20020163 Ver 1_Complete File_20020204

i0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Kerr T. Stevens, Director _Zak
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
NCDENR
March 29, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated March 18, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for
bridge replacement state project number 8.2001101 (TIP B-3518). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals that the proposed bridge will span the Tinsley Creek in the French Broad River Basin. The stream
is classified as C Tr waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following
environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project
for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding Resource Water),
HQW (High Quality Water), B (Bodv Contact), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified
as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the
design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the
stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control structures/measures) to
the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts
should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed
one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridles with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
03/31/99
Page 2
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
If the project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, mitigation will be required if wetland impacts
exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(2) 11.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps is a useful office tool, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Gloria Putnam, NCDWQ
Melba McGee, NCDENR
Nancy Campanella, NCDOT
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3518\13-3518 scoping comments.doc
W2 2 999
DEPARTMENT OF Tl NSPO
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201

E. Noms TOLSON
SECRETARY
March 18, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO:
Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ-DENR
4401 Reedy Creek Road

FROM:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: SR 1546, Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over Tinsley Creek,
Transylvania County, North Carolina, State Project No. 8.2001101
(B-3518)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, has retained the firm of Ralph
Whitehead Associates, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, to conduct planning, environmental and
engineering services and prepare a Planning Report/Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed
improvements on the subject project. As an integral part of this study, we are soliciting input
from agencies and individuals concerning the potential impacts of the proposed improvements on
any structure or feature within the project area and the impacts this project may have on the
social, economic, cultural, physical or biological conditions in the area. Attached is a location
map for your information and reference.
The proposed project is included in the Draft 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as TIP No. B-3518. Right-of-Way acquisitiop-is scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Year 2001 and construction in Fiscal Year 2002. The scope of the project consists of
replacement of the bridge at the same location. This replacement will result in safer traffic
operations. Rehabilitation of the existing structure does not appear to be a feasible option due to
its age and deteriorating condition. We anticipate that the structure will be replaced on existing
location to maintain the tangent alignment. An off-site detour will be utilized during
construction to maintain traffic.
Alternatives that will be studied for the project include:
1. Do Nothing
2. Replace the existing structure on existing location
?Z
2
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts associated with
the bridge replacement project. Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping
meeting for this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping comments
related to the subject project. In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed
project, it is requested that you respond in writing concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts
of the proposed project relating to the interest of your agency. For the study effort to stay on
schedule and for your input to be included, please respond by April 9, 1999.
Please direct your comments to:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 2520
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ATTN: Ms. Nancy Campanella
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this project, please
contact Ms. Nancy Campanella, Project Engineer, Consultant Coordination Unit, NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at [phone], Ext. 262.
WDG/bdd
Attachment
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SR 1546 REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE No. 37
OVER TINSLEY CREEK
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT No. 8.2001101 (B-3518)
PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
63
p201
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARI N ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 21, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Re est for NWP 23 fo the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 37 over King
Cree SR 1.540.' ansylvania County, F.A. Project BRSTP-1546(12), State
Project No. 8.2001 101, TIP No. B-3518.
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
Attached are three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the subject project. The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge Number 37 with a
new 52-foot long bridge with a 40-foot clear roadway width on existing location. The elevation
of the bridge anapproac es wi remain approximately the same as the existing elevations.
Approach work will include two 12-foot lanes with and 8-foot shoulder on each side. The
shoulders will be widened to l l feet where guardrail is required. The total length of the project
is approximately 670 feet. Traffic will be maintained along an off site detour during
construction. Clearing on the project shall be by Method III. Wetlands are not present within
the project area. The project is located in NCDOT Division 14.
Bridge Number 37 is composed entirely of timber and steel. Therefore, no temporary fill is
expected to result from bridge removal.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
• In-stream construction will not occur from October 15 to April 15 of any year to avoid
impacts to trout reproduction.
• NCDOT's Best Management. Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be followed
during construction of this project to prevent siltation of nearby streams.
• Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented:
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This 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 a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the Federal
Register of March 9, 2000, Part VII, Vol. 65, No. 47, Pages 12817-12899. We anticipate a 401
General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and we are providing one copy of
the CE document to the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
This project will take place in a mountain trout county. Thus we anticipate that comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that
NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith at
[phone], ext. 286.
Sincerely,
"v
William D. Gilmore, P.E. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
VCB/als
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, Elkin
Ms. Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. John Alford, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway, Design Branch, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E.; NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Mr. R. G. Watson, P.E, NCDOT Division 14 Engineer, Sylva
Mr. Mark Davis, NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Officer, Sylva
Ms. Missy Dickens, NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Raleigh
2 :

Transylvania County,
Bridge No. 37 on SR 1546 Over King Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1546(12)
State Project 8.2001101
TIP Project B-3518
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
p2p?6?
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
ate Wi)Lkn D. Gilmore, P.E., Mana
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
ate Nicholas L. af, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Transylvania County,
Bridge No. 37 on SR 1546 Over King Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1546(12)
State Project 8.2001101
TIP Project B-3518
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April, 2001
Documentation Prepared by. Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc.:
'01 `aO??H'?ARozi
A k0
? SEAL
Brian D. Dehler, P.E., Project Manager 16067
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. 061 '.6n'?•%,??t NElj:?'p(-- •`??
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation:
1?' e- &'? -/
Th as R. Kendig, AICP, Unit '91d
Consultant Engineering Unit
G ?
Mary Alic Dickens, P.E.
Project Development Engineer

PROJECT CONMUTMENTS
Transylvania County,
Bridge No. 37 on SR 1546 Over King Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1546(12)
State Project 8.2001101
TIP Project B-3518
Division U/Structure Design
The construction of the project will require the removal of Bridge No. 37 over King Creek.
The bridge is constructed entirely of timber, steel and an asphalt wearing surface over timber
deck. Consequently, no temporary fill associated with bridge demolition is anticipated. The
NCDOT will supplement. the Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters (BUT) with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-
BDR's).
NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from November 1 to April 15 to
avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
Structure Design Unit
Bridge replacement project B-3518 will require review under Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
Categorical Exclusion
April, 2001
r
Transylvania County
Bridge No. 37 on SR 1546 over King Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1546(12)
State Project 8.2001101
TIP Project B-3518
I. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 37
on SR 1546 over King Creek in Transylvania County [FIGURE 1]. The bridge replacement
project is included in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project No. B-
3518. The NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this project as a
federal Categorical Exclusion.
Bridge No. 37 will be replaced as recommended with a new 52-foot (15.6-meter) long bridge
with a 40-foot (12.0-meter) clear roadway width on existing location. Replacement on existing
location is recommended to minimize impacts to King Creek and to minimize additional right-
of-way requirements. During construction, traffic will be maintained on a 2.5-mile (4-kilometer)
off-site detour.
The proposed approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes with an 8-foot (2.4-m) shoulder
(2-foot (0.6-m) paved, 6-foot (1.8-m) turf) on each side. Where guardrail is required, the
approach shoulder will be widened 3 feet (0.9m) for a total width of 11 feet (3.3m) (FIGURE 2).
The proposed bridge will also include two 12-foot (3.6-m) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-m) offsets on
each side. The elevation of the bridge and approaches will remain approximately the same as the
existing elevations to avoid increasing the floodwater elevations during the 100-year storm
event. Final elevations will be established following detailed hydraulic studies. The design speed
for the project is 40 mph (65 km/hr) based on the project being within the city limits and an
existing posted speed of 35 mph (55 km/hr).
The estimated cost is $563,000 including $63,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $500,000 for
construction. The estimated cost included in the 2000-2006 TIP is $462,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
The NCDOT is not expected to need any design exceptions for this project.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The NCDOT classifies SR 1546 as an Urban Collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. SR 1546 runs parallel to US 64/276 southeast of the Town of Brevard. This route is not
a designated bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this
road.
The NCDOT constructed Bridge No. 37 in Transylvania County in 1965. The bridge consists of
a single span wooden deck with an asphalt-wearing surface on steel I-beam girders. The
abutments are made of wood. The deck of Bridge No. 37 is 9 feet (2.7m) above the streambed.
Water depth is approximately 1-foot (0.3m) in the project area. The bridge is 36 feet (10.8m)
long with a 23.8-foot (7.3m) clear roadway width. The pavement width is 18 feet (5.5m) on
approaches to the bridge. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic and is currently posted at 20 tons
(22 metric tons) for single vehicles and 25 tons (27.5 mtn) for truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST).
According to NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 37
is 42.2 of a possible 100. Photographs of existing conditions are shown in FIGURE 3.
The grade along SR 1546 decreases from south to north to a low point located approximately 350
feet (107m) north of the bridge. Highway surface drainage is provided by roadside ditches that
convey runoff into King Creek. An 18-inch (450mm) corrugated metal pipe outfalls into the
creek near the southeast corner of Bridge No. 37. The existing roadway alignment provides
adequate sight distance in both directions from the existing structure. The posted speed limit on
SR 1546 is 35 mph (55 km/hr).
Due to the surrounding topography and the project's proximity to the French Broad River, the
25-year design storm overtops the banks of the upstream channel and flows to the low point
located approximately 350 feet (107m) north of the bridge. One local resident witnessed SR
1546 being overtopped at this low point. He estimated that this event occurred roughly 10 years
ago. The NCDOT District Engineer for Transylvania County was unaware of any flooding
problems or maintenance issues pertaining to the bridge.
It is estimated that the current, 1998 traffic volume on SR 1546 at Bridge No. 37 is
approximately 4,400 (2% Duals, 1% TTST) vehicles per day (vpd)' and is projected to increase to
6550 vpd by the year 2025.
Four accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 37 during the three-year period
from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997. Three of the accidents involved vehicles being run
off the road at the 5° 30' (317.5m radius) horizontal curve immediately north of the bridge while
one accident involved an overturned vehicle. Dark and wet road conditions were the contributing
factors in one of the accidents. No fatalities occurred, although injuries were reported in each
accident.
Average statewide accident rates are categorized according to the type of facility. For
comparison to statewide rates, existing SR 1546 in the vicinity of the bridge is compared to rural
SR routes with two lanes undivided. Accident rates are determined by the length, average daily
traffic, and the number of reported accidents along a route in a specific time frame. The average
statewide total accident rate is 213.98 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles (per 100MVM) as
compared to 396.04 accidents per 100MVM on SR 1546 in the project vicinity.
Four electrical conduits are attached to the outside girder along the eastern side of the bridge
structure. Overhead utilities run along each side of SR 1546 in the project vicinity. There is an
underground water line on the west side and sanitary sewer line on the east side. A grassed
2

