20060823 Ver 1_Complete File_20060519

C,,. +.,.
?r
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
9y 0?
,,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NP'141"
MICHAEL F. EAsLEY
GOVERNOR
May 12, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
LYNDO ni
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 33 Application for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 653 on SR 2804 over the Broad River and Bridge No. 654 on
SR 2786 over Sand Branch Creek, in Buncombe County. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-2804(1), State Project No. 82843501, TIP No. B-3119,
WBS Element 32877.1.1, Division 13.
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, as well as, the
Pre-construction Notification Form, permit drawings, and '/2 size plans for the above referenced
project completed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The agency
proposes to replace Bridge No. 653 with a single span, 130-foot long steel plate girder bridge
with concrete end bents on drill piers, with the south end of the bridge in the same location and
the north end shifted approximately 130 feet to the west. Bridge No. 654 will be replaced on the
existing alignment with a single span prefabricated arch structure (bottomless culvert)
approximately 10.7 feet high and 39.6 feet long.
Construction of Bridge No. 653 will require the installation of one temporary work pad on the
north side of the stream at site 1, resulting in a total of 0.050 acre of temporary impacts to the
Broad River. Bridge No. 653 will be replaced first, with traffic detoured using NC 9 and SR
2786. SR 2786 will be realigned for a distance of approximately 300 feet to the east and to the
west of the intersection with SR 2804. Construction of the second bridge, Bridge No. 654 (site 2)
will create 0.001 acre of temporary impacts to Sand Branch due to installation of an impervious
dyke on the western corner of the bridge. Bridge No. 654 will be replaced after construction of
the first bridge so that traffic can then be detoured to the new bridge. There are no jurisdictional
wetlands within the project study area. There are no permanent impacts due to construction of
either bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Descriotion
The Broad River, Sand Branch Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the Broad River (UT1) are
located in the Broad River Basin (sub-basin 03-08-01), and are approximately 75 feet wide, 15
feet wide, and 1.5 feet wide respectively, within the project study area. The North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies the Broad River and Sand Branch Creek as Class
"C Tr". As a result of this trout classification, land disturbance within a 25 foot buffer along the
designated stream is prohibited. UT1 has not been classified by NCDWQ and therefore carries
the same classification as its supporting stream, Sand Branch. In accordance with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) an in-water moratorium is being observed
from November 1 - April 15 to protect natural trout propagation and stocked trout. Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be adhered to during the design and construction of this
project. There are no Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-11) or Outstanding Resource Waters occurring
within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The Broad River, UT1, and Sand Branch Creek are not
designated as National Wild and Scenic Rivers or State Natural and Scenic Rivers.
Permanent Impacts: There are no permanent impacts associated with this project.
Temporary Impacts: There are 0.050 acre of temporary fill in surface water associated with site 1
of this project because of a temporary work pad. The work pad will be used to set the drill piers
for the new bridge. There are 0.001 acre of temporary impacts associated with site 2 due to the
construction and placement of a temporary impervious dyke on the western corner of the bridge.
The work pad and impervious dyke will be removed once construction is complete. The stream
banks will then be restored to their original condition.
There are no utility impacts associated with this project.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 653 is a single span structure 122 feet long and 12 feet wide. It was built in 1961
using two reinforced concrete abutments. The superstructure consists of an asphalt-wearing
surface over a timber deck on a steel thru truss. The existing bents will be cut off at ground level
to prevent damage to the stream. The bridge will be removed without dropping any components
into Waters of the United States
Bridge No. 654 was built in 1962 and is a single span pony truss bridge, 48 feet long and 14 feet
wide. The superstructure consists of an asphalt-wearing surface over a timber deck on a steel
truss, while the substructure is composed of two reinforced concrete abutments. The bridge and
abutments will be removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
During demolition and construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
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 March 8, 2006, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists thirteen federally protected species for Buncombe County (see table
below).
2

