20031599 Ver 1_Complete File_20031212

BRIDGE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL INFORMATION
BRIDGE GROUP XX
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1345, Bridge No. 259 over Big Laurel Creek
Madison County
TIP Number: B-3490
NC Structure Number: Bridge # 259 (56259)
Superstructure
l,'
V
Timber floor on I-beams and channels. L It
Substructure
End bents and two interior bents consist of timber caps, posts, and sills on concrete
footings.
Maximum potential fill calculation
Concrete footinsg are out of water and bents are timber. No fill.

8?G ?URE?
/BRIDGE SITE-J (to?.,?
cGe \
t
TENNESSEE
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
ON SR 1345 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3490
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Kilometers

hP?9f tAORTH.Cq?O('y N.C. DO OF HI NT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTENTION:
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT
"OFRAH5Q0?`` BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT
TYPE OF INSPECTION Routine
COUNTY MADION BRIDGE NUMBER 56259 INSPECTION CYCLE _ 2 YRS
ROUTE SR1345 ACROSS BIQ LAIMEL CREEK M.P. 00Q+000
LOCATION 01MI S JCT SR1?18
SUPERSTRUCTURE 3 SUB&2 TOP DIAGONAL FLOOR ON I-BEAMS&CHANNELS
SUBSTRUCTURE E.BNT &INT.BNTS:MMER CAPS/TIIviBER POST&SILLS/CON .FTG .
SPANS 10,172-, 1 (a 40'• 1 (, 123 ----
PRESENT CONDITION FAIR INVENTORY RATING H:!5 - 46
INSPECTION DATE 9/14/9$ OPERATING RATING H65-11
PRESENT POSTING S.V.-14, T.T.S.T.-17 PROPOSED POSTING ^'0 clyxx,)se-
COMPUTER UPDATE ZO '!? -/? ANALYSIS DATE 10 - / - 98
POSTING LETTER DATE SPECIAL PERMIT B 2
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT DELINEATORS NARROW BRIDGE
SIGN NOTICE NUMBER
ISSUED FOR REQUIRED
No WEIGHT LIMIT
No SPECIAL PERMIT
No DEIJINEATORS
No NARROW BRIDGE
No ONE LANE BRIDGE
No LOW CLEARANCE
Photo Looldng North
is •
C? w1T?/
J A Tom ?F
Av.c?
" ' L}• 0 -
tWSP. 'L?AT?
?cl
?E S e.e F-'J' o? , -? P 0 F v

11.
... , ??x> r?lA?Hf?4G,r3?: G ?f?. F?".?7? sPAN'?t>NLY
c _
70 a
--???... _boc?? tae ?See•t lool•?ecQ_
.emu _??e ? may. ace o? ?e??
4 L a
I
2Q 9Uar
4

-T, Ca
noun.
-Gve B W ?e
T1fPF- rt2.

?ei net ??o.c.L ?E I e -11-d-.1`f. N?X2Su?NC?'}' S "CT
a
J90E
4 _
m??CT?P•? 4al Tae /T•?pets
uaAje J
=?
P
12. S.. t? JPQA..t 4 4a f.. &.,A L .6T- ?
Lm*jc=TV5. ' 'OTXL LL N GTH
9 `- " 1 u
spa?'•'??1 4ao0 • - 4
L.E*4:F? 5 (B4e TG R G ECG .

LA4t& )

f.?P?r? t 5o N GD-
SPI-ZE-A stn -9?ETG
2*•lr),:By
tW7 Eby WVRZ15 Z L +pv 'V-le 4-O'V1.5

I N
s
1
4 '
Q
r ?
JZ ?
A ?
M
pl 4y
? J
J
? ?v I

_ _ i ?•1tX?'d
.dye ?cr3 t?b3dls czO+o •Vls- .

?ws
N
? L}
Q
v
?z
v

North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 2b
VIEWS OF BRIDGE FROM CREEK
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
ON SR 1345 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3490
View of Downstream Side of Bridge
view of upstream Side of Bridge.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 18, 1999
6`3(Slyy
CV C
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Proj) Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Qualit? ?
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 259(56259) on SR 1345 over the
Big Laurel Creek in Madison County, TIP B-3490.
Reference your correspondence dated August 10, 1999, in which you requested scoping comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge will span the Big
Laurel Creek in the French Broad River Basin. The stream is classified as Class C Trout waters. The
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. Review of the proposed project reveals the potential for impacts to a Class C Trout Waters. Prior to
selecting a preferred alternative, the DOT needs to assess and document all other. reasonable and
feasible alternatives. The NCDWQ cannot permit impacts to valuable water supplies that are
otherwise avoidable. Prior to issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT will need
to demonstrate the rationale for the selected alternative and all efforts undertaken to ameliorate
impacts.
B. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a clear purpose and need to justify
the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that the
Level-of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level-of-Service as well as the proposed future
Level-of-Service. The discussion for the future Level-of-Service should consider the Level-of-
Service with and without the project.
C. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
D. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/18/99
Page 2
E. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, High Quality Waters, Body
Contact Waters, or Water Supply Waters will be impacted during the project implementation.
However, impacts to waters classified as Class C Trout waters will be impacted. The 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. This would
apply 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.
F. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a 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.
G. The 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.
H. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
Wetland and stream 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 for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
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.
K. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
L. 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.
M. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) 1, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3)1, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
N. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
0. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
P. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/18/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that 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: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Ron Linville, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP B-3490\comments\B-3490 scoping comments.doc
f?
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERxoR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
p. yam
pwr
October 31, 2003
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
() 31599
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
DEC 1 2 2003
WATER (QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 259 over Big
Laurel Creek on SR 1345, Madison County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1345(2),
State Project No. 8.2860501, TIP B-3490, Division 13.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Report for the above
referenced project. We propose to replace Bridge No. 259 over Big Laurel Creek (DWQ Index #
6-112), a Division of Water Quality Class "C Tr" Waters of the State. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 259 at its existing location while maintaining traffic on a temporary on-site
detour just upstream (north) of the existing bridge during construction. Bridge No. 259 will be
approximately 75 feet (23 m) in length. The bridge will have two 10-foot (3.0 m) lanes with 3-
foot (0.9 m) shoulders. The approaches will have two 10-foot (3.0 m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2 m)
unpaved shoulders. The proposed design speed is 20 mph (32 kph).
EUPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the French Broad River Basin (FBR04 sub-basin). One surface water
resource, Big Laurel Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Big Laurel Creek
originates on Haw Ridge about 10 miles (16 km) northeast of the project area. From the project
area, the creek flows in a westerly direction about 15 miles (24 km) to its confluence with the
French Broad River.
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction of both the new bridge
and the detour bridge, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will
be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, as applicable. Long-term impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams are not
expected as a result of proposed construction.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Bridge No. 259 superstructure consists of a timber floor on 1-beams and channels. The
substructure consists of vertical abutments and two interior bents consisting of timber caps, posts,
and sills on concrete footings. The bridge is 74 feet 5 inches (22.7 m) long. The clear roadway
width is 18 feet 4.5 inches (5.6 m). The crown of the roadway is approximately 10 feet (3 m)
over the bed of Big Laurel Creek. The concrete footings are not in the water and the bents are
timber. No fill will result from demolition.
As noted in the project's CE document, NCDOT will observe an in-stream construction
moratorium from November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The new bridge will consist of a 77 foot (a 22 foot span and a 55 foot span) cored slab bridge. A
temporary causeway will not be necessary to complete this structure.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 29 January 2003, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) lists three federally protected species for Madison County.
The biological conclusion of "No Effect" due to lack of suitable habitat remain valid for all of
these federally protected species expect the oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), as the
original surveys have expired. NCDOT biological consultant, Tim Savidge, resurveyed the area
the week of October 20`h, 2003, and found no oyster mussels, but did find habitat. Therefore the
biological conclusion is "May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect" for the oyster mussel.
Table 2. Federally.protected species for Macon County**
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Spotfm chub Ermonax monacha T
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens E
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis E
** Obtained from the US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and
Endangered Species of North Carolina, Macon County, (January 29, 2003).
Note for Status:
• Threatened (7) denotes a taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "
• Threatened (T(S/A)) denotes a taxon threatened due to similarity of appearance with other
rare species.
• Endangered (E) denotes a taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. "

Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: 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 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC
forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Pennit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone].
Sincerely,
1?-^ ?-
R - >
r Grego J. Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Sullivan, FHWA
Mr. Ron Watson Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
Ms. Missy Dickens
1 341
i g t
1342
L - - J
l
?W 1318
1.0
•l?
1432
PROJECT
1343
2'l
? ,__ 1318
t?
? 1410 \
.3
I
3 1423
?- l
VICINITY
MAIDS
Goo
I 1502
9
1503
1.3.
1431 ?
O
1346
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MADISON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2860501 (B-390)
REPLACE BRIDGE 0259 OVER
BIG LAUREL CREEK ON SR 1345
SHEET I OF -1 03! 17! Q3
NORTH CAROLINA
1
I WETLAND LEGEND I
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
CL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* * = DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
-? FLOW DIRECTION
TB
TOP OF BANK
- - WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
--EL-- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - WATER SURFACE
XX XX X X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MADISON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2860501 (B-390)
REPLACE BRIDGE 0259 OVER
BIG LAUREL CREEK ON SR 1345
SHEET 3 OF 1 05/17/

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12--48-
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
m2N
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
El PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE

\ \ 3
\ d
LL-
U
r
Lli
d =
,1.0 _
\ o
1 C)
\ a
LL.
Q - Lij
U F ? Q
LIJ C)
-4• J
- S. F-
z Q) \ - -
\ -? / II UZ
Q
r-
- 1 I J
"
"
" JM
M
D

ti
c

?