footpath exists in the northeast quadrant. The utility impact rating for this project is considered to
be medium.
The Transylvania County Schools have four school buses routed on SR 1546 bridge. The buses
do have the potential to meet on the bridge. The bridge is not wide enough to accommodate two
buses at the same time.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
One method of replacing Bridge No. 37 was studied. The studied alternate assumes traffic will
be maintained off-site during the construction period due to the existence of a reasonable and
feasible detour route.
The replacement structure for the alternate studied consists of a bridge approximately 52 feet
(16m) long. A clear roadway width of 40 feet (12.0m) consisting of two 12-foot (3.6m) travel
lanes with 8-foot (2.4m) shoulders on each side is recommended.
The approach roadway will have a 24-foot (7.2m) pavement width and 8-foot (2.4m) useable
shoulders (2-foot (0.6m) paved) on each side. The roadway grade at the proposed structure will
be approximately the same as the existing bridge; however, a minimum grade of 0.3% is used for
deck drainage.
The alternate studied (FIGURE 4) is as follows:
Alternate 1 (Recommended) - Alternate 1 proposes replacing bridge No. 37 with a new
52-foot (15.6m) long bridge with a 40-foot (12.0m) clear roadway width on existing
location. Traffic during construction should be maintained by using US 64/276 and SR
1544 as an offsite detour (FIGURE 1). The proposed detour is approximately 2.5 miles
(4.0-km) in length. A slight shift in the alignment over King Creek is necessary to
provide a smooth, continuous alignment through the project area. Approximately 700 feet
(210m) of approach roadway work will be necessary to tie the new roadway approaches
to the existing roadway. A design speed of 40 mph (65 km/hr) will be provided.
In his memorandum dated April 5, 1999, Mr. F. D. Martin, NCDOT Division Engineer for
Division 14, concurs with the recommended alternate. The evaluation of an alternate utilizing
a temporary on-site detour was not conducted due to the anticipated impacts to adjacent
properties and higher project costs associated with construction and removal of the detour.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical. The existing bridge would continue deteriorating
until it was unusable. This would require closing the road, or continued intensive maintenance of
the bridge for it to remain in service. For this reason, the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit
desires to take timber bridges out of service; therefore rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
V. COST ESTIMATE
Alternate 1
(Recommended)
Structures $131,040
Roadway Approaches 166,015
Structure Removals 7,320
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 136,625
Engineering and Contingencies 59,000
Total Construction $500,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 63,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST 563,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
It is recommended to replace Bridge No. 37 with a new 52-foot (15.6m) long bridge with a 40-
foot (12.0m) clear roadway width on existing location (FIGURE 4). Replacement on existing
location is recommended to minimize impacts to King Creek and adjacent properties and
minimize additional right-of-way requirements. During construction, traffic will be maintained
by an off-site detour, which is approximately 2.5 miles (4.0-lan) in length.
The proposed approaches will include two 12-foot (3.6m) lanes with an 8-foot (2.4m) shoulder
(2-foot (0.6m) paved, 6-foot (1.8m) turf) on each side. Where guardrail is required, the approach
shoulder will be widened 3 feet (0.9m) for a total width of 11 feet (3.3m) (FIGURE 2). The
proposed bridge will also include two 12-foot (3.6m) lanes and 8-foot (2.4m) offsets, on each
side. The elevation of the bridge and approaches will remain approximately the same as the
existing elevations to avoid increasing the floodwater elevations during the 100-year storm
event. Final elevations will be established following detailed hydraulic studies. The design speed
for the project is 40mph (65 km/hr) based on the project being within the city limits and an
existing posted speed of 35 mph (55 km/hr).
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement, with the implementation of the Project Commitments on page 3 of this
document in addition to the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications, will not have a
significant adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment.
I'
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited.
No facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (UST's) were identified in the
vicinity of the project.
No regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the project limits.
Utilities in the area include aerial phone and CATV on the east side and three-phase aerial power
on the west side. There is an underground water line on the west side and a sanitary sewer line on
the east side. Utility impacts are expected to be medium.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social or economic opportunities in the area. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints is located in the northwest quadrant of the project. The Church drive intersects
SR 1546 beyond the limits of construction; therefore, no adverse effect on church access or use
is anticipated from closing the bridge and utilizing the off-site detour during construction.
Four school buses will be impacted by the proposed project.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges or
any historic sites of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. There is a
grassed footpath on the grounds of Brevard College in the NE quadrant.
Transylvania County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. A
detailed study has been completed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
the project area (FIGURE 5). The floodplain consists of open fields and heavily vegetated stream
banks. The project site is located on the southern most edge of the 800 foot wide (244m)
floodway where both King Creek and Lambo Creek cross SR 1546. Approximately 1,100 feet
(335m) upstream, four residences are within the 100-year floodplain. No other buildings appear
to be in the flood boundaries in the project vicinity.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment would
result in a crossing of similar magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm. The new crossing will be located at approximately the same elevation as the
existing crossing; therefore, no increase in flooding potential or changes to the 100-year
floodplain are anticipated as a result of this project.
Bridge replacement project B-3518 will require review under Section 26a of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
B. ARCHITECTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their
undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties. included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic places and to afford the
Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
2. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the project area of potential effect (APE) was conducted by staff of
Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. (RWA) on October 12-13, 1998, March 1-3, 1999 and
May 12, 1999. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later an NCDOT
staff architectural historian reviewed these photos. None of the properties was considered
to be eligible, and in a meeting between SHPO and NCDOT on June 10, 1999 a
concurrence form was signed to this effect. A copy of the concurrence form is included in
the Appendix.
3. Archaeology
An intensive archaeological survey was conducted within the APE by The Wake Forest
University Archaeology Laboratories during two field visits on August 10-11 and
October 13-14, 1999. A total of 12 shovel tests were excavated, supplemented by a single
auger test. No archaeological sites were identified during the survey and no additional
investigations are recommended. The survey concludes that the bridge replacement
project will have no effect on significant archaeological resources. In their January 12,
2000 letter, the SHPO concurred with this recommendation. A copy of the concurrence
letter is included in the Appendix.
C. AIR AND TRAFFIC NOISE
The project is located in Transylvania County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 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 project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, its impact on noise levels
will be insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and
the National Environmental Policy Act), and no additional reports are required.
I`
D. LAND USE AND FARMLAND EFFECTS
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important
farmland soils. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the
alternatives under consideration would impact prime or important farmland soils. According to
the SCS, the proposed bridge replacement would not impact prime farmland.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
1. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the southern Blue Ridge physiographic province of North
Carolina. Topography in the area is characterized by broad, rolling ridge tops and
smooth sloping to steep side slopes. Narrow to broad, relatively flat floodplains are found
in association with the French Broad River and larger tributaries. The study corridor
primarily occurs in the stream terrace associated with King Creek and adjacent uplands.
Elevations range from a low of approximately 2100 feet (640m) National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) in the creek bed to a high of approximately 2120 feet (646m)
NGVD at the southwestern end of the study corridor (USGS Brevard quadrangle).
Soils within and adjacent to the study corridor include: Toxaway silt loam (Cumulic
Humaquepts), Rosman fine sandy loam (Fluventic Haplumbrepts), and Delanco fine
sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults).
Toxaway soils are the predominant soils type found in the study corridor. These soils
occur on the nearly-level, stream terrace adjacent to King Creek. Toxaway soils are
typically subject to very frequent flooding of short duration. The seasonal high water
table is at or near the ground surface. These soils have moderate permeability and
shrink-swell potential. Toxaway soils are formed in recent alluvial deposits, where depth
to bedrock is greater than 5 feet (1.5m). Toxaway is considered to be a hydric soil in
Transylvania County (USDA 1974).
Delanco soils are found on a gently sloping stream terrace located near the southwestern
end of the study corridor. The Delanco series is characterized by moderately well
drained soils and typically occurs on low to intermediate stream terraces that are 3 to 10
ft (0.9 to 3.0m) above the floodplain. These soils have medium available water.capacity,
moderate permeability, and moderate shrink-swell potential. Within Transylvania
County, Delanco is considered to be a non-hydric soil with hydric inclusions in
depressional areas (USDA 1974).
Rosman soils occur near the northeast end and on central portions of the study corridor.
The Rosman series is characterized as well-drained to moderately well drained, nearly
level soils. These soils are typically found on stream floodplains and are subject to very
frequent flooding of short duration. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 2.5 feet
(0.8m). Rosman soils have moderately rapid permeability and low shrink-swell potential.
Within Transylvania County the Rosman series is considered a non-hydric soil with
hydric inclusions of Toxaway soils (USDA 1974).
2. Water Resources
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 04-03-01 of the French Broad River Basin
(DEM 1995). This sub-basin is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 060110105 of the
Tennessee Region. King Creek originates approximately 4.4 miles (2.7 km) northwest of
the subject bridge and joins the French Broad River approximately 0.6 miles (0.4 km) to
the east. King Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-30 by the N.C. Division
of Water Quality (DWQ).
Stream Characteristics
King Creek is a well-defined, perennial mountain stream. The stream reach south of the
bridge has been straightened and channelized several feet below historic grade. As a
result of channelization, the reach immediately upstream from the bridge has become
incised, inducing the abandonment of historic floodplains within the study corridor.
However, banks along the upper reach are vegetated and appear stable. The channel bed,
in the vicinity of the bridge, is approximately 20-25 ft (6.1-7.6m) wide at the bottom of
steep embankments that rise approximately 8-10 ft (2.4-3.0m). The width of the channel
at top-of-bank is approximately 40 ft (12.2m). The channel bed is characterized by sand,
gravel, and cobble. During the site visit, water in the channel was approximately 0.25 -
0.5 feet (0.8-1.5m) deep and was characterized by moderate flow.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Ouality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usag f v 'ous streams or segments of streams in the basin. A
best usage classification CTr as been assigned to King Creek from the source to the
confluence with the Frenc oad River (DWQ 1998a). The designation C denotes
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to any activity in which bodily contact with
water is on an infrequent or incidental basis (DWQ 1998b). The supplemental
designation Tr denotes a stream as suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance
of stocked trout. Within 1.0 mile (0.6 km) of the study corridor, only one stream has a
significant best use classification. Williamson Creek, located approximately 1.0-1.25
miles (0.6-0.78 km) southeast of the project corridor, east of the French Broad River, is