Federally Protected Species for Buncombe Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable
Habitat Status Biological
Conclusion
Bo Turtle Clemm s muhlenber 'i No T S/A N/A
Carolina Northern Flying
Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
colorat No E No Effect
Eastern cougar Felis concolor cou ar No E No Effect
Gray bat M otis risescens No E No Effect
S otfin chub C rinella monacha No T No Effect
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana No E No Effect
Oyster mussel E ioblasma ca sae ormis No E No Effect
Tan riffleshell Epioblasma florentina
walkeri No E No Effect
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasiculata No E No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii No E No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum No E No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Yes T No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineane No E No Effect
E-denotes Endangered, T-denotes Threatened, T(S/A)-denotes threatened due to similarity of appearance
(no biological conclusion is required).
Concurrence was received from USFWS on March 15, 2006 verifying that the Gray bat, Virginia
spirea, and Tan riffleshell should have biological conclusions of No Effect. Bridges will be
inspected prior to demolition to ensure that bats are not temporarily roosting on the bridges.
Although habitat for Virginia spiraea does exist within the project area, a survey in July of 2004
revealed no species present. A re-survey will be conducted in June of 2006.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Avoidance and Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all
reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional stages;
minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The use of best
management practices for construction should reduce impacts to plant communities.
• The entire width of both streams is being spanned, therefore eliminating any permanent
impacts.
Demolition and construction of each bridge is being coordinated so that an off site detour can
be utilized.
Existing bents in the water are being cut off at ground level, rather than being removed, to
prevent impacts to the streams.
Miti ag tion: There is no mitigation required since there are no permanent impacts.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 33.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
We also 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 and NCDOT.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Megan Willis at mswillis ,dot.state.nc.us or [phone].
Sincerely,
Greg4oryThorp e,Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J.J. Swain, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Williams, PDEA
4
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2o 0 so
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter °ivot Appiicaoie or rviA .)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: GregotyJ Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: mswillis(a)dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
23
Page 1 of 9
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge 653 over the Broad River and Bridge 654 over Sand Branch Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3119
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Buncombe Nearest Town: Asheville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Highway 64 to NC 9 in
Buncombe County.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 82'16'00' ON 35'32'00' °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Broad River
8. River Basin: Broad River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: General land use is approximately 50% forested and 50%
residential.
Page 2 of 9
"L wisO
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard Construction Equipment will be used
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridges are structurally deficient
and need rgplacing_to meet safety standards.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 9
'-L *1 w
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: 164 linear feet of temporary
impacts to the stream channel due to a work pad and temperary impervious dyke.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Broad River Temp. Perennial 75 118 0.05
2 Sand Branch Temp. Perennial 15 46 0.001

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 164 0.051
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of
Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact
indicate on ma ocean, etc. (acres)
Page 4 of 9
4iW
lv.,
Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting ftorn the project
Stream Impact (acres : 0.051
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres : 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. acres 0.051
Total Stream Impact linear feet : 164
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.An off-site detour will be
utilized Existing bents will be cut off rather than removed to prevent impacts to waters.
Page 5 of 9
yr AW
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmp,ide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Page 6 of 9
AjW
t
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No E]
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)'
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Impact I Required
Zone* r Multiplier XAN.:
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 9
4 ' V
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Page 8 of 9
Ii
4-
IS/ ou
Apblicant/Agent's Signature /Dat6
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
- --- --- ---- v---
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WII DLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Officc
160 Zillicaa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 15, 2006
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence Request for the Replacement of Bridge No. 653 over
the Broad River and Bridge No. 654 over Sand Branch in Buncombe County, North
Carolina (TIP No. B-3119)
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have reviewed
the federally listed species report and the survey report for the federally endangered gray bat
(Myotis grisescens) for the subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
Federally Listed Species - According to information in the gray bat survey report, on
August 29, 2002, a suitable habitat survey was conducted for the gray bat within the project area
for the subject Bridge Nos. 653 and 654. No caves or mines were discovered within the project
area Because gray bats arc cave residents year-round and because no caves or nines were
discovered within the project area, we do not believe this project will have any effect on the gray
bat. However, we do recommend that the NCDOT inspect the existing bridges just prior to
demolition to ensure that bats are not temporarily roosting on the bridges. Given the lack of
caves and mines within the project area and if no bats are discovered roosting on the bridges
prior to demolition, we believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act will be fulfilled for
the gray bat. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if- (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is -
determined thafmay be affected-by the identified action.
VJ/1J/GVUV LL:JL rt& oLo GJo JJJV UJr11J 'ab11CY111C.1\V LJVV4
v . 1
A, survey was conducted for the federally threatened Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) during
July 2003, and no individuals of this plant were discovered. Since there is suitable habitat within
the project area, the NCDOT will resurvey the area prior to construction. If no individuals are
discovered during this survey, we can agree with the NCDOT's determination that this project
will have no effect on Virginia spiraea.
There is a record of the federally endangered tan riffleshell (Epioblasma florentina walken) in
the Tennessee River drainage in Buncombe County. Since the Broad River and Sand Branch are
part of the Atlantic Slope drainage, we do not believe a mussel survey for this species is
warranted.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - The information provided does not include detailed descriptions
of the structures that will replace the existing bridges. We strongly recommend that the existing
bridges be replaced with new bridges, and we request that the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) document for this project address an alternative of replacing the existing bridges
with new ones. If an alternative other than the replacement of the existing bridges with new
bridges is chosen (such as replacing the existing bridges with culverts), we request that the
NEPA document include an evaluation as to why an alternative of replacing the existing bridges
with new bridges was not chosen.
We recommend that the new bridge designs include provisions for the roadbed and deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream/river. This
buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the runoff of storm water
and pollutants. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream or the stream-bank
morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside the bank-full
width of the stream. The bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will
result in the damming or constriction of the channel or floodplain. If spanning the floodplain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the floodplain portion of the approaches in order to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the floodplain and reduce high velocities of
floodwaters within the affected area.
Measures to control erosion and sedimentation should be in place prior to any ground-disturbing
activities. Wet concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream.
Equipment should be inspected daily to ensure that there are no equipment leaks which could
enter the river. Construction material should not enter the water during demolition of the
existing bridges and construction of the new bridges. In most cases we prefer that a bridge be
replaced in place by constructing the new bridge through staged construction or by detouring
traffic to existing off-site routes.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) prohibits the taking,
killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds (including the bald eagle),
their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the
Interior-- Toavoidimpaets.to_migratory birds,-we recommend_conductinga visual. inspection of
the bridges and any other migratory bird nesting habitat within the project area during the
migratory bird nesting season--March through September. If migratory birds are discovered
nesting in the project impact area, including on the existing bridges, the NCDOT should avoid
VVr1VI i.V VV 11..VV •a- --- -VV ---- VV•rr., a-------
impacting the nests during the migratory bird nesting season (March through September). If
birds are discovered nesting on the bridges during years prior to the proposed construction date,
the NCDOT, in consultation with us, should develop measures to discourage birds from
establishing nests on the bridges by means that will not result in the take of the birds or eggs, or
the NCDOT should avoid construction and demolition activities during the nesting period.
If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Denise Moldenhauer of our
staff at 8281258-3939, Ext. 226. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-06-169.
Sincerely,
(nr?ian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Megan Willis, Environmental Specialist, Natural Environment Unit, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1598 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1598

Elizabeth
Chapel
2807 2 2809 l z?
10
2789
(o _ 2786 \ ?•.
LaurChSprings
POH
;s m
z
40
C
BEGIN PROJE7?t?,e
COGOF , 20.62
ff4
2790 9
•s /Branch
\ '0 Ch. 'ry 279,
2797
w
uotour
Ch.
NOT&
BRIDGE N0.653 AIL/Sr BE REPL*CED
AND CARRYING TRAFFIC BEFORE
BRIDGE NO.654 IS REPLACED.
NCDOT
VICINITY
MAPS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY.
PROJECT: 32877.1.1 (B-3119)
BRIDGE NO. 653 OVER BROAD
RIVER ON SR 2804 AND BRIDGE
NO.654 OVER SAND BRANCH
ON SR 2786
SHEET I OF 12- 1/26/05
I NORTH CAROLINA

'e
SITE MAP
W o
A A x ?
o z
?r ?FM wAa .?
0 a wz A 00
v
z?
t
:?EO 0 opN
W n M (? _ I
0 ? GSM f
m ?z® ° z >oo
Z" WOO
W J..4ouw
two w
A >z W
x
M? Em
o N Z
w a
?LL > Z
lJJ O
F- _
LL.Lu6 O?
4 7K F, wO 3?: E J
4 7K 1.4 19 14 l<
O
0
L
>ZZ ON N
Q ?o
IL '.4 z 74
F--
CL
F
?CL
Z V32
?O
Q?
Z
C7 '
' cn
O
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
1 MARY E. PEEK, HEIRS
00 MICHAEL LEDBETTER
4 MARY E. PEEK, HEIRS
GU MICHAEL LEDBETTER
5 JAMES E. AND BETTY F. GILLIAM
6 LINDA AND ERNEST RUSSELL
P.O. BOX 248
OLD FORT, NC 28762
P.O. BOX 248
OLD FORT, NC 28762
11171 BENT BRANCH RD.
PIKEVILLE, KY 41501
21 MARLEY DR.
FLATROCK, NC 28731
cu E c
Q)
7 N v
Z U1 D

U N
' C U n

N
d E N ?
t9
. v
CD
O x
-r- EF-
W U -
a.
N

C
C'
'
Q U C
Q .XL E E..
? wU- ?
w
U
Q N
a U
E U)
C

O

O
X CL
E
es O
O O O
Q (n F
'
C N
a) 1?
N U) p (0
E

U a
a
a rn N

U

a m?
N C C

H
C 'C U
ZQ
(O
L Co
U
CL o
> c
v

Z c
o
x
g w
w N
cis ? U
E _ n ,
N
LL
>
F-
C N
U C
03 m om
E u a?
a
W
Y

d n Q U)
D

Y D
2 a?
L4
0
W

n.
Rfl
O J
E v LO
cn 2 o ++

'-
0
1

O
'-

N
0
5
(n Z
H

11
ikli- ",
?rn 1
pA
? I
O I
s
N
M\ \

r? ? I I
.
re II
N

-i O
(y?
A I/:
l/.

_ _ I I m ~

C p

M
°
G+ 01
' ? ?
?? add m
.,
.
a a _

rI
k
A
T?l
A
N r

r

t

0
o ?
? ea
R/W REVISION 08118104 SM - REMOVED R/W MONUMENT o -rl- 11+45937 RT.AND ADDED ADDITIONAL
R/W REVISION