 lists
those species that are designated as Federal Species of Concern or are state listed for
Madison County and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the project study
area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
15
Table 5
Federal Species of Concern for Madison County
Feder State Habitat
Scientific Name Common Name tatus Habitat
Status S Present
*
Falco peregrinus Peregrine -- E Cliffs, coastal ponds and mudflats No
Falcon
Aplodinotus Freshwater -- T French Broad River No
grunniens Drum
Cottus carolinae Banded Sculpin -- T French Broad River basin Yes
Lampetra appendix American -- T French Broad River basin Yes
Brook Lamprey
Noturus flavus Stonecat -- E Cane River No
Percina caprodes Logperch -- T Tennessee River drainages No
Percina sclera** Dusky Darter -- E French Broad River drainages Yes
Polyodon spathula Paddlefish FSC E French Broad River No
Paravitrea ternaria Sculpted FSC T
supercoil
Buckleya Piratebush FSC E Bluffs, dry slopes, woods on lower No
distichophylla slopes
Hydrastis Goldenseal -- E-SC Cove forests, rich deciduous No
canadensis * * forests
Corynorhinus Rafinesque's FSC SC Old buildings, caves, mines near No
rafinesquii** Big-eared Bat water
Cryptobranchus Hellbender FSC SC Large and clear fast-moving No
alleganiensis streams
Acipenser Lake Sturgeon FSC SC Large rivers No
fulvescens**
Percina squamata** Olive Darter FSC SC Steep, fast flowing rivers No
Euphorbia Glade Spurge FSC C Forests over mafic rock No
*
purpurea
Saxifraga Carolina FSC C High to mid-elevation cliffs

caroliniana
Saxifrage No
Silene ovata Mountain
FSC
C Rich slopes, cove forests, oak-
Catchfly hickory forests Yes
* FSC = Federal Species of Concern, SR = Significantly Rare, C = State Candidate (those
species whose
status is under consideration); ** historic records (>50 years old)
State endangered species (E) are species whose continued existence as a viable
component of the state's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. A state
threatened species (T) is one which is likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Federal Species
16
:p
'of Concern (FSC) is a species which may or may not be listed in the future. Significantly
rare species (SR) are those which exist in the state in small numbers and have been
determined to need further monitoring. Candidate species (C) are very rare in North
Carolina and reflect fewer than 20 populations in the state. Species of special concern
(SC) are those species which require further monitoring in the state.
Based on information from the NCNHP, potential habitat exists within the vicinity of the
proposed project for the banded sculpin. American brook lamprey, stonecat, logperch,
dusky darter, goldenseal, and piratebush. It is unlikely that any federal species of.concern
would occur in the project study area. The area has been significantly disturbed by the
construction of the existing road and the majority of vegetation is being actively
managed.
17
.

4' a?"0"'"moo North Carolina Department of
b Transportation
T Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Madison County
Replace Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70/NC 213
Over Hayes Run Creek
B-3204
Figure One

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
Madison County
Replace Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1198 & Hayes Run Creek
B-3204

Looking East Across
Bridge No. 25
Looking West Across
Bridge No. 25
i0F 6; North Carolina Department of
Transportation
?y i
Division of Highways
Project Development &
`e?oc iF aNSQOP Environmental Analvsis Branch
Madison Countv
Replace Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1 198 & Haves Run Creek
B-3204
Fi(ure Three
Vices of SR 1198 &
Hayes Run Creek
View of North Ramp
Pof"°"'"?,qo North Carolina Department of
4
Transportation
e o Division of Highways
0,71 Project Development &
"OF rn."5e, Environmental Analvsis Branch
Madison Count
Replace Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70
Over SR 1 198 & Haves Run Creek
B-3204
Figure Four
r
M
r
N
U
z
o
0
0 0 '
U)
°
N O O
O
N N
O
op
^o
0
o
cm
N
0
M
r
N
2 O
O
N
N
C
/W ~ 1A
I? O p
0,
e)
4 O Np?
W N
co
It)
N
co
Z)
o
O O
°
N
s?
D N
d
O ?
1 O
S? ? p O
O t-
? co
0
N
O
O
M
°o PM
65 -a- )Z
(4.2)
O
°
O
N
N
1?
O
rn
0
O
01
N
O R p
N
00
O ?O

O O

o ?
O p
N p
N R
O \
O p
O
O
O
f ?

U
0 n Of I

y
i
a
o
( j
r,

? ? j 0
O
? 1
a
m Q ?
0 0f y o
0
y R
co
y
Z
Y
CY)
C

V
a
ap
vI
t a A N
m t N co
m
a
i U A = o
W O ob cc y u 3
ca
h
a
03
LO
N
D

C)
r
r x
°

y n
x
.
n E

O L •

a o g; x a_

J
? „
E c
c o
Y
? 4?

t • e
a _ •
a - I v o
? ?
?? O ? p v O= w
O • •
?
Z ?f O Y O a ? 2?
IFii5
t

M L

cl)
? j a
n N
o
U
N x
Z

V
Z
? .
N •
a
N
G
iry? V o

? O Q
\ n O
Y
R
M

° N
0 in n m
o
0
?
oN
O
\ -?R
O Q N :bl

a z
CV co
?
Cl) p U c
N d ad 0 „ m
/
?r e
?C.) CO m C\1
o r m m
?O o•
N V V ` Ol O?
° :: az cam;

m
t U) 4) CC
w. *a cr 0 v?
3
1 ?
O
N O O
O p
N ?
\ C
M

N
V

0 a
m o
°

/• O
?? O
? NO

O

O

0
M
W n oa ?- -T
m
m
o ,
a
O
O -?
p? y
O O
O
< y O
o
co
o° PM fO to
O N ES o-- 12 N
It) 14.2)
?
co Q
co
er
N `
`
O
O p
m
\
i
y 1? o
'
\
O
O
O ?

* \
T
O
O
O N
O O / N
O
? ? O O
O
O R
O
O
O

co i
C

O
x
CC
O •
•
''AA
v/ A
Y
•
i 4
p V
L •
7 C
i
o ; i s K c S
u n 3 F- O. o
J' • c c o Y?
E

?'
I ? •
O n p a p a= o
O
i

Z
2
d ?
? O o= u
Y
e
4
k ° 2
O
Figure 6
s^
:North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 22, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #25 on US 25-70/NC 213 over Hayes
Run Creek, Madison County, B-3204, Federal
Aid Project BRSTP-25(10), State Project
8.1861001, ER 98-7937
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On December 17, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, Nosh Carolina 27601-2807 g??
M
Nicholas L. Graf
December 22, 1997, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
David Brook -
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: PH. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
r
4Xj
----?, ?"
777
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh,.North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch - NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis M
ountan Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 7, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 25 on US 25-70/NC 213 over Hayes
Run Creek, Madison County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3204.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRQ 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(2xc)) 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. Hayes Run Creek is not designated trout
water; however, we are concerned about sedimentation and potential impacts to aquatic resources
in this drainage. Construction impacts on 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 streams or wetlands on the
project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by
construction.
Because Madison County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the
NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for this project. The following
conditions are likely to be placed on the 404 permit:
TIP No. B-3204 Page 2 May 7, 1998
1. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of
pier construction. Channel relocations have catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and
disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream
erosion problems, possibly affecting adjacent land owners.
2. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be completed in a dry work area.
Sandbag or rock berms, coffer dams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
3.. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and
wildlife.
4. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
5. If concrete is used during construction of piers and abutments, a dry work area should
be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water.
Uncured concrete affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other organisms.
I

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].