designated as CTr and High Quality Waters (HQW). However, Williamson Creek is
located on the opposite bank of the French Broad River and downstream of the
confluence of King Creek and the French Broad River. This project is not expected to
impact Williamson Creek. No other stream designated as HQW, Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-II) occurs within 1.0
mile (0.6 km) of the study corridor.
The Division of Environmental Management (DEM) (now known as the Division of
Water Quality [DWQ]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the study corridor
is summarized in the French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan
8
I
(DEM 1995). User support information concerning water quality is available for
monitored stream segments of the French Broad. Sampling data indicate a water
quality/bioclassification rating of Excellent at the sampling station on the French Broad
River at the junction of US Highway 168 at Rosman (approximately 8mi (5.0 km) north
of the confluence of King Creek and French Broad River), and Good at the station
located on the French Broad River near Skyland (approximately 18mi (11.2 km) south of
the confluence of King Creek and the French Broad River).
Three major point-source dischargers (with a total permitted flow of 32 million gallons
per day [MGD] (121 million liters per day)) and three smaller dischargers occur within
this French Broad River sub-basin. The most notable point source dischargers in the sub-
basin are Olin Mills and E. I. DuPont. Additional sources of basin-wide water quality
impairment include non-point sources such as urban and residential development,
agriculture, construction activities, forestry, mining, on-site wastewater, and land disposal
areas (DEM 1995). King Creek water quality classification usage is listed as Support-
threatened. At the confluence of King Creek and the French Broad River, the French
Broad River water quality classification usage is listed as Partially Supporting (DEM
1995).
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources_
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be
anticipated from construction-related activities. Impacts can be minimized by using best
management practices (BMPs) during construction. The contractor will follow contract
specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart
B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT,
Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include: the use of dikes,
berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of
direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of present creek flows,
thereby protecting system integrity. Long-term impacts to King Creek are expected to be
negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the
entire life of the project.
Since the bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel, there is little potential for
components of the bridge to be dropped into "Waters of the United States." Therefore,
no temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the existing bridge. NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be
applied for the removal of this bridge.
NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction moratorium from November 1 to
April 15 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
3. BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: riparian
assemblage, agriculture land, maintained roadside, and maintained/residential land.
These plant communities are described below.
Riparian Assemblage - This community occurs directly on banks along King Creek.
The community structure consists of small trees and saplings, shrubs, and a ground layer
of herbs and seedlings. Common tree species are: tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black
willow (Salix nigra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
red mulberry (Morus rubra), black cherry.(Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum),
and honey locust (Gleditzia triacanthos). The shrub layer includes species such as: silky
dogwood (Corpus amomum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra), American elder (Sambucus canadensis), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea).
Common herbaceous species include: knotweeds (Polygonum spp.), blackberry (Rubus
sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana), queen of the meadow (Eupatorium
fistulosum), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and Curtis'
aster (Aster curtisii).
Agriculture Land- This community occurs on the cultivated terrace areas, primarily in
the southeast and southwest quadrants of the corridor. Corn (Zia maize) is the principle
crop planted. Grasses such as fescue (Poa sp.) are common, but a number of weedy
species are prevalent including: crabgrass (Digitarla sanguinalis), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), sheep-sorrel (Rumex acetosella), chickweed (Cerastium spp.), horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense), sneezeweed (Helenium autumnale), and shepherd's purse
(Capsella bursa pastoris).
Maintained Roadside - This community includes the road right-of-way along the
shoulders of Neely Road (SR 1546). This community is regularly mowed/maintained
and is comprised chiefly of a herbaceous layer interspersed with shrubs and a few canopy
species along road ditches. The vegetation includes many of the weedy species described
above under agriculture land, Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), blackberry, clover
(Trifolium spp.), dock (Rumex sp.), grape vine (Vitis sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra),
American elder, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), ironweed (Vernonia
noveboracensis), and evening primrose (Oenothera biennis).
Maintained/Residential Land - This community occurs around residential dwellings
along Neely Road (SR 1546) west of the existing bridge. The community structure
consists of a maintained herb layer, generally turf grass, and scattered shrubs and trees.
Observed landscape and native species include: Fraser's fir (Abies fraseri), sugar maple
I
(Acer saccharum), apple (Malus sp.), water oak (Quercus nigra), white pine (Pinus
strobus), azalea (Rhododendron sp.), and boxwood (Buxus sp.) Turf grass areas are
planted primarily with fescue (Poa sp.).
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Two types of impacts can be expected for the plant communities within the study
corridor: 1) those within the cut-and-fill boundaries; and 2) areas to be maintained
(mowed) as right-of-way. Impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the aforementioned projected boundaries. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented below in acres (ac) and hectares (ha):
IMPACT TYPE
PLANT COMMUNITY Cut and Fill Maintained/Mowed
(ac) (ha) (ac) (ha)
Maintained Roadside 0.51 0.21 0.15 0.06
Maintained/Residential 0.20 0.08 0.10 0.04
Land
Riparian Assemblage 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.01
Agriculture Land -- -- 0.05 0.02
TOTAL: 0.81 0.33 0.33 0.13
From an ecological perspective, the impacts of bridge replacement in place are minimal.
Permanent impacts to plant communities as a result of the proposed bridge replacement
are generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway
approach segments. The total potential permanent impact to plant communities within the
cut-and-fill boundaries is 0.81-acre (0.33-hectare). Most of this area, 0.71-acre (0.29-
hectare), is maintained roadside and maintained/residential land. The total potential
impact to plant communities in the maintained right-of-way is 0.33-acre (0.13-hectare).
Most of the acreage within the proposed right-of-way is already under regular
maintenance (0.30 out of 0.33-acre (0.12 out of 0.13-hectare).
No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result
only in relocation of ecotonal boundaries. Also, much of the project corridor and
surrounding area is currently bounded by cleared and maintained right-of-way,
agricultural fields, and maintained/disturbed land associated ' with residential
development.
Wildlife
Terrestrial - Most of the study corridor is characterized as open fields and broken
canopy cover associated with residential dwellings and the riparian corridor. The setting
is suburban and agriculture. Mammal signs (tracks, scat, etc.) and sightings noted within
the study corridor during this investigation include: tracks of racoon (Procyon lotor), a
dead Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus),
and a dead striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Other opportunistic and characteristic
species which are expected to frequent study corridor habitats are gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and various rodents.
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include: belted kingfisher (Ceryle
alcyon), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Other
birds expected within riparian thickets and ecotonal communities include: northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), great crested
flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), red-tailed
hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), eastern screech owl (Otus asio),
American robin (Turdus migratorius), and indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were documented within the study corridor.
Species expected within the study corridor include: eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), and copperhead (Agkistron contortrix). The
American toad (Bufo americanus), a terrestrial amphibian, is also expected at this site.
Aquatic - No sampling was undertaken in King Creek to determine fishery potential.
Several unidentified fish, approximately 3.0 inches (7.6cm) in length were observed in
the stream. Species which may be present within King Creek include mountain brook
lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum),
Tennessee shiner (Notropis [Hydrophlox] leuciodus), saffron shiner (Notropis
rubricroceus), mirror shiner (Notropis spectrunculus), telescope shiner (Notropis
telescopus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium
nigricans), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare),
greenside darter (Etheostoma blenniodes), redline darter (Etheostoma rufilineatum),
greenf n darter (Etheostoma chlorobranchium), swannanoa darter (Etheostoma
swannanoa), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi). Potential game fish which may be
present within the study corridor include: redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and brown trout (Salmo trutta).
No amphibians or aquatic reptiles were observed during limited surveys in the stream and
corridor boundary. Amphibian and reptiles species that may occur in this habitat include:
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), common mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus),
seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola), mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus
monticola), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), shovelnose salamander
(Leurognathus marmoratus), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris),
and eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No significant habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements
will be restricted to roadside margins. Construction noise and associated disturbances
will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns.
However, long- term impacts are expected to be negligible. Potential down-stream
impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the system to maintain regular flow
and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream habitat from
increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations.
4. SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Surface waters within King Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3).
The waters of King Creek exhibit characteristics of riverine, upper perennial, mountain
streams that are permanently flooded, with unconsolidated bottoms (R3UB 1 H)
(Cowardin et al. 1979).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the
growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping characterizes areas adjacent to the stream
segment within the study corridor as a palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous,
and temporarily flooded (PSS1A) (Cowardin et al. 1979, NWI mapping). However, no
wetlands of this type were identified within the project corridor.
The area (ac)(ha) and length (ft)(m) of stream and area (ac)(ha) of wetlands that will
potentially be affected by bridge replacement on existing location:
Jurisdictional Area Type Potential Impacts
Open Water:
Area - acres (ha)
Linear distance -feet (m
0.02 (0.008)
30(9.1)
Wetlands. -------
Total Area -acres (ha): 0.02 0.008)
Open water impacts associated with bridge replacement will be temporary, as they occur
primarily within the existing bridge and roadway footprint.
Since the bridge is composed entirely of timber and steel, there is little potential that the
existing bridge may be dropped into "Waters of the United States" during construction.
Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from bridge removal. This project can
be classified as Case 2 (personal communication, Marc Davis, Wildlife Resource
Commission, October 25, 1999) where there are no special restrictions other than those
outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Permits - This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 [33 CFR
330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the USACE for CEs due to expected minimal impact.
DWQ has issued a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However, use
of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not
suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are
expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE
District. Notification to the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit
is utilized.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited
nature of project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to
minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to the tributary and adjacent lands associated with
the construction activities could be mitigated by removal of any temporary fill material
and seeding disturbed areas upon project completion. Fill or alteration of more than 150
linear feet (If) (45.7 linear meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H.0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation to
waters of the U.S. rests with the USACE and DWQ.
Protected Species
Federal Protected Species - Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or
Threatened (T), Proposed (P) for such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of
Appearance (T [S/A]) are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range", and the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to
become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Proposed" is defined as
"any species proposed for official listing as Endangered or Threatened". The term
"Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" includes species listed as endangered or
threatened even if they are not endangered or threatened if a) the species so closely
resembles in appearance an endangered or threatened species that enforcement personnel
would have substantial difficulty distinguishing between listed and unlisted species; b)
I
the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or
threatened species; and c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially
facilitate the enforcement and finther the policy of the Act [Endangered Species Act].
The federal-protected and FSC species listed for Translyvania County (February 26,
2001 FWS list) are included below.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Notes
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia 'onesu E
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucom s sabrinus coloratus E
Peregrine falcon Falco ere rinus anatum E 1
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster Mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis E 2
Rock gnome lichen G innoderma lineare E
Small-whorled o onia Isotria medioloides T 2
Swam ink Helonias bullata T
Bo turtle Clemm s muhlenbur ii T S/A
Notes:
1. Peregrine falcon removed from February 26, 2001 list.
2. Oyster Mussel added to February 26, 2001 list.
3. Small-whorled o onia added to February 26, 2001 list.
Spreading Avens - Spreading avens is an erect, densely hairy, perennial herb to 20
inches (51 cm) tall. A basal rosette of odd-pinnately compound leaves is produced from
a horizontal rhizome. These leaves are long stalked and terminated by a large kidney-
shaped lobe; tiny leaflets are usually present below the terminal lobe (Kral 1983). Small,
sessile, serrated leaves are found on the flowering stem. Lanceolate sepals and relatively
long petal lengths of 0.5 to 0.8 inch (1.3 to 2.Ocm) help differentiate spreading avens
from related species (Massey et al. 1983). Bright yellow, five-petal flowers,
approximately 2.4 to 3.1 inches (6.1 to 7.9cm) across, are produced from June to August;
these are followed between July and October by hairy achenes with a persistent, straight
style approximately 0.2 inch (5.lmm) long (Massey et al 1983). Vegetative parts may
emerge in May and persist through October.
Spreading avens usually occurs at elevations greater than 5000 feet (1524m) on grassy
balds or in grassy clearings in heath balds as well as in crevices of granitic rock; it cannot
tolerate shading or crowding (Kral 1983). Spreading avens is found in a few
northwestern counties of North Carolina, and in nearby counties of Tennessee.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: This species occurs at elevations greater than 5000
feet (1524m). The project elevation is approximately 2100 feet (640m). NHP records
indicate no documented populations of spreading avens within, or in the vicinity of, the
study corridor. Spreading avens was not observed during field studies conducted in
support of this document. Based on available information and results of current field
surveys, the proposed project will not affect spreading avens. NO EFFECT.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant - Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
perennial, hydrophytic herb growing to 29 inches (73.7cm) in height with hollow,
trumpet-shaped leaves. The pitcher chamber is narrow but expands sharply along the
upper quarter of the length. An ascending, cordate-shaped hood is held high over the
exposed pitcher chamber orifice. Solitary flowers are produced on erect flowering stems.
Petals are dark red to maroon on the outside, with the inner surface often yellow-green
tinged with red. Flowering has been reported from April to June with fruits formed by
August. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through August
(Massey et al. 1983). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is sometimes treated as a variety or
subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S. rubra).
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is primarily found in shrub-dominated, early
successional bog communities. The current distribution is restricted to Buncombe,
Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in the mountains of North Carolina (Amoroso and
Weakley 1999) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No bogs were found within, or in the vicinity of, the
study corridor. NHP records indicate no documented populations of mountain sweet
pitcher plant within, or in the vicinity of, the study corridor. Mountain sweet pitcher
plant was not observed during field studies conducted in support of this document. Based
on available information and results of current field surveys, the proposed project will not
affect mountain sweet pitcher plant. NO EFFECT.
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel - The Carolina flying squirrel is an isolated,
endangered subspecies of the more wide-ranging northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys
sabrinus fuscus). Flying squirrels are nocturnal and have a loose, fully furred fold of skin
on each side of the body between the wrists and the ankles that enable the squirrels to
glide from trees to other trees or to the ground for foraging. Carolina flying squirrel can
be distinguished from the similar southern flying squirrel (G. volans) by larger size
(ranging from 10.2 to 12.0 inches [25.9 to 30.5cm]) total length) and by having gray
rather than white bases of the ventral hairs (Weigl 1987).
The Carolina flying squirrel typically occurs in spruce-fir forests and mature hardwood
forest adjacent to spruce-fir forests at elevations above 4000 feet (1219m)(Weigl 1987).
Endemic to the Appalachians of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, this
subspecies is known from the Great Smoky Mountains, Roan Mountain, and Mount
Mitchell.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Carolina northern flying squirrels occupy habitats of
high elevation within the spruce-fir zone (> 4000 feet [1219m]). The study corridor
elevation is approximately 2100 feet (640m). No spruce-fir forests were identified in the
vicinity of the project site. NHP records indicate no documented populations of Carolina
D
northern flying squirrel within, or in the vicinity of, the study corridor. Carolina northern
flying squirrel was not observed during field studies conducted in support of this
document. Based on available information and results of current field surveys, the
proposed project will not affect Carolina northern flying squirrel. NO EFFECT.
Peregrine Falcon. The peregrine falcon is a medium-sized falcon, reaching a length
between 16 to 20 inches (40.6 to 50.8cm), or slightly larger than an American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos). Adults have bluish-gray backs and wings, barring on the pale
underparts, and a black nape and crown with a wide black wedge extending below the
eye. Immature peregrine falcons are dark brown above with a heavily streaked breast,
and a dark bar or wedge is present below the eye (NGS 1987). Peregrine falcons feed on
medium-sized birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and pigeons, which they strike in
midair. Peregrine falcons migrate in the fall, but overwintering birds may be present
along the North Carolina coast (Hamel 1992).
Peregrine falcons were extirpated from nesting sites in the mountains of North Carolina,
but have been reintroduced to western North Carolina through a hacking program
(captive-reared and released). Peregrine falcons nest on ledges on remote cliffs in areas
where a mixture of forests and extensive fields, marshes, or water is present (Hamel
1992).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: -The proposed project will not adversely affect
nesting sites or have long term effects on potential foraging habitat of the peregrine
falcon. No peregrine falcons were observed during field surveys. NHP records have no
documentation of this species within 2.0 miles (1.2 km) of the project corridor. Based on
available information, this project will not result in an adverse impact to peregrine falcon.
NO EFFECT
Appalachian Elktoe. Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate to kidney-shaped
freshwater mussel that grows to approximately 3.1 inches (7.9cm) in length, 1.4 inches
(3.6cm) in height, and 1.0 inch (2.5cm) in width (Clarke 1981). The shell is thin, but not
fragile, and exhibits slight inflation along the posterior ridge near the center of the shell.
Beaks project only slightly above the hinge line. Lateral teeth are absent; however, the
hinge plate of both valves is thickened. Small, pyramidal, compressed pseudocardinal
teeth are present, and an interdental projection is present in the left valve. Juveniles are
yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in
adults. Individuals may be variably marked with prominent to obscure greenish rays.
The nacre (shell interior) is shiny, blue to bluish white with salmon, pinkish, or brownish
coloring in the central portion of the shell and beak cavity. Habitat where Appalachian
elktoe can be expected has been described as riffle areas with gravel and cobble substrate
(TSCFTM 1990).
In North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to the Little Tennessee and
Nolichucky drainages (LeGrand and Hall 1999). Recent surveys have documented this
species in the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain Counties, Cane River in
Yancey County, and Nolichucky and North Toe Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties
(FWS 1996). Recent surveys (1986-1988) conducted in the upper French Broad River
and selected tributaries in Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties failed to
locate any specimens of Appalachian elktoe (TSCFTM 1990). NHP records indicate that
this species has not been documented in Transylvania County within the past 20 years
(LeGrand and Hall 1999).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Tim Savage and Shannon Simpson surveyed King
Creek on February 22, 2001 from approximately 150 yards downstream of the bridge to
approximately 50 yards upstream. This stretch of the creek appears to have been
straigtened from the bridge until its confluence with the French Broad River. Agricultural
fields are adjacent to the creek along the surveyed reach. The segment of the creek
surveyed contains no natural riffle/run/pool sequences. Visual searches were conducted
using view buckets. The creek is also impaired by. heavy sediment/silt loads. The
majority of the substrate is sand/silt with a limited amount of gravel/cobble in some
areas. No mussels were found in approximately 1.5 manhours of survey time. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this species. NO EFFECT.
Oyster mussel. The oyster mussel is a small, freshwater mussel reaching approximately
2.1 inches (7.0 centimeters) in length. The shell is dull to sub-shiny and yellowish to
green with numerous dark green rays. The nacre (inside shell surface) is whitish to bluish
in color. Shells of females are slightly inflated and thinner toward the posterior margin.
Oyster mussels inhabit small to medium-sized rivers with sand/gravel substrate, in
shallow riffles and fast water less than 3 feet (0.9 meter) deep (Parmalee and Bogan
1998). This species is sometimes associated with water willow (Justicia americana) and
is found in gravel pockets between bedrock and swift currents. Four species of fish have
been identified as hosts: spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), redline darter (E.
rufilineatum) dusky darter (Percina sclera), and banded sculpin (Cottus carollinae)
(FWS 2000).
The oyster mussel is endemic to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Within North Carolina,
the species was known to have been abundant in the early 1900s in the upper Tennessee
River system of the mountains of western North Carolina and Tennessee. Currently the
oyster mussel survives in nine tributaries of the Tennessee and Cumberland River
systems in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. This species is now considered to have
been "formerly reported" from the French Broad River (LeGrand and Hall 1999). Much
of the historic range of this species has been impounded by projects of the Tennessee
Valley Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other populations have
probably been lost due to pollution and siltation. All known populations are small and
vulnerable to disturbance.
Within the project corridor, King Creek is characterized as having moderate flow over a
sand and gravel substrate. Suitable habitat for oyster mussel may exist within the project
corridor; however, King Creek flows through the campus of Brevard College and has
been significantly impacted (straightened, channelized, and incised). Oyster mussels

have been documented within the French Broad River basin only historically, and NHP
records document no occurrence of oyster mussel within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the
project corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Tim Savage and Shannon Simpson surveyed King
Creek on February 22, 2001 from approximately 150 yards downstream of the bridge to
approximately 50 yards upstream. This stretch of the creek appears to have been
straightened from the bridge until its confluence with the French Broad River.
Agricultural fields are adjacent to the creek along the surveyed reach. The segment of the
creek surveyed contains no natural riffle/run/pool sequences. Visual searches were
conducted using view buckets. The creek is also impaired by heavy sediment/$ilt loads.
The majority of the substrate is sand/silt with a limited amount of gravel/cobble in some
areas. No mussels were found in approximately 1.5 manhours of survey time. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this species. NO EFFECT.
Rock Gnome Lichen. The rock gnome lichen is a small, squamulose (strap-like) lichen
in the reindeer moss (lichen) family. This species is similar to squamulose lichens in the
genus Cladonia by having terminal portions of its strap-like lobes that are blue-gray on
the upper surface and shiny-white on the lower surface; rock gnome lichen differs from
these other lichens by having blackened lobe bases. The lichen grows nearly parallel to
the rock surface to which it is attached, but the tips curl up to a near vertical orientation.
Reproduction appears to be asexual, with colonies spreading clonally. Rock gnome
lichen is typically found growing in association with a distinctively colored, reddish-
brown moss (Andreaea) (Murdock 1993).
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee.
Most populations occur above 5000 feet (1524m) in elevation in areas subject to frequent
fog cover, but the species has been found at lower elevations in deep gorges where a
similarly high humidity regime is present. Rock gnome lichen typically occurs on
vertical rock faces subject to intermittent seepage (Murdock 1993).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor elevation is considerably below
5000 feet (1524m) (study corridor is approximately 2100 feet [640m]) and the study area
lacks the high humidity habitat required by rock gnome lichen. NHP records indicate no
documented populations of rock gnome lichen within, or in the vicinity of, the study
corridor. Rock gnome lichen was not observed during field studies conducted in support
of this document. Based on available information and results of current field surveys, the
proposed project will not affect rock gnome lichen. NO EFFECT.
Small Whorled Pogonia. The small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to
about 10 inches (25.4cm) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded
leaves with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish,
hollow stem. Typically a single, yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just
above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be present. Flowers consist of three petals,
which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch (1.8cm), surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1
inch (2.5cm) in length. Flower production, which occurs from May to July, is followed
by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches (1.8 to 3.0 cm) in length
(Massey et al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to 10 years
between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977).
The small whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern
Georgia, but is very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found in
scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont and Sandhills (Amoroso and Weakley
1999). Small whorled pogonia is found in open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous
forest, or along stream banks. Examples of areas providing suitable conditions (open
canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small whorled pogonia has been
found include: old fields, pastures, windrow areas, cut-over forests, old orchards, and
semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al.
1983). In the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in
association with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Tim Savage and Shannon Simpson visited the project
site on February 22, 2001 to survey for freshwater mussels. Habitat evaluation for the
small whorled pogonia was also conducted during this visit. Typical habitat for the small
whorled pogonia, deciduous coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer
and sparse herb layer, was not observed to be present within the project area. In addition,
the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
shows no records of this species being found in the project area. Thus, this project will
have no effect on this species. NO EFFECT
Swamp Pink. Swamp pink is a perennial, hydrophytic herb in the lily family with
simple leaves in a basal rosette. Small scale-like leaves or bracts are found on a hollow
flowering stem which may be 16 inches (40.6cm) tall flower and 24 inches (61.Ocm) tall
in fruit. The inflorescence consists of pink to lavender flowers borne on a raceme
without bracts. Fruits consist of three-lobed papery capsules. Flowering occurs in April
and May, with fruits present from May through July. Vegetative portions of the plant
may emerge in April and persist through September (Massey et al. 1983).
The swamp pink occur in a variety of wetland habitats including headwater wetlands,
swampy forest bordering streams, Atlantic white cedar swamps, Blue ridge swamps,
bogs, spring seepage areas, and wet meadows. In North Carolina, swamp pink is found
in mountain swamps and bogs. Swamp pink occurs along small watercourses in
permanently saturated, acidic, organic soils or black muck which is mostly sphagnous
(Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Swamp pink does not tolerate prolonged inundation, but can
survive infrequent and brief flooding. In North Carolina, the current distribution is
restricted to Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania counties (Amoroso and Weakley
1999).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: None of the typical habitats preferred by swamp
pink occur within the project corridor. NHP records indicate no documented populations
I
of swamp pink within, or in the vicinity of, the study corridor. No occurrence of swamp
pink was observed during field studies conducted in support of this document. Based on
available information and results of current field surveys, the proposed project will not
affect swamp pink. NO EFFECT.
Bog turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to
4-in (7.6 to 10.2cm). This otherwise-darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the
presence of a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et.
al. 1980). The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range
due to over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the bog turtle is listed as
Threatened within the northern portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its
range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]) to the northern population. The listing bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the
southern population. The listing allows incidental take of bog turtles in the southern
population resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft
bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous
distribution in the Mountains and western Piedmont. NHP records indicate that the bog
turtle has been documented within 1.5 miles (0.93 km) of the study corridor. However,
landscape and drainage alteration by humans, a lack of palustrine emergent wetland
vegetation, and continual disturbance in this residential area, make it highly unlikely that
any bog turtles occur in the study corridor wetland.
T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required. However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle.
Federal Species of Concern - The February 26, 2001 FWS list also includes a category
of species designated as "Federal Species of Concern." (FSC). The FSC designation
provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. The presence of
potential suitable habitat within the study corridor has been evaluated for the following
FSC species listed for Transylvania County:

Species
Scientific Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Ae olius acadicus SC N
Green salamander Aneides aeneus E N
Rafines ue's big-eared bat Co norhinus ra ines uii SC N
Hellbender C tobranchus alle aniensis SC N
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra SR N
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma oridana haematoreia SC N
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee Parus atricapillus practicus SC N
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis SR N
Appalachian cottontail S lvila s obscurus SC Note 1
Appalachian Bewick's wren Th omanes bewickii altus SC Note 1
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus W Y
Ocenee crayfish ostracod C moc there clavata SR N
Margarita river skimmer Macromia margarita SC Note 1
Diana fritillaria butterfl S eria diana SR N
Transylvania crayfish ostracod Waltonc ther acuta SR N
Frasier fir Abies raseri C N
Alexander's rock aster Aster avitus C N
French Broad heartleaf Hexas lis rhombi ormis C N
Butternut Ju lans cinerea W N
Fraser's loosestrife L simachia raseri E Y
Sweet inesa Monotro sis odorata C N
Southern oconee bells Shortia galacifolia
var. alaci olia SC N
Gorge moss B ocrumia vivicolor E N
A liverwort Pla 'ochila sha ii C N
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii
var. sullivantii C N
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica
var. caroliniana C N
E - Endangered W - Watch List
T - Threatened SR - Significantly Rare
SC - Special Concern C - Candidate
Notes:
1. Species added to the February 26, 2001 list.
I
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North
Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seg.) and the North Carolina Plant
Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP records indicate that two state-listed
species occur in the vicinity of the project: Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis)
and bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The hellbender prefers large, clear, fast flowing
streams with big, flat rocks (Martof et al. 1980). King Creek does not provide suitable
habitat for the hellbender. No suitable habitat for the bog turtle was found in the project
corridor (see description under Federal Protected Species).
VIII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
1. Public Involvement
A Citizens Informational Workshop was conducted on February 8, 2001, between the hours
of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., in the Brevard High School Auditorium located at 747 Country
Club Road in Brevard. One concerned citizen attended the workshop. Her property is located
beyond the limits of project B-3518. She is concerned about a drive pipe at the foot of her
driveway and the lack of any safe areas to walk along the road. Generally, she is in favor of
the project.
A Public Officials Workshop was held prior to the Citizens Informational Workshop between
3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. No public officials attended the workshop.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above discussion, NCDOT and FHWA conclude that the project will cause no
significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the project may be processed as a Categorical
Exclusion.
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
TF
r
.grail
H 111
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRA.NL SPORTATION
DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPM- Ev-r &
ENV13LONM,E.N.TAL ANALYSIS BRA`1C
SR 1546 REPLACEMENT OF i3Kwc,t 1,40- 11
OVER KING CREEK
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT No. 8.2001101 (8-3518)
C)PONECT LOCATION MAP
FIGURE
r ? rii i
1B/26/9A
Z
C
Z
rn?
01
POINT `
CUTS
b
O
b
n
b
n

rn
m
?rn

rA
zrn
b
O
I? ?? o0
b ?
? g ? rn
b
tam
C05 HINGE POINT
C) FOR FILLS
y
O
in
0
c
4
o-
?05
rn
2
c?
c
?o
m
ff:
c?
a
0
a
0
10
EM 8?_
to
?r r
lz N
x W
Nf Z
SR 1546
BR1JGE NO. 37
B-3518
Northbound Approach
x
Southbound Approach
i

f ?
?a

' Side
FIGURE 3

L

r
+
?
-
d9S
'JFr

n

A° / „

B CANE Rt?l
73
+nOriTViE:"!
AiLROAO
AVENUE CIRCLE
A
2155 ZONE X ?a9
2152 ?
o
- o ZONE X
2138 PRrjATE RCao
-` ON 9REVARC
CCLLEv'c
FF,
_I _-ZONE AE _ i wrvc
' 2' `5 ZONE X
o t
l
ZONE X 2.
21.9'-" r - r ZONE AE
2125
85 `RM i ZONE X 2' 6 ?,. C2 /t
86 "_ u v' ZONE,
ZONE +c =? X 1
- ZONE X
88
ZONE X 8 _ 2179
`' Footbridge ' "4'? A
T° 100-YEAR ( o
I:
FLOOD LIMIT 90
RM ZONE AE
ZONE X 91
o
Ala Fapr 41%c. .sJ'/ B ? ?/ ' ?I
2'09 b King, gd
c2 Creee
City of Brev and
370231 BRIDGE NO. 37 ZONE X
FP
L O
GG?
?\?t SAP' v
? ?_ ( \\
'7?
r? ZONE X NORTH CAROLINA DEP.?RTVIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
6' PROJECT DEVELOPNIENt &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
y
G¢o?E SR 1546 REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE No. 37
StP?E? w OVER KING CREEK
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
c9?evr„k i STATE PROJECT No. 8.2001101 (B-3518)
FIGURE
F yr?tiwgy 5
MGWOOD DRIVE
I
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDO,TT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 29, 1999
SUBJECT: Comments on Proposed NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects in Buncombe (B-3414),
Henderson (B-3474), Jackson (B-3480), Macon (B-3485), and Transylvania (B-3518)
Counties.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves 5 bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina (listed
below). Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance
he str°.:..„b and surreer:d:r.gflo:`di.`l :t*: areas. ms's prefer brdge desigr? *h^* a^ not alter the W.r:al
in d
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Spanning structures also allow wildlife passage along stream
corridors, reduces habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at road crossings. Bridge designs
should also include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to
reaching the subject surface waters. Demolition plans for the existing bridge structures should be
addressed in the environmental documents prepared for these projects, as well as any proposed causeways,
temporary access roads or detours. We are also concerned about potential impacts to designated Public
Mountain Trout Waters (PMTW) and environmental documentation for these projects should include
description of any streams or wetlands on the project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered
species that may be affected by construction.
B-3414 - Buncombe County, Bridge No. 181 on NC 151 over South Hominy Creek
South Hominy Creek is not designated PMTW at the project site; however, the stream supports a
wild trout population in the project area. We wouldprefer that the existing bridge be replaced with
another spanning structure.

Bridge replacement memo Page 2 March 29, 1999
B-3474 - Henderson County, Bridge No. 59 on US 74A over Hickory Nut Creek
Hickory Nut Creek is a tributary to the Rocky Broad River, which is designated Hatchery
Supported PMTW. Hickory Nut Creek also supports a wild trout population in the project area.
We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3480 - Jackson County, Bridge No. 39 on NC 107 over East Fork Tuckasegee River
The East Fork Tuckasegee River is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW at the project site and
may also support wild trout populations in the project area. The federally endangered Appalachian
ell¢oe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) is known to occur downstream of the project site. The species
has been confirmed in the Tuckasegee River from Fontana Reservoir to the low-head dam in
Cullowhee. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3485 - Macon County, Bridge No. 16 on SR 1309 over Cartoogechaye Creek
Cartoogechaye Creek is designated Hatchery Supported PMTW at the project site and also
supports wild trout populations in the project area. No endangered species are known from the
site; however, Cartoogechaye Creek is a tributary to the Little Tennessee River, which is
designated critical habitat for the threatened spotfin chub (Hybopsis monacha), and supports
populations of two federally endangered mussels, the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
raveneliww) and the littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula). We would prefer that the existing
bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3518 - Transylvania County, Bridge No. 37 on SR 1546 over Tinsley Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
Because all of the above counties are recognized as "trout water counties" by the Corps of
Engineers (COE), the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed
projects. The following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. StruL--ares should be
inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events. 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.
2. If possible, bridge supports (bents or piers) should not be placed in the stream channel. We
prefer that supports be placed above the bankfull width of the stream.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
4. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Bridge replacement memo Page 3 March 29, 1999
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife.
6. In trout waters, construction is prohibited during the spawning period of November 1 to April
15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
8. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should be
removed without excessive disturbance of the natural river bottom when construction is
completed.
During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials. Streambank areas disturbed when accessing the streambed must be
stabilized immediately.
10. If temporary access roads or detours are required, wetland areas should be avoided. These
areas should be restored to preconstruction conditions upon project completion. Existing shrub
vegetation in the area of the temporary structures should not be grubbed. Root stock should be
left in place to stabilize soils and to possibly sprout following construction.
Thank you for the opponu ity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Nancy Campanella, Project Engineer, PD&EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, Highway Projects Coordinator, NCWRC, Falls Lake

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director VA

.
J-ftft
N C D E Nt W, ?, ?ve?
March 29, 1999 T ?• ? 1 ? 'r
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analyst
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Bridge Replacement Projects
Reference your correspondence dated March 18, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for
bridge replacement state project number 8.2001101 (TIP B-3518). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals that the proposed bridge will span the Tinsley Creek in the French Broad River Basin. The stream
is classified as C Tr waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following
environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project
for any 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.
B. DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road closure, when practical. If
an on-site detour proves necessary. remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge crossing a stream classified
as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed should be determined by the
design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than flowing directly into the
stream.
D. To the maximum extent practicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek.
E. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control structures/measures) to
the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland impacts
should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ if impacts exceed
one acre. Smaller impacts may require mitigation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
F. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridles with bridges. If the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be
countersunk to allow unimpeded fish passage through the crossing.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
c
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
03/31/99
Pa.-e 2
H. If foundation test borinas are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities. Written concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers is required in designated mountain trout counties.
I. If the project is processed as a Categorical Exclusion, mitigation will be required if wetland impacts
exceed one acre, in accordance with DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(2) 11.
While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps is a useful office tool, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met and
designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
cc: Gloria Putnam, NCDWQ
Melba McGee, NCDENR
Nancy Campanella, NCDOT
CAncdot\TIP B-3518\B-3518 scoping comments.doc
L
LLJiJ
Tennessee Valley Authority. 4CO West Summit Hill Onve. Knoxwile. Tennessee 37902-1499
March 30. 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5301
Attention: Ms. Nancy Campanella
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS B-3414, B-3474, B-3480. B-3485. AND B-3518, FRENCH
BROAD AND LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHEDS. BUNCOMBE. HENDERSON.
JACKSON. TRANSYLVANIA AND MACON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the March 18, 1999. letters requesting comments on bridge replacements in western
North Carolina. Project B-3474 for replacement of a bridge on US 74A over Hickory Nut Creek in
Henderson County is outside of the Tennessee River Watershed and does not require an approval from
TVA. TVA would have involvement with the following projects:
• B-3414. State Project No. 8.1844601, NC 151 over South Hominy Creek. Buncombe County
• B-3480, State Project No. 8.1960601, NC 107 over East Fork Ttickasegee River, Jackson County
• B-3 485. State Project No. 8.2970601. SR 1309 over Cartoogechaye Creek, Macon County
• B-3518. State Project No. 8.2001101. SR 1546 over Tinsley Creak. Transylvania County
The environmental document prepared for the above four projects should rote that approvals under
Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required for the bridge replacements. TVA may wish to use the
Federal Highway Administration Categorical Exclusion documents as support for its environmental
review of the same actions. Therefore, the inclusion of information related to wetlands and potential
mitigation, Floodplain Management Executive Order, National Historic Preservation Act compliance, and
Endangered Species Act compliance would greatly facilitate TVA's eventual approval of the projects.
Other issues to be discussed would vary according to project location and impacts but may include, as
appropriate, state-listed species (biodiversity impacts) and visual impacts.
Please send a copy of the completed environmental documents to TVA. Should you have any questions,
please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or [e-mail].
SincerelyYyan:r
9h Jon M. Environmental Management
C?z44 ED

ilk 9 =
Q?
OF :
4o CT t)c'?
* •fc , MCKWO owe

USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
4405 eland Rd. Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Suite 205 NCDOT
Raleigh, NC 27609 p O. Box 2520
[phone] Raleigh, NC 27611
Attention: Ms. Nancy Campanella
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
April 19, 1999
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on SR 1546, Replacement of Bridge No. 37
over Tinsley Creek, Transylvania County, North Carolina, State Project No. 8.2001101 (B-3518).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
Mary T. Kollstedt
State Conservationist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand4n-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
.I
May 5, 1999
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WILMINGTON DISTRICT. COMMENTS ON:
Bridge Replacements in Five Western North Carolina Counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis. Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Macon and Henderson Counties do not participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). However, we recommend that the proposed crossing improvements in
those counties be designed so as not to significantly increase upstream water surface
elevations. The remaining three counties are participants in the NFIP. Of these, the
crossing in Transylvania County involves a detailed study stream with 100-year flood
elevations determined and a floodway defined. The crossings in Jackson and
Buncombe Counties are on approximately mapped streams, which do not have
100-year flood elevations shown. A summary of flood plain information pertaining to the
bridges in the NFIP participating counties is contained in the following table. This
information was taken from the pertinent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream BFE* FIRM
39 NC 107 Jackson E. Fk. Tuskasegee Approx. 5/89
181 NC 151 Buncombe S. Hominy Ck. Approx. 5/96
37 SR 1546 Transylvania Tinsley Creek** 2108 3/98
* Base (100-year) Flood Elevation in feet N.G.V.D.
** Shown as Lambo Creek on FIRM
For the Transylvania County crossing, reference is made to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for
Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways copies of which have been
furnished previously to your office. Improvements to the bridges should be designed to
meet the requirements of the NFIP, administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance
with all local ordinances,. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain
regulations or developments should be referred to the local building official.
All of the affected counties are within the planning jurisdiction of the USACE,
Nashville District. The Nashville District does not currently have projects that would be
affected by the proposed bridge projects. Mr. Harry Blazek may be contacted at
[phone] for further information and comments from the Nashville District.
r

May 5, 1999
Page 2of3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund Project Manager. Asheville
Field Office. Regulatory Division. at [phone]
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, 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. Specific permit requirements will depend on
design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United States, including
wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit #23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Please be reminded that, prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the NCDOT should provide a
letter of notification to the Asheville Regulatory Field Office and the appropriate
NC Wildlife Resources Commission office with reference to impacts to mountain trout
water habitat. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits.
Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results'in
sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if undercutting is
necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used
to restore the site.
.I
May 5, 1999
Page 3 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate.
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.
J

STATE ?.
.wu.A
? n•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 11, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of H!ist nncPrese Department oation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State rvation Oftic er
SUBJECT: SR 1546, Replace Bridge 37 over Tinsley Creek,
Transylvania County, State Project 8.2001101; B-
3518,ER 99-8636
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
cEiV
MAY 14 1999
Otv;SION OF Z.
HIGHWAYS
,? O??FtO? g?`'co
TAL ANP?
Thank you for your memorandum of March 18, 1999, concerning the above project.
We have checked our maps and files and are unaware of any structures of historical significance
with the project's area of potential effect.
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 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 above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
Barbara Church
Tom Padgett
tno Fact inner Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807
TIP # Federal Aid # 13 RSTQ - y?D l1Z-) CountyT>'a.nS?pIV0.r11 C?
CONCLTM CE FORIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On CD l0 I , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject proiect at
/ scoping meeting
Historic architecturai resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present aareed
l? there are no properties over fitly years old within the project's area of potential effect..
V 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, propertic-
identified as
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:

C9/ I D / tGG?
w , f v e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
January 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook-
Deputy State SUBJECT: Bridge #37 on SR 1546 over Tinsley Creek, B-3518, Transylvania County, ER
99-8636
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Wake Forest University Archaeological Labs concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey located within the project area. has recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
cc: Ken Robinson, WFU Archaeology Lab
Tom Padgett, NC DOT
Location Mailing Address
ADMINIStRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center
RESTOR-1,TION \ Mount St Ralei_h V(' 161' %1a0 Service
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
Ralcieh `C 27699-4619
Ralaith \C -600_1F..I3
'felephonelF•as
[phone] 733-86153
[phone] 715-2671
TRANS?C LVA IA
COUNTY SCHOOLS DR. TERRY K. HOLLIDAY
SI:PERIiv MNDE`T
Morris Education Center Telephone: (323) $84-6171
400 Rosenwald Lane FAX t8:3) 381-9524
- `7
Brevard. NC 2371_^•.? _
47-
March 14, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 2520
Raleigh, NC 27611
'?
Dear Mr. Gilmore: > D
1^i J
1.4 1 ?A:7Q
In response to your letter regarding SR 1546: Replacement of Bridge No. 37 over Tinsley Creek
in Transylvania County, the Transylvania County Schools have four school buses routed on the
SR 1546 bridge. The buses do have the potential to meet on the bridge. The bridge is not wide
enough to accommodate two buses at the same time. In the interests of safety, we support the
widening of Bridge No. 37.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact me at 323-334-6173.
Sincerely,
LTerry K. Holliday
TKH Jh
r-

FILE COPY
0zz-? /? 3
May 2, 2002
Mr. John Hendrix
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: NCDOT Nationwide 404 Permit Application
Replace Bridge No 37 on SR 1546 - King Creek
Transylvania County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Hendrix:
Mr. William Gilmore of the North Carolina Department of Transportation is requesting a
letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on a
categorical exclusion and authorization under a Nationwide 23 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. I have reviewed information provided by the applicant, and I am familiar with
habitat values of the project area. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The applicant had originally proposed to replace the existing bridge with another bridge.
Subsequently to the original proposal, there was a proposed change to use culverts at this
location. Due to concerns raised by the NCWRC about mitigation work upstream of this site and
important aquatic resources through the project area, NCDOT has reverted to the original
proposal of replacing the existing bridge with a bridge.
Bridge No 37, SR 1546 2 May 2, 2002 - -? ,
Transylvania County, King Creek
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge over King Creek with a new 52-foot long
bridge on existing location. Traffic will be routed to an off-site detour during construction.
Replacing the bridge with another bridge should have minimal impacts on aquatic resources.
The Division of Water Quality classifies King Creek as C trout. The stream is not
designated as trout waters by the NCWRC. However, this stream reach does in fact support good
populations of trout and is a relative11 s ' Wrt distance upstream of the confluence with the French
Broad River. It is t
? i of bol that this project could result in adverse impacts to
?
trout and other aquatic 1491@t6es liffil stlst ct conditions are adhered to.
The NCWRC is concerned about potential project impacts to trout and other aquatic
resources in this drainage; however, we can concur with the categorical exclusion and the
issuance of the nationwide 404 permit provided the subject permit is conditioned as follows:
1. The existing bridge must be replaced with another bridge as described above and
originally proposed.
2. 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.
Erosion control matting should be used to stabilize any disturbed soils that are
adjacent to surface waters instead of straw mulch.
3. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from surface
waters under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of bridge
supports. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the
stream channel in order to minimize sedimentation and the potential for other
pollutants reaching the stream.
4. All work should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags or rock berms,
cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for fish and
wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites.
6. If possible, stormwater should be routed to buffer areas or retention basins and not
discharge directly to surface waters.
7. If concrete is used during construction, adequate precautions must be taken to prevent
direct contact between wet concrete and surface waters. Water that has contacted
uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for
elevated pH.
Bridge No 37, SR 1546 2 May 2, 2002
Transylvania County, King Creek
8. Instream work and disturbance within the 25-foot buffer zone are prohibited during
the trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry
stages of trout from sedimentation.
9. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected and
maintained regularly to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials.
10. Any over widened areas at the bridge site should be restored; and the width/depth
ratio typical of reaches up and downstream of the site should be maintained through
the bridge project.
11. Discharge of materials into King Creek from demolition of the old bridge should be
avoided as much as practicable. Any materials that inadvertently reach surface waters
should be removed.
12. Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment
in or adjacent to surface waters is strictly prohibited.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending
availability of field staff, the NCWRC may inspect the work site during or after construction. If
there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Owen F. Anderson
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Mr. William Gilmore, Manager, PD &EB, NCDOT
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, Highway Coordinator, DWQ
Ms. Marella Buncick, Highway Coordinator, USFWS