C
C
a

z
c
Z.
0
k
`P
?a
°
?
U
a a
,
C
a
a
G]
?
a M

o

U

-?
? O

?

w

z
w
0
p 0
CL
\ J H
(n Q
2 U ?
r
u Q
z O a
\ '' g
LLJ
LL-
w CO ?1
Z CO N
p Z'
BEL CRK•
N w i ?.
05
o6 In
(v ?j
O ~ cn p CD
J z-
LLI
-7-00+01
/ N \ N \b\
LL.
0
N_
lY
O
O
\ w
\ J
?n a
N U
N
O
O O c
itA d !

w N
<
O x
? 4
\ 0 to
o
z ® o°
o
' i
V)
w z ,
x
w° W
1' ? ? o? ? U O
z .a
Q*j

1 p
o a
a
\ + W

1 Z I J LLJ
I
1

J

.,

13,
1 Q
x
O
0 \ 0
+
`- "'t c
+
w N
c ? y
°

` o

t
,

1 L

1

I
II
O
N
N
'
± i /
j
? •A
`R O
O
\
W
? II
Z J F-
W , W J
Z
m I 0
Z

N N
D

(a CU
Z M

CL °
rn r

C) O O j } M O

LU
LL F m
Z
co d =
U) D
O
U o
Q =
Of LL z O
F- O

N
O
Z U co
00 p LL
O
d
W
U) O's 5
O
O H
U a w
z =
C0

co a) w N

CL 0

O p
f6 ? ?

3 N co
w
N
Z
O p
C C
?

Q ?'
X L
E
W U

U
Q d C/)

H
W
U
LL
o 0

? co C U

O o
m
} co

Q i ?
? i
C
C -p p O
N c

v
V aU?
Q ?
d c N p O
c

w c
Ll! a
Z

- o 0

J p
iTL
Q
Z
W N

? ?
J -
~
O O
c v
2m
_

v
N

? 0
U
?
F- N
? N t
p

? U) i
`
r
N
N
?
`
V
C 0
O ? i
J

O ?.
?
CO
LL
.r }
O

O Q

O
O -? o
F

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
INA METCALF 125 LONG BRANCH RD.
MARS HILL, N.C. 28794

a ?.
r
Madison County
SR 1345
Bridge No. 259 Over Big Laurel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1345(2)
State Project 8.2860501
TIP Project No. B-3490
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 031599
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
8 a?
DA E Grimes, PE., Assistant Manager
+V'E-Gail
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
& -710 Z_
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
414`JDivision Administrator, FHWA
Madison County
SR 1345
Bridge No. 259 Over Big Laurel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1345(2)
State Project 8.2860501
TIP Project No. B-3490
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AUGUST 2002
Document Prepared by
E A R T H@ T E C H
Aty=INTERNATIONALLTD. COMPANY
IIIItJf
AZ 'PIP
•• ? Og?D ? s
• 1riw7/ 'i
s °s
!"?• SEAL g a
0 226
Edward B. McFalls, P.E. o?® .1
Project Manager
Earth Tech
s°°°//eeelten\\\\?
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
8•z? az
17,4L
John Wadsworth, P.E.
Consultant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
c ?
SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Madison County
SR 1345
Bridge No. 259 Over Big Laurel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1345(2)
State Project 8.2860501
TIP Project No. B-3490
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions., Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional
Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines
for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Highway Division 13
• No in-stream work will be conducted between November 1 and April 15 to
avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
Highway Design Branch
• Any new piers or bents will be placed outside the bank-full width of the
stream.
The bridge design will include provisions for the deck drainage to flow
through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the affected stream.
project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The stream impacts associated with the project will likely be lower than
the 150 linear-foot (45.7 m) threshold. If it becomes apparent during final
design that more than 150 linear feet (45.7 m) of stream will be impacted,
mitigation measures will be considered.
• Approval under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act
will be required for the bridge replacement project. ` A copy of this
document will be forwarded to TVA.
Categorical Exclusion
August 2002
t 3
Madison County
SR 1345
Bridge No. 259 Over Big Laurel Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1345(2)
State Project 8.2860501
TIP Project No. B-3490
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 259 in Madison County is
included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 259 has a
sufficiency rating of 19.8 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The replacement of
this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
I1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1345 in Madison County is functionally classified as "Local" road in the
Statewide Functional Classification System.
Through the project area, SR 1345 has 18-foot (5.5-m) wide pavement, 2-foot
(0.6 m) wide unstabilized shoulders, and a 50-foot (15.2-m) wide right-of-way.
The bridge is located approximately 60 feet (18.3 m) east of the intersection of
SR 1345 and SR 1318. SR 1345 intersects SR 1318 within a 27-degree curve
(65 m radius). Approximately 100 feet (30.5 m) east of the bridge is a 16-degree
curve (109 m radius) on SR 1345. The horizontal and vertical alignment of the
structure with SR 1345 is good.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1967. The superstructure consists of a
timber floor on 1-beams and channels. The substructure consists of vertical
abutments and two interior bents consisting of timber caps, posts, and sills on
concrete footings. The bridge is 74 feet 5 inches (22.7 m) long. The spans are
(one span at 17.2 feet (5.2 m), one span at 40 feet (12.2 m), and one span at
17 feet 2 inches (5.2 m), 40 feet 0 inches (12.2 m), and 17 feet 3 inches (5.3 m).
The clear roadway width is 18 feet 4.5 inches (5.6 m). The crown of the roadway
is approximately 10 feet (3 m) over the bed of Big Laurel Creek. Presently, the
posted weight limit is 14 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for trucks with
1

trailers. The bridge crosses the stream at approximately 90 degrees. Figure 4
includes photographs of the existing structure and approaches.
Madison County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program.
Bridge 259 is not located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA) floodplain.
The average daily traffic volume on SR 1345 at Bridge No. 259 was 340 vehicles
per day in 2002. By the design year 2025, the average daily traffic volume is
expected to increase to 600 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volume
includes one percent dual-tired vehicles and one percent truck-tractor semi-
trailers. Three school buses cross this bridge twice daily. This part of SR 1345 is
not designated as a bicycle route. The speed limit is not posted.
According to the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis Systems Strip
Analysis Report, two crashes were reported within 500 feet of Bridge No. 259 in
the period between February 1, 1999 and January 31, 2002.
One crash was a head on crash between two vehicles at the SR 1345 /
SR 1318 intersection. The crash happened during daylight and dry
conditions. No alcohol or drugs were suspected. The estimated speeds of
the vehicles were 35 and 45 miles per hour (56 and 72 kph).
• One crash was a "ran off road - right" near SR 1410. The crash happened
during dark, unlighted, and dry conditions. No alcohol or drugs were
suspected. The estimated speed of the vehicle was 50 miles per hour
(80 kph).
French Broad Electric and GTE have aerial power and telephone lines
throughout the project area. At the eastern end bent, there are private power and
water lines attached to the bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed bridge will be approximately 75 feet (23 m) in length. The bridge
will have two 10-foot (3.0 m) lanes with 3-foot (0.9 m) shoulders. The
approaches will have two 10-foot (3.0 m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2 m) unpaved
shoulders. Figure 3 shows the typical cross-sections of the roadway approaches
and bridge. The proposed design speed is 20 mph (32 kilometers per hour).
2
B. Build Alternatives
Two alternatives were carried forward for detailed study in this Categorical
Exclusion. Figure 2 shows sketches of all the alternatives listed below.
Alternative 1 would replace the bridge in its existing location while
maintaining traffic on a temporary on-site detour downstream (south) of the
existing bridge during construction. This detour would require the purchase of
a shed/workshop building and the removal of numerous trees and shrubs.
Alternative 2 would replace the bridge at its existing location while
maintaining traffic on a temporary on-site detour just upstream (north) of the
existing bridge during construction. This detour would require the relocation of
a mobile home.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
No Action. This alternative consists of short-term minor reconstruction and
maintenance activities that are part of an ongoing plan for continuing operation
of the existing bridge and roadway system in the project area. Many of the
structural elements are decaying or corroding. Decay and corrosion has already
reduced the bridge's safe load-bearing capacity. Although further maintenance
activities will slow the decay, closing the bridge will eventually be necessary.
Constructing a new bridge either upstream (north) or downstream (south) of the
existing structure while maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during
construction was considered. The intersection of SR 1345 and SR 1318 lies
within a 27-degree (65 m radius) curve on SR 1318. Constructing a new bridge
either north or south of the existing bridge would provide less sight distance than
that provided by the existing intersection location. Therefore, in order to avoid
reducing sight distance at the intersection and compromising safety, these
alternatives were eliminated from consideration.
An off-site detour is not feasible since SR 1345 is a dead-end road. The County
Maintenance Map shows SR 1410 connecting SR 1345 to SR 1318. SR-1410 is
a dead-end road from SR 1345.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 2, replacing the bridge at its existing location while maintaining traffic
on a temporary on-site detour just upstream (north) of the existing bridge during
construction, is the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 was selected because it
has the least impacts to natural resources, and is the least costly to construct.
Alternative 2 also spares a large tree and other vegetation that shade Big Laurel
Creek
3

The new bridge will be constructed at the same elevation and the existing
hydraulic opening will be maintained. During preparation of the preliminary
hydraulics study report, the Division Engineer concurred that a spanning
structure is appropriate for this project and recommended that a pre-cast system
be considered during design.
Since the statutory speed limit is 55 miles per hour (89 kilometers per hour) and
the design speed for the proposed roadway is 20 mph (32 kilometers per hour), a
design exception will be needed for design speed. No other design exceptions
are anticipated.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction and right-of-way cost estimates for the alternatives studied are
presented below in Table 1.
Table 1. Estimated Costs
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred

Mainline Detour
South
Sub-totals
Mainline Detour
North
Sub-totals
Structure Removal $ 11,400 $ 11,400 $ 11,400 $ 11,400
Structure $ 159,100 $ 63,000 $ 222,100 $ 159,100 $ 63,000 $ 222,100
Road wa Approaches $ 29,400 $ 90,000 $ 119,400 $ 29,400 $ 90,000 $ 119,400
Miscellaneous and
Mobilization
$
31,200
$ 33,900
$
65,100
$
31,200
$ 33,900
$
65,100
Engineering and
Contingencies
$
47,500
$ 34,500
$
82,000
$
47,500
$ 34,500
$
82,000
Ri ht-of-wa /Utilities $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ 34,500 $ 34,500
Relocation $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000
Total Cost of
Alternative
$
564,000
$
546 500
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $536,000 including $56,000 for right-of-way and
$360,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for Federal
Fiscal Year 2002, with construction to follow in Federal Fiscal Year 2003.
There are no relocations on Alternative 1, and one residential relocation on
Alternative 2.
4
I g
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
An evaluation of natural resources in the immediate area of potential project
impact was performed. The evaluation included 1) an assessment of biological
features in the vicinity of the existing roadway including descriptions of
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water quality issues; 2) an
evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs and conceptual mitigation options. The
information included in this report was taken from the Natural Resources
Technical Report, which is on file in the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch.
A. Methodology
Published information and resources were collected before the field
investigation. Information sources used to prepare this report include the
following:
United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Sams Gap,
1978)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) Map (Sams Gap, 1989)
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photograph
of project area (1:1200)
Draft soil maps of Madison County (Natural Resources Conservation
Service [NRCS] 1976 and 1990)
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1998)
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and
unique habitats
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route on
February 5, 1999. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat
assessment was performed within the project area of Big Laurel Creek. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of
observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations, and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of the project
site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
A search for jurisdictional wetlands in the project area was based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(USACE, 1987).
5
B. Physiography and Soils
The project area lies in the western portion of North Carolina within the Blue
Ridge physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately
2,540 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The topography of the
project vicinity is mountainous; the project lies within a small, gently rolling
floodplain. There is a steep rocky slope to the north, and a small valley between
low mountains to the south.
The following information about soils in the project area was taken from draft
soils maps of Madison County made in 1976 and 1990. Mapping in the project
area is apparently incomplete, but the residential area on the left bank upstream
of the bridge was assigned the provisional unit of "Greenlee-Tusquitee complex,
15-30 percent slopes, very stony". Greenlee and Tusquitee soils are very deep,
well-drained soils formed in colluvium on benches, fans, toe slopes, and foot
slopes in coves in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Information regarding
flood frequency, high water table, and site index was not available. Neither of
these soils is on the USDA list of hydric soils for North Carolina (USDA, 1999).
C. Water Resources
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage Standards, and
water quality of the water resources to be impacted by the proposed project.
Probable impacts to these waters are also discussed.
1. Waters Impacted
The project is located in the French Broad River basin (FBR04 sub-basin). One
surface water resource, Big Laurel Creek, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Big Laurel Creek originates on Haw Ridge about 10 miles (16 km)
northeast of the project area. From the project area, the creek flows in a westerly
direction about 15 miles (24 km) to its confluence with the French Broad River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Big Laurel Creek is a mid-gradient, fourth-order stream approximately 30 feet
(9 m) wide in the project area. The stream flows west in a broad curve, forming a
series of cascades and short runs. The substrate of the river at this point
consists of about 10 percent bedrock, 50 percent boulders, 20 percent cobbles,
10 percent gravel, and 10 percent silt. Stream flow on the day of the site visit
was rapid. The water was shallow, about one foot (3 dm) deep in the runs and up
to three feet (9.1 dm) deep in some pools. The water was slightly turbid, and
there was a thin deposit of silt on the rocks and stream bottom.
6
t i
The left bank is nearly vertical, about five feet (1.5 m) high, and lined with
boulders on the upstream side, becoming less vertical and lower on the
downstream side. The right bank slopes moderately down from the road
shoulder and is lined with boulders and cobbles.
The creek has a mostly open canopy, although some large trees downstream of
the bridge may provide considerable shading after leaf-out. Otherwise, the
riparian vegetation consists mainly of dense shrubs and weeds on the upstream
side of the bridge, and more open shrub and herbaceous cover on the
downstream side.
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) that is designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality
within the state. Big Laurel Creek (Index # 6-112) is classified as a Class C Tr
water body (NCDENR, 1999). Class C water resources are used for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
There are no restrictions on watershed development. The supplemental Tr
classification refers to trout waters, which are freshwaters protected for natural
trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
The Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ has
four monitoring stations for the Basin-Wide Assessment Program located in the
project vicinity. Big Laurel Creek was sampled at four locations in 1997. One
station is located about 3.8 miles (6.1 km) upstream of the project area at
SR 1184. It was classified as "Good". A second station is located about 6.0 miles
(9.7 km) downstream of the project area at SR 1318/SR 1334. This station was
also classified as "Good". The third station is located about 6.5 miles (10.5 km)
downstream at SR 1318, and was classified as "Excellent". The fourth station is
located about 11.2 miles (18.0 km) downstream at NC 208 and was classified as
"Excellent".
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the
DWQ. The town of Mars Hill holds Permit N00083712 to discharge at the water
treatment plant on SR 1505, about 8.3 miles (13.4 km) upstream of the project
site. This is a Minor, Non-Municipal permit classified as "Water Plants-Surface
Water".
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1 mile (1.6 km)
wwof the project study area.
7
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts
will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable. Long-term impacts to
water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements.
D. Biotic Resources
The composition of plant communities in the project area reflects landscape-level
variations in topography, soils, moisture, and past or present land use practices.
This section describes these communities of flora and fauna, including the
dominant plants and animals in each community and their relationships with
each other. Scientific nomenclature and common names, where applicable, are
used for the species described. Subsequent references to the same species are
by the common name only.
1. Plant Communities
Three terrestrial plant communities were identified within the project area: a
riverbank community, a disturbed shrub community, and a maintained landscape
community.
a) Riverbank Community
This community occurs along the right bank of Big Laurel Creek on the
downstream side of the bridge. It appears to be a remnant montane alluvial
forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) classification equivalent is most likely 1.B.2.N.d.150 Platanus occidentalis--
(Liquidambar styraciflua-Liriodendron tulipifera) Temporarily Flooded Forest
Alliance. Canopy and subcanopy species include tuliptree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
river birch (Betula nigra), Canada hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acer
rubrum), and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). Black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia) is also present, possibly indicating the disturbed nature of the
community. The understory includes rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris var. editorum), grape (Vitis sp.),
common alder (Alnus serrulata), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), Christmas fem
(Polystichum acrostichoides), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
b) Shrub Community
This community occurs along the left bank of the creek on the upstream side of
the bridge. It is a dense thicket of weeds and shrubs, dominated by disturbance
indicators and weedy species such as blackberry (Rubus sp.), japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), rose (Rosa
8
multiflora), ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), virgin's bower (Clematis
virginiana), nodding onion (Allium cernuum), golden groundsel (Senecio aureus),
and fleabane (Erigeron sp.).
c) Maintained Landscape Community
This community covers the area along the left bank of Big Laurel Creek on both
sides of the bridge. It consists of regularly mowed grassy areas surrounding
dwellings and sheds on the riverbank. Some of this area is covered with stacks
of lumber and large boulders. The dominant species in this community is fescue
(Festuca sp.). Henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), nodding onion (Allium cemuum),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and violet (Viola sp.) are also present.
2. Wildlife
The dominant faunal components associated with
are described below. any species are adapted to
found along the project alignment, but may not be
community description.
a) Riverbank Community
these three terrestrial areas
the entire range of habitats
mentioned separately in each
Bird species that may utilize this type of habitat include kingfisher (Megaceryle
alcyon), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), and eastern phoebe (Sayomis phoebe). Other vertebrates
that may utilize this habitat include raccoon (Procyon lotor , Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon).
b) Shrub Community
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both
living and dead faunal components. Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus migratorius) are common
birds that use these habitats. American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), slate-colored
junco (Junco hyemalis carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor, and white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) were observed moving between this
community and the maintained landscape community the day of the site visit.
The area may also be used by gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), various species of mouse (Peromyscus sp.),
Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
9
c) Maintained Landscape Community
The vertebrate species expected to utilize this community are essentially the
same as those listed above in the shrub community. Given the near absence of
tree and shrub cover, however, the suitability of this community as habitat is
marginal at best.
3. Aquatic Communities
Madison County is designated a "trout" county by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) and Big Laurel Creek is a designated Public
Mountain Trout Water. According to a communication from Scott Loftis, District 9
Biologist for the WRC, Big Laurel Creek supports a good population of wild trout
(Salmo trutta and Oncorhynchus mykiss). This type of stream may also serve as
habitat for the hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), as well as for larval
stages of other herpetofauna.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by
project construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial
community area along SR 1345. Terrestrial communities will be impacted
temporarily by construction of the detours. Estimated impacts are derived based
on the project lengths and right of way widths of 50 feet (15.2 m). Table 2
describes the potential temporary and permanent impacts to the terrestrial
communities by habitat type. Because the impacts are based on ROW widths,
the actual loss of habitat will likely be less.
Table 2. Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres Hectares
Community Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Preferred
Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Riverbank 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01
Shrub 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00
Maintained Landsca a 0.22 0.09 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.04
Total Impact 0.27 0.11 0.12 0.05 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.05
Destruction of natural communities within the project right of way will result in the
loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize
the area. Animal species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult
birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during
construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as many amphibians,
may suffer direct loss during construction. The plants and animals that are found
in these upland communities are generally common throughout western North
Carolina.
10
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to
moderate slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted
to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect
downstream communities. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site. The bridge design will include provisions for the
deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the
affected stream. Any new piers or bents will be placed outside the bank-full width
of the stream.
In addition, in order to avoid impacts to trout reproduction, no in-stream
construction activities will be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
Typical in-stream activities for bridge construction may include pouring concrete
footings, driving pilings, or positioning equipment for the placement of I-beams.
In this case, the proposed construction is a single-span bridge, so in-stream
activity is expected to be minimal.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States". Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These wetlands and
surface waters are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under these provisions.
Jurisdictional wetlands do not occur within the project area. Big Laurel Creek
meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore classified as Waters of
the United States.
2. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies may
be required prior to construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996. This project will
also require a 401 Water Quality Certification, or waiver thereof, from the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to issuance of
the NWP 23. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or
deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that results
in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. In addition, the project is located in a
designated "trout" county. The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission has
11
designated the stream as Public Mountain Trout Waters and expressed a
preference that the bridge be replaced with another spanning structure (see their
December, 1998 memorandum in the Appendix). Final permit decisions rest with
the USACOE.
Approval under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act will be
required for the bridge replacement project. TVA will likely use this Categorical
Exclusion as support for its environmental review of the same action. In order to
facilitate this process, a copy of the document will be forwarded to TVA.
3. Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States
requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Effective 09/20/1999,
this permit is included with the permit for the construction of the new bridge. The
permit application requires disclosure of demolition methods and potential
impacts to the body of water in the planning document for the bridge
reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures stipulates that "excavated- materials shall
not be deposited.. -in rivers, streams, or impoundments", and "the dropping of
parts or components of structures into any body of water will not be permitted
unless there is no other practical method of removal. The removal from the water
of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any resulting
siltation to a minimum." To meet these specifications, NCDOT shall adhere to
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, as
supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal.
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as
follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the
presence of special resource waters or threatened and/or endangered
species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the
water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency to
protect the Special Resource Water or T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated
with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
12
Big Laurel Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project is not a special resource
water and is not known to provide habitat for species on the federal list of
threatened and endangered species. However, it is classified as a Public
Mountain Trout Water, and carries the DWQ supplemental Tr classification.
Therefore, Case 2 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 259 over
Big Laurel Creek.
The superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 259 have been described in
Section 11. The concrete footings are not in the water and the bents are timber.
No fill will result from demolition.
4. Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit,
mitigation for impacts to surface waters may or may not be required by the
USACE. In accordance with the Division of Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A
NCAC 211 .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will
require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet
(45.7 m) of streams may require compensatory mitigation." Because there are no
wetlands within the study area, wetland mitigation will not be required. Up to 100
linear feet (30.5 m) of Big Laurel Creek are located within the right of way for the
proposed project. The stream impacts associated with the project will likely be
lower than the 150 linear-foot (45.7 m) threshold. If it becomes apparent during
final design that more than 150 linear feet (45.7 m) of stream will be impacted,
mitigation measures will be considered.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural
forces or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and
protected species listed for Madison County, and any likely impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. The USFWS lists three species under federal protection for
Madison County as of March 2002. These species are listed in Table 3.
13

Table 3. Species Under Federal Protection in Madison County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Hybopsis monacha Spotfin chub T
Epiobiasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel E
Myotis grisescens Gray bat E
Notes: E = Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T = Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of the species
follows, along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Hybopsis monacha (spotfin chub)
Vertebrate Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: 1977
Threatened
The spotfin chub is a small fish, growing 2.6 inches to 4.3 inches (66 mm to
108 mm) in length. It has an elongated body, an inferior mouth, one pair of small
terminal labial barbells, small to moderate sized scales, and a large black spot
near the tail. The lateral line is complete and there are eight anal rays. Females
and juveniles are olive-colored above and white below, with silvery sides. Males
in breeding coloration have bright turquoise coloring on their backs, sides,
heads, and fins, and have two white bars on their sides. Males' fins are tipped
with white during breeding.
The spotfin chub is found only in the Tennessee River drainage in Virginia (lower
North Fork Holston River), Tennessee (lower North Fork Holston River, Emory
River systems), and North Carolina (upper Little Tennessee River). This species
once occurred more widely in the Tennessee River basin, but has declined in
recent decades.
Preferred habitat for the spotfin chub consists of wide, moderately large to large
streams (50 to 230-foot [15 to 70 m] average width) which have clear water,
good current, and pool / riffle streambed morphology. This species has been
found in a wide range of water temperatures and substrates, although not from
heavily silted sites. Spotfin chub are visual feeders, selecting individual insect
larvae from clean sand, gravel, and rock substrates. The diet is composed
mainly of dipterans, although mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies are also eaten.
Little is known about the reproductive habits of the spotfin chub, although
observations of collected fish indicate that spawning takes place in May through
July, and may occur several times in a single season. These fish are not
believed to construct nests or guard their eggs, based on habits of closely
related species.
14
Factors which have been shown to have an adverse effect on the spotfin chub
are loss of habitat (through the damming of rivers and siltation), and toxic effects
(from coal mine runoff and municipal and industrial wastes), although these
factors do not account for the decline in some populations.
Fish in the genus Cyprinella can be distinguished from other shiners by the
presence of their vertical diamond-shaped scales and a black blotch in the dorsal
fin. Females and juveniles of the ten species occurring in this area can be
difficult to distinguish from each other, but the male spotfin chub in breeding
colors can be distinguished by its brilliant turquoise color and white-tipped fins.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat for the spotfin chub does not exist within the project area. Big
Laurel Creek is not in the drainage area where this species is known to occur.
The section of Big Laurel Creek within the project area is smaller than the
streams typically inhabited by the spotfin chub, and the presence of silt in this
section of the creek may exclude this species. Due to the lack of habitat for this
species, a fish surrey was not conducted. However, it should be noted that the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission conducted a mussel survey in
the project area on October 22, 2001. During the surrey, no federally listed
endangered or threatened species were observed. Additionally, a search of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program files revealed no occurrence of the
spotfin chub in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect
the spotfin chub.
Epioblasma capsaeformis (oyster mussel)
Invertebrate Familiy: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1997
Endangered
The oyster mussel has a dull to sub-shiny yellowish green shell with numerous
narrow, dark green rays. The shells of females are obovate, with an inflated and
quite thin-shelled marsupial swelling toward the posterior margin, which is
usually a darker color than the rest of the shell. Shells of males are elliptical,
with the ventral margin slightly curved. The dorsal margin is straight, and the
hinge ligament is short. The inside of the shell is whitish to bluish white in color
(Johnson 1978, Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
This species historically occurred throughout much of the Cumberlandian region
of the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages in Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, and Virginia. This species is not found in small streams. Preferred
habitat consists of shallow riffles over course sand / gravel / cobble substrate in
medium-sized, fast-flowing streams and rivers less than three feet deep
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
15

The major threats to the oyster mussel are loss of habitat and water pollution.
Many of the rivers in the oyster mussel's historic range have been impounded,
rendering these areas unsuitable for the species. In addition, freshwater
mussels as a group are sensitive to poor water quality; siltation, agricultural
runoff, and other nonpoint sources pose a major threat.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Habitat for the oyster mussel does exist within the project area. Three surveys
for the oyster mussel have conducted near and within the project area. The
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission conducted a survey in the project
area on October 22, 2001. NCDOT conducted two surveys, eight miles
downstream and in the French Broad River, on July 11, 2000 and June 14, 2001,
respectively. No oyster mussels were found. Additionally, a search of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program files on June 27, 2002 revealed no
occurrence of this species in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project's
construction will not affect the oyster mussel.
Myoi'is grisescens (gray bat)
Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: 1976
Endangered
The gray bat is the largest member of its genus in eastern North America,
weighing between 7 and 16 grams. The fur is dusky gray above and lighter
below, and the hairs are unbanded. Animals may appear dark gray after
molting in June or August, but the fur usually bleaches to russet between
molts. The wing membrane connects the foot at the ankle, rather than at the
base of the first toe.
Populations are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Tennessee, with a few colonies occurring in northwestern
Florida, western Georgia, southwestern Kansas, southern Indiana, southern
Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi, western Virginia,
and possibly western North Carolina.
Gray bats live in colonies in caves, utilizing different caves for summer
roosting and winter hibernating. Summer caves are usually within a kilometer
of a river or reservoir, which provides foraging habitat. During the summer,
females give birth and rear their young in maternity caves, while males and
yearlings roost in separate bachelor caves. Caves preferred for hibernation
are typically deep, vertical caves with a temperature between 43°F and 52°F
(6°C and 11 °C). Gray bats are highly selective in choosing suitable caves,
and nine known caves are thought to provide hibernation space for 95 % of
the population. Migration from summer to winter caves begins in September
and is mainly complete by the beginning of November. The distance
16
between summer and winter caves can be as little as two miles (3.2 km), but I
some cases is greater than 200 miles (322 km). The gray bat is
insectivorous, apparently preferring aquatic insects, especially mayflies.
Human disturbance and vandalism are the primary reasons for the decline of
gray bat populations. Disturbance of maternity colonies, especially, can
cause thousands of young to be dropped to the floor of the cave where they
die. Excessive or repeated disturbance may cause a colony to abandon a
cave completely. Other causes of decline may be pesticide poisoning, cave-
ins, flooding, and reduction of prey species due to pollution of streams and
lakes.
The gray bat is distinguished from other bats in the genus by its large size,
unicolored dorsal fur, and the wing membrane that connects to the foot at the
ankle, rather than at the base of the first toe.
Biological Conclusion
No Effect
On April 22, 2002, in Asheville, representatives from NCDOT and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) met to discuss procedures and protocols
to resolve bat issues in western North Carolina. After a thorough review of
the physical data, including county listing, river basin information, and aerial
photography, it was determined that suitable habitat for the gray bat does not
exist within the project area (as gray bats have been restricted in North
Carolina to the Pigeon River Drainage in the French Broad River Basin) and a
survey would not be required for this species. Additionally, a review of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and
unique habitats conducted on June 27, 2002 revealed no record of the
presence of the gray bat within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the gray bat.
2. Federal Species of Concem
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Table 4 includes FSC species listed for Madison County and their
state classifications.
17
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Madison County
Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status Habitat
resent
Corynorhinus rafinesquii* Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC No
Cryptobranchus
alle aniensis Hellbender SC No
Acipenser fulvescens* Lake sturgeon SC No
Percina squamata Olive darter SC No
Polyodon spathula Paddlefish E No
Paravitrea ternaria Sculpted supercoil T Yes
Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush E Yes
Euphorbia purpurea Glade Spurge (Darlington's Spurge) C No
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5 No
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina Saxifrage C No
Silene ovata Mountain Catchfly C No
Neotoma floridana
haematoreia Southern Appalachian woodrat SC Yes
Erimystax insignis Blotched chub SR No
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 1997; LeGrand and Hall, eds., 1997;
Key: T = Threatened, E = Endangered, SC = Special Concern, C = Candidate, W5 = Watch
list: species with increasing amount of threats to its habitat, whether populations
are known to be declining or not, SR = Significantly Rare
* = Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years
ago.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database or rare
species and unique habitats on June 27, 2002 revealed no occurrences of state-
listed species within the project area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 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 undertaking on a properties listed on or eligible for the National
18
Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architectural Resources
The area of potential effects (APE) for the proposed project was reviewed in the
field on September 22, 1998 to determine whether any properties listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 259. There are no structures over fifty years
old, no structures less than fifty years old that are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G, and no National Register-listed properties within the project's
APE. On January 7, 1999, a meeting was held with the Federal Highway
Administration, the State Historic Preservation Office, and NCDOT where these
findings were presented and a concurrence form was signed. A copy of the
concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeological Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office, in a memorandum dated January 13,
1999 which is included in the Appendix, stated the project area "has a high
potential for the presence of archaeological resources" and recommended an
archaeological survey be conducted. In response to this recommendation, the
Department conducted an archaeological survey in the project's APE and
submitted a report of the survey's findings to the HPO. During the survey, no
archaeological sites were found within the APE and the report recommended
that no further archaeological work be conducted in connection with the project.
Upon receipt of the archaeological report, the State Historic Preservation Officer
concurred that no additional archaeological work was needed and that the
project would not impact any significant archaeological resources. A copy of this
concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2000, is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Anticipated impacts to the resources in the project area are described in this
section. The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to
its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. The project is
expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No significant change in land use is expected to result from construction of the
project.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the
area.
19
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited. One mobile home will be relocated to accommodate
the construction of a temporary on-site detour.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impacts to prime and important
farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects. The project will
not impact prime and important farmlands. The land use adjacent to the project
is residential.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is
not required. The project is located in Madison County, which has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an
attainment area. This project is,not anticipated to create any adverse effects on
the air quality of this attainment area.
Traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. The
project's impact on noise and air quality will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance
with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality
in compliance with 15 NAACO 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA), and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management
Section revealed neither underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, nor
regulated or unregulated landfills or dump sites in the project area.
Madison County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Bridge No. 259 is not in the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain.
Based on the findings of this document, no significant adverse environmental
impacts are anticipated to result from the replacement of Bridge Number 259 in
Madison County. Therefore, the proposed project is considered to be a
"categorical exclusion" as defined by the Federal Highway Administration's
environmental guidelines (23 CFR 771.117).
20
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A newsletter was circulated to inform residents in the area of the proposed
project and solicit their comments. A copy of the newsletter is included in the
Appendix.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Federal
United States Department of Interior's Natural Resources Conservation Service
provided a letter saying they do not have any comments at this time.
Tennessee Valley Authority provided a letter saying the may wish to use the
categorical exclusion document as support for its' environmental review.
United States Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service provided a
stating their standard comments and providing threatened and endangered
species information.
B. State
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission provided a letter stating their
standard comments, and that Big Laurel Creek is designated PMTW and
supports a good wild trout population in the project area. They would prefer that
the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources provided a memorandum
stating that they are aware of no structures or historic or architectural importance
within the planning area, and the area has a high potential for the presence of
significant archaeological resources.
In a second memorandum, the Department of Cultural Resources concurred that
no significant archaeological resources will be impacted by the project.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Division of
Water Quality provided a letter stating their standard comments.
C. Local
Madison County Schools provided a letter providing bus crossing information.
21
wr
",I

pt? I

TENNESSEE
LWA.
r-ot
..

-00
s kjk
c
06h-
<
M
W
OC
z v 0
L
p z
0
LO
v L
.

ZH
z°r z W

Z ?;
0 H

o V

Z

O

c?LL? W
W U O
v
°or j
V)
Lo

W
°z ti: Z N
Q 0 c9
o -
a
?_
moo U _N z°0

o"
a ddj
C3
w Q W W
0
00
w
W
?? CC
? O
o=
?
?N
O°
O z
ti Q
w
0
Z

Z

LLJ
O

U
W °E
?., U
V

oN o E?¢ co
o
=
F-
V)
v? ?N30 ' l
CE
Z

E
N
0 O
° O

d. ? O
' y?
CT
N ?
J
s W -'
'

W a^
er O E Oz
cr N

O
o E

° o z
z
o
C,
°

Q
(a CL

L1J

oCE o E x
_ m

o Q
O o f
im
Q

Q
Q- NN$O M O U l 1
O
p ? ? ^ 1
?I
Q
m N U F- ..
z
p o
?

U
LL

, (n
OObz Q
Q To J
Pr) Qo r- U
Q
? .J
Q
U N LCD Z
`- O N O
Li 00
-
?- N N F-
F- U
F- F- a V) z
~ C? C? ::D F- O
QQOF- Li
ttyY M" Y ?1u
y;, Y.q 1 t? s f .ta
t t. ? t?J *P ..

Iris ii
A7-...

SR 1,

a `.
Y ?

, .Y rv
!u a?` . 5

North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
r°roject Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 4•a
VIEWS F SR 1318 FROM BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
CAN SR 1345 OVER Chit, LAUREL CREED
MADISON COUNTY
TIP NOB-3490
+r xs ?t ?` rs 1, ' ,
?t ..
'f'ig !° R 1?18 Luo im Sotah,,;:?sl boss- irides
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 4b
VIEWS OF CREEK FROM BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
ON SR 1345 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3490
View of Big Laurel Creek Dovmstream of Bridge
View of Big Laurel `reek Upstream of .Bridge
Nom Carolina -- Department of Transpo; talon
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 4c
VIEWS OF BRIDGE FROM CREED
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
O SR 345 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
TIP O. B-34°4

View t31"Downswex€m `aide or Brid,s e
view of Upstrearn Side of Bridge.

Looking Vest at B -idge.

North Carofina - Department of Trans; Wtatio n
Divisior o Highways
Project Deveioprnent and
Envirom-nental Analysis ranch
FIGURE 4d
EAST AND EST VIEWS OF BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 259
ON SR 1345 OVER BIG LAUREL CREEK
MADISON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3490
USDA
i
nited States
apartment of
griculture December 18, 1998
atural
esources
onservation Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E. Manager
ervice Planning and Environmental Branch
405 Bland Rd. NCDOT
uite 205 P. O. Box 25201
sleigh, NC 27609 Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
X19) 673-2134
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Group XX Bridge Replacement Projects:
1. B-3335, Graham County, Replace Bridge No. 70 on SR 1134 over the Cheoah River,
2. B-3340, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 94 on US 19 over Richland Creek,
3. B-3406, Avery County, Replace Badge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek,
4. B-3471, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 180 on SR 1123 over the West Fork Pigeon
River,
5. B-3473, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 364 on SR 1889 over Pisgah Creek,
6. B-3490, Madison County, Replace Bridge No. 259 on SR 1345 over Big Laurel Creek,
7. B-3491, Madison County, Replace Bridge No. 56 on SR 1369 over East Fork Bull Creek.
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 handdn-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
m
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1199
January 26, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
-t' -.y. ,,ems ??r"`"?•'
GROUP XX BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, FRENCH BROAD, LITTLE TENNESSEE, AND
HOLSTON RIVER WATERSHEDS, AVERY, GRAHAM, HAYWOOD, AND MADISON COUNTIES,
NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the December 14, 1998 request for comments on the following proposed bridge
replacements in western North Carolina:
• B-3335, SR 1134 over the Cheoah River, Graham County
• B-3340, US 19 over Richland Creek, Haywood County
• B-3406, SR 1321 over Curtis Creek, Avery County
• B-3471, SR 1123 over West Fork Pigeon River, Haywood County
• B-3473, SR 1889 over Pisgah Creek, Haywood County
• B-3490, SR 1345 over Big Laurel Creek, Madison County
• B-3491, SR 1369 over East Fork Bull Creek, Madison County
The lmvironmental document prepared for these projects should note 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 lower TVA's review costs and 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 invite TVA to any interagency meetings, if any are found to be necessary. Please send a copy of
the completed environmental documents to TVA.

Mr. William D. Gilmore
Page 2
January 26, 1999
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. ny, ana r
Environmental Management
Z. ..
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 3, 1999
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Proposed bridge replacements, Bridge Group XX, North Carolina
In your letter of December 14, 1998, you requested our comments and concurrence on the subject
project with regard to potential impacts to federally listed species. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The proposed projects will involve the replacement of seven bridges in the western part of North
Carolina, as follows:
1. B-3335, Bridge Number 70 on SR 1134 over the Cheoah River, Graham County.
2. B-3340, Bridge Number 94 on US 19 over Richland Creek, Haywood County.
3. B-3406, Bridge Number 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek, Avery County.
4. B-3471, Bridge Number 180 on SR 1123 over the West Fork Pigeon River, Haywood County.
5. B-3473, Bridge Number 364 on SR 1889 over Pisgah Creek, Haywood County.
6. B-3490, Bridge Number 259 on SR 1345 over Big Laurel Creek, Madison County.
7. B-3491, Bridge Number 56 on SR 1369 over East Fork Bull Creek, Madison County.
Enclosed is a list of the federally endangered and threatened species known from Avery,
Graham, Haywood, and Madison Counties. This list also includes species of Federal concern
that are currently under status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which may occur in
the project impact area. Species of Federal concern are not legally protected under the Act and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you
advance notification.

The project areas have not been surveyed for listed aquatic species; therefore, we recommend
aquatic surveys relative to the area of impact of this project. We have records of the Junaluska
salamander (Eurycea junaluska) in the Cheoah River at the B-3335 site in Graham County. We
are concerned about the potential effects that could occur to the Junaluska salamander as a result
of the proposed construction and related activities at the B-3335 site. We have records of the
hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), a species of Federal concern, from near the B-3490
project site in Madison County. Big Laurel Creek should be surveyed; it has habitat that is
apparently suitable for a number of rare mussel species.
We recommend that each bridge design include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. We prefer a bridge design that
does not alter the natural stream morphology or impede fish passage. Any new piers or bents
should be placed outside of the bankfull width of the river. We recommend that erosion and
sedimentation measures be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet concrete
should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream. If any in-stream work is planned,
it should be scheduled during periods of low flow. Please address the demolition plans for the
existing bridges in any environmental document prepared for this project, as well as any
temporary access roads or coffer dams. What bridge design is planned for each replacement site?
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Mark Cantrell of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-99-065.
Sinc rely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL,
SPECIES OF CONCERN, BY COUNTY, IN NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a listing
of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal
species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field
surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new
information is received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species
and Federal species of concem, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
Critical habitat: Critical -habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is desiognated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
Sea turtles: Sea turt les occur in coastal waters and nest along beaches. This list includes sea turtles
in the counties where they are known to nest. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
jurisdiction over sea turtle issues on terrestrial systems; the National Marine Fisheries
Service has authority over sea turtles in coastal waters.
Manatees: Manatees occur throughout North Carolina's coastal waters; this list includes manatees
in counties where there are known concentrations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
consultation and recovery responsibility for manatees.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
AVERY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Virginia big-eared bat
Hellbender
Peregrine falcon
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Southern rock vole
Eastern small-footed bat
Alleghany woodrat
Southern water shrew
Appalachian cottontail
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Grayson crayfish ostracod
Spruce-fir moss spider
Diana fritillary butterfly
Regal fritillary butterfly
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)1
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Endangered
virginianus
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC .
Myotis leibii FSC
Neotoma magister FSC
Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Sylvilagus obscures FSC
Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Ascetocythere cosmeta FSC
Microhexura montivaga Endangered
Speyeria diana FSC
Speyeria idalia FSC

Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fi•aseri FSC
Roan false goat's beard Astilbe crenatiloba FSC*
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematids FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhardi FSC
Bent avens Geum geniculatum FSC
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet Houstonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea Endangered
var. montana)
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea Threatened
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
GRAHAM COUNTY
Vertebrates
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Junaluska salamander Eurycea junaluska FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC*
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC**
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Hairy blueberry Vaccinium hirsutum FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered

COM ION NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhardi FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens FSC*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC*

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NA1viE STATUS
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha Threatened*
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Endangered
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC*
Invertebrates
Sculpted supercoil Paravitrea ternaria FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration. for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Georgia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A) designation
has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern
population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers
the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.

F. 02

_ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 101
Chants R Fullwood, Rxecurive Director
&fEM, ORANDUM
TO: Charles Bruton, Manager T
Office of the Natural0E?nvvir a t, N
FROM: Owen F. Anderson,Z untain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE* August 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Revised Comments on Group XX Bridge Replacement Projects in Avery, Graham.
Havwood, and Madison 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).
We originally provided comments on these projects December 22, 1998 (Memorandum
from Mark S. Davis). The condition concerning the trout moratorium was misworded
inadvertently. To follow the condition in our original comments would be contrary to protection
of trout populations. Therefore, we are submitting this revised memorandum to correct the
moratorium condition. Additionally, we are changing the moratorium period to be consistent
with what is requested typically as permit conditions. We apologize for any inconvenience this
oversight may have caused.
The proposed work involves seven bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina
(listed below). Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent
of disturbance in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We prefer bridge designs that
do not alter the natural stream morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge designs should also
include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to
reaching the subject surface waters. We are also concerned about impacts to designated Public
Mountain Trout Waters (PN1TW) 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.
13-3335 - Graham County, Bridge No. 70 on SR 1134 over Cheoah River
The Cheoah River is not designated PMTW at the project site: however, the stream
supports a good population of smallmouth bass and rock bass. This area may provide
habitat for the Junaluska salamander (Eurycea junaluskc7) which is currently under petition
Mailing addresi: Division tl i.^.iand: c35hencs ? l ?i Nial? Centr,r • Rdc' h. NC ? •a4?_+ 1
Telephone: N:141 733-363, ex:- S 1 6 Fax: t .S 1 9 i ! 1;-7h43
aX :;??d-X152- r 7? riuq 6 '02 11:5.9
.. rdCWRC Fax :3::c;-452-7t 72 Rua 6 ' 02 12: 00 F. 03 , . ,
Revised Group XX Bridges 2 August 6, 2002
to be listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. We would prefer
that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure. The NCWRC also
requests that the bridge be designed to better accommodate vehicles towing boat trailers.
At present, it is difficult for vehicles with trailers to make the turn onto the bridge.
B-3340 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 94 on US 19 over Richland Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
B-3406 - Avery County, Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Curtis Creek is a tributary to the Elk River that is designated PMTW. Both of these
streams support good populations of wild rainbow and brown trout. We prefer that the
existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3471 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 180 on SR 1123 over West Fork Pigeon River
The West Fork Pigeon River is designated PMTW and supports a good wild trout
population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning:
structure.
B-3473 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 364 on SR 1889 over Pisgah Creek
Pisgah Creek is not designated. PMTW; however, the stream supports a few wild trout
the project. area. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another
spanning structure.
8-3490 - Madison County, Bridge No. 259 on SR 1345 over Big Laurel Creek
Big Laurel Creek is designated PMTW and supports a good wild trout population in the
project area. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning
structure.
B-3491- Madison County, Bridge No. 56 on SR 1369 over East Fork Bull Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
Because all of the above counties are recognized as a "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:
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Structures should be inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events.
2. 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.
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.
.. ?.CWRC Fax ::,28-452-7772 _ Hug 6 '02, 12, : uu - F. 04:
Revised Group XX Bridges 3 August 6, 2002
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.
5 Grading if lelto ensure l long term availability tof shoreline cover for should d be
possible
wildlife.
6. For trout waters, instreani 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.
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. If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts are utilized. they should be designed so
that all water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow
conditions. This could be accomplished by constructing a tow sill on the upstream end
of the other cells that will divert low flows to another cell. This wilI'facilitate fish
passage at low flows.
9. Notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15-fool
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities,
and to provide resting places for fish moving through the structure.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these
projects. If.you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-
2546.
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
i :. ,w srntp?,,1,_
? 4 n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
January 13, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch ,
Division of Highways `
Department of Transportation
Y..
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State istoric Preservation Officer 19
9

SUBJECT: Bridge Group XX, Bridge 259 on SR 1345
B-
over Big Laurel Creek
Madison County 9
,
, +'
3490, ER 99-7913 ?•?a
Thank you for your memorandum of December 14, 1998, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We look
forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so we can make our
survey recommendation.
This area has a high potential for the presence of significant archaeological resources. We
recommend a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted if new construction is
planned on a new alignment.
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: N. Graf
B. Church
L. Novick
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
.. • .
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO. William D. Gilmore Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Rwj
NCDENR
FROM: Gloria Putnam, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping Sheets, DWQ# 12317
Group XX Bridge Replacement Projects
`n»JAN 2 9 1999- x
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requests that the following topics be
discussed in the environmental review document (s):
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The current stream
classifications and use support ratings for these streams should be included. This
information is available from DWQ through the following contacts:
Liz Kovasckitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Andrea Leslie - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 577
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelizationitrelocations. If the original stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Identify the number and locations of all proposed stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DWQ requests that these catch basins
be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible parry for
maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) that will be used.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
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.

G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional
wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have.wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H . Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to the approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the contractor shall
obtain a 401 Certification from DWQ.
I. Please provide a conceptual wetland mitigation plan to help the environmental
review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland impacts have
been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind
mitigation within the same watershed is preferred over out of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following,order: restoration, creation, enhancement,
and lastly preservation.
J . The EA should discuss in detail project alternatives that alleviate traffic problems
without road widening, such as mass transit and traffic congestion management
techniques.
DWQ is also concerned about secondary wetland impacts. For DWQ to concur
with an alternative in the mountains or the piedmont, DOT will need to commit to full
control of access to the wetland parcels or DOT to purchase these parcels for wetland
mitigation.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this
project. Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General
Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Please have the applicant call Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786 if they have any
questions on these comments.
mek-V2317, NCDOT Scoping
cc: Cyndi Bell - DWQ- ESB, Ecological Assessment Group
f 4 ' t ,
-_?_.....ti.: = SRS- t?q5(g? -'? _ C,?u Ml?L1?N
CONCLRRE' iCE FOR.r[ FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE `+ATIONAL REGIS TER OF HISTORIC PLACES
qn lq q rcpmsc:.mtSvcs of the
_? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO T)
_ Fcdcral HighWav Administration (FH,vA)
??Vorth Carolina State Historic Prescr ration Ofcc (SHPO)
rcvie,vcd chc subject project at
=. scoomr- mcc::ng
[listonc arclttcc-.urai resources 1711ctc_raUh m view scssicriiC011SUltatlOn
Othc-
.ill oaacs crescnt a27__
? thC'c arc no prccc!tics ovzr ifi-j• Vc:rs old NviEhin Ellie pro ec-. s arca of poEc:::Sa; c:.=L.
tihc:c arc no orocc:tiCS less than fiftzy scars old „•hich uc considered to nhcc: Critc-;or.
Considcraticn G within dc proj'ect's area of potcntial c zc:=.
there arc prcocrics over fir- }•ca rs oid (list attached) within chc urojcct•s area of potcntial Cacc J.
but based on the historical information available ar,d Elie ohotoaraolls of cacti propc.-.. orccc;,ics
idemiricd as am constdc:cd not c:i?'C-te
for NIadonal Rczistcr and no Further c': alu =lion Of ilhcm is neccss: n•.
t/ there arc no \acional Rcaisic:-listed properties within chc projcc:'s area oc retczcial c:=cc:s.
? i?_Ihcd
R,;ares:::IC:.ci C NCC T Dam
112gf
jFlHi%v, dhc Division Administrator, or otlhcr Fcdc ul Agcnc, Date
1 ?
Rcprescntacivc, S PO Datc
St: c l iistcric Prescr:acion Otiic
D; EC
i cacn ?) (::us iur-i :;:u ?w
• «.
adison County Schools
2 Blannahassett Island Road - Marshall, NC 28753-9006
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
i
TO: Gerald Knott, Section Chief School Planning
FROM: Susie Peek, Tims Coordinator
RE: Number of Buses Crossing Bridges To Be Replaced
DATE: January 19, 1998 5
Sue Cantrell
Superintendent
?, 1
c
` ? ?4[V 2 5 egg . ;
In the Big Laurel area, we have three buses crossing bridge # 259 on SR 1345. These buses travel this
road twice dailey. In the East Fork area we have two buses crossing bridge # 56 on SR 1369. These buses
also travel this area twice dailey..
Board of Education: Bruce Phillips, Chairman; Michael Bradley; Tom Coates;
Ruby Gayle Anderson; Louie Zimmerman
An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer
25W
North Carolina Departme- ui ' ii4
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr_, Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 18, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways .
North Carolina Department of Transportation
U? zc-
FROM: David Brook ti-
Deputy State Historib Preservation Officer
(A
MX11 --g
. .i
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 259 on SR 1345 over Laurel Creek, B-3490, Madison County, ER 99-7913
and ER 00-8318
Thank you for your letter of March 1, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Erica Sanborn
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no sites were located within the project area. Ms. Sanborn 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.
We apologize for the delay in our review.
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: scb
cc: T. Padgett
Lacatiun Nlailin, Address 'roephane'F•rs
AU?il?lSllzArlO? i07 N. W u:nt V 4107 %lail Service Cent---r. RalCiS ,( (199-=A17 11iilii ....--t-r•: - 1%
ARCElAF0LO Y -121 N. NI-iunt St.. Ralvi h \r" 41,111 Mid, S%:r%i,:c ('attcr. Pulciuh `.t ';i•:r.':
RESTOR,vriox Ali N IS;,uutt tit.. RA.-4_h `,( 461'i %hil S:r.icc Ccn:;r. i? !.i2F. ?:r' .'r,•ie.Sht,: tt,! r, ;-r,:?- -,- _:<r;l
tiClta'1:1' a1: PL 1\\1\(i i;? ?.. !:!„Uri: St.. RAul_!• .( :r,f : `.!:ql lrr?ic (roi r . l?al i_'!: `,t ?'10N.-A!:. 1•)11, - - _ ..Y(;.
44 , , a 4.?
NEWSLETTER
August 1999 TIP No. B-3490 - Project No. 8.2860501 Issue No. I
Replacement
Madison County,
of Bridge No. 259 over Big Laurel Creek
North Carolina
Steps to Success
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina. D epartment
of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform the public about the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 259 on SR 1345 over
Big Laurel Creek in Madison County. Right-of-way aquisition
and construction are anticipated to start in the years 2001
and 2002, respectively. This newsletter gives an overview of
the steps in the planning process and presents the bridge
replacement alternatives under consideration.
Project Initiation/. Step 1
Scoping
Alternatives Step 2
Development
Environmental Step 3
CZF"' Studies
Selection of Step 4
Preferred Alternative
Environmental Step 5
Document
Alternatives Under Consideration
and the Planning Process
o
During Step 1 of the planning process,
information was collected on the existing human
and natural environments. This information was
used to identify preliminary alternatives for replacing
Bridge No. 259. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives
were evaluated and, based on their potential impacts, three
"reasonable and feasible" alternatives were selected for
detailed environmental studies. These alternatives are:
Alternative 1 replaces the bridge north of the existing
structure. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
Alternative 2 replaces the bridge on the existing
alignment. During construction, traffic will be maintained
by a temporary detour located south (downstream) of
the existing bridge.
Alternative 3 replaces the bridge on the existing
alignment. During construction, trafficwillbemaintained
by a temporary detour located north (upstream) of the
existing bridge..
Step 3 will involve conducting detailed environmental stud-
ies for the "reasonable and feasible" altematives. Following
the detailed studies, a preferred alternative will be selected
(Step 4) and an environmental document will be published
(Step 5).

Public Involvement is an important part of the planning process. The North Carolina Department of Transportation is
committed to ensuring all issues of concern to the public are addressed and considered before any recommendations or
decisions are made. Your opinions are important to us! Please send your comments to the addresses listed below.
Mr. Jim Buck, PE or Ms. Stacy Harris, PE
EarthTech NCDOT Project Development and
701 Corporate Center Drive Environmental Analysis Branch
Suite 475 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27606 Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
919-854-6213 919-733-7844 ext. 264
If you have transportation questions on other projects, call our Customer Service Office toll-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU
VICINITY MAP BRIDGE NO. 259
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and EnvironmentalAnslysis Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
?? r
4,'
R\ PEo \(33499 tsh 09/08/99
u
CONTRACT. -
TIP PR 4 ECT. B 34901
0 0 0
T
o t ° th ?° ?•\ 1" •s
M! o m o Rl I? W E WW\ 11 m ca
m S 5 •) N I OO :. I A J. I rn
z O z I
?
m 2! (n \
?v
n p o o y p wn
Q ww -? n Ic?i ux ?,, 1o
b O DO
H if if n n n ?p
70
c °a°NOC IW
f- 3E X t a o ?•\ ca 1-4
( l /
`R ~ 10)
? I •? to
?C5
?rax \
y y x k ?' tai ?ti
x >< x
0
i
r lb
8
I
0
II /l
10 VI 9
a R!
a
00
W ^
MJ
v "A
re ra? ?z o
2 O ®v?
rri
C
ao I o
c c b e I , as SO
1 '41
W let
43
•
z y n
V
NO 53gN
?p m (/? 6 O
v
b
o
'C y
ti
CA w w q (? tl
£8 UYN
Ch 19- C.
a $3 y .wry
Ila
r, r-ri -Orr,
J Q
?!, ? .BSI ? ? ? \ \\ ? n y y W
\\ rn C
b c? g Irv i
?l
? ? zZ ?? o
W o
0
A
w W ?
?
W N
IN IJ

l
tAil tA71 W
?
W N N y

m
I-? a?

R4\Pro \63d?90 ts? 6/2/99

A
r is
All
cl
?
3
C RE A

a

NN
2
Z
L2 F L2

O?
J

c
Cl!
,6
b
i

II N
II ? ?
II
•o
? 6
-? I I b a s
r p
m
III -4

0
H
Z
Q
Z I I Z Z o• N ?_ _
I I
I I -p N
<
, O z p o
-? m b
z ?

D I I
II -? ? o N
I N

II ?
y ?co
co
o b ,6

b
tC/1
m N
m

N-1 ? rn ?
Zi
Z dpi
+

g
p v?
m+ O
c 0
Oo

O
y y
c -a
+ = H?

N
o,
rn
-n m
Po rn rw"
o

CC m

W
zj

v O
r
+ Z O
>''"'
t
p O
? o o z ? g ?
G

r rn r
?

0
T = O
W N m N ?

r ~ ? ? ?

K l
p .Oy
W ? N
Cre2 O
Wn O
O
A /
/?
V ?
A

ON
O: O?
OC
O?

y N

R4\P Eo 2634909 51 6/2/99

' y
F

0-1
?

NN
Qi
3

><4

\
- Qb b
\

1

?
i ? 06 1 b

I I rn? rn
II ??

n ?
ox
b
N
Z
o

Z m ?
uv
w
N
G1
fTl
it ?. Z o %0

m C
?I -? m I
N

Z II ?

z II ?c
'

I I
i OI w
I n a
o I - ?
a
rn
(a H
m

? L7 Ay
-
;a F
j TOM

a Z

Z
= >cr4v>
o
w; m m
y ?` o
0-j+ ;a
O
p r

Z

S
p Vm?O
?N

V C I O S
W m n
j > U?05?pA

+ Z Vyi m
I mQ
40 -n -.0
+
d

v

?
?
o
?g tp
o
Z m
? €
i
°
O

O N
£
q
P a

Z o
"'i C A I*1
W N ? N
M
? y V b.
?
?p?
2 -ski ?o
?7pOD
O

? m

f'
N
t
K ?-?
U
? b y
r n N
r O O y
r ?f
r of
N q N A N A

A
??
p?
O
pm
O ?
?
O
a?
Oc
m
G? ? m ?

r
X
m y -+
• • N O?
1
4-SEP-2003 09:51
:\Pro \B-3490s4.psh -
llowl?hams AT RD075020 8/U/99
^IC ? v
??yU I I
y
MIA
P"A all
II II (('III ,IyI.? \ \ I*\1 I PP? p in? v'?i ? ?_
??/21 Y'1? \ Q I O 1? 1
`? f 2 'c r? ' ao W t ~
t?.1?0-i?OD?o •., ? -. ? p? Z ?ww QwQ I wl 1
!7? p?
11 II I 11 II ' \ \ •• N U y ? ? 0 C5 ?> p W (w(??pa{, ? ? ,?yRl N?tJIIy 1,10 ? y \ \ •- ? Z ? ?? p +? ? t?i1?1 O ? ?? ? / ?a+v?Y?°c.
?Cr? Q. o$ N Q Q ?'1 NN-j a N W ur
L?? tN ao w 8
I
.10
v 1 .
ny,?'?WOD?
A
I 'r
n
O ? tee. ? m a / / ? ? u. a
N
? I I I I I? b ? ? 1
? O ? 1 - ? 1 I Z
k{ ?botr?? a y+ a °PD I lA
?l pNS?j1 y mK'9 1 " D i s '?,yy?73tl1? 1 '_'1! Z y
a ?? ? i?a ? 0 1 O
..? ;' i Grn) 2 In y ow tsl
i o?- .y ?Iri'= 1 N a CA
/ T
m ?
8 GvU -ri o aril 2O I ??{3E? / / a
Z
?yrODv n O y? ?> ' a,o'
I III I 1 _? N ry???. ,o , m ??pnm P° lRaj S
V V???Q ? Q a dl ??l. ' I?? u$? I y
N1l?n,(?J^(tn?l i ^I o4 s '? `?< 1 q Z
`f 1A?`? l n
w 1 W cst \ c ?
1 ar a lbyo• ? m
%
ON % /"• A 1
rn? \
Nu' ?oNc ?`j c X c> ' ?.? mks t
? w ? •a aJ •q,I N r \
RI I I?1
INOON $ ? _ ? p 1 '?pO
y 4 ?? tom' \ \ \ 70
$? + ® ap{ ? ? COI
O
Z - .?
\ airs '
;b'
\ \ ref A W * N?
\ +O
1 ` co 4
r 00
?^ ? H1KO I?
y ?
C to
CZ'-) ??n
m o p ? ? ? 1- ? 'll .96'189
rn c? k - - rn -A- OS'b9*£1'D*S
C Its I I' 2 rn \ ! 9£'58311 lOd-S-79
crnm^' o ??OK
cnvrnN S?
'g-b m az
RIO
?rrnncn3" 3-4
toy ? ? ??
a
0
8/17/99
-A-oDv
11 II II II 11
11 V O
P %R, +
y
u 111j11n [ISO
y
lij ??^OD?
O
rte,, oD- !c
"nrrrRIO
1
0
Q ?a
?o??opv
nnrn n?
a
w
a
y
ON " n r
a
y
?D E>
" u u u " n in
Gu o
o alv?'4?o
ti
??D?`IoD't
¦ aar r r r to
(Alw Vd??O r
n
O
taG+IN?'rn
rnooo?
rn 1
my 1 -0
crnmm
y rn rri
o??g
?Nrnz
??rn
(r ~
Ut

?H
p $ n
a, + o
r
a ?
m
°m
? r
O N
i-v N p /
p .? 'So
m ?
m
y
?o
?o
a?
'?'
i?? y
o R
?? n a
!1
I n
?g
r?
O ?
r ?
I rw
3yv.5 ?9

V0,01-0,10 0
? r.
1
O F
r
i
I I ? IR
0
i?
n
i
•4-'1.91F'189
-A- 09'69+£1'045

v
q,
qjR
h
r
?i
2ffTi u
11?=p
-zi
1

A? V
S
a? 0
ma n ?
w _
0
tt 4\YE 26o 4YYJ. 5 {]
5/2
8/99
N N N N N N N N
?
O U,
O 0.
O N
O p
O tth
O a
O V
O

iEiEiE
c lb €EZii to Z C1 ;Ci ? ...... -it ? S: n i:?b
pp? ?3 O t

:
.................
o
eh ..
:
. :?:Q

:.::..

-- - - - - -- -- --- -
..

€?c?f€
'•c i:: A
. M.

?? i "U f r3Ln
"< n ;-:: :: n :

.. a'
IF

,?? :::Il:::::::.i:?:.. ..:•::

.......I::::... Q:

:SEE i n n 7 11
a.
.::
NN C3i
' N
::
: ?
V
-1 . .
f• T
??

=t7

t
q ;t b
III K .

:1
:
S
,ILA

?
li l t
....

bOQ
li lt

Vii::::. €€C• ::: :::

M

.
..
..
.
..
. ..
.. .....
.. ...
.. ...
. ....
.. ....
... ..... ... .

...... ... ... .......... .......... ....

' Q
C C
:

723nil?il?i:Gj;j

:
r .:::::::
?
"U "D:bCjQ;Cj11; m

.1 -C

`t s
?
'
:
: r
r
r
c m€: :
-- -- --- - - -- -

11
.
:z

.. ...... :

::

c
::::::::::::::::

l il t

ff l
[ il
li t
lt 11 1 .1

I l il t Il l

i li lt

o

A r

l
il
t n
l il t I
Z
l il t

It It

+ F4+ 44 T F4 -H +

Z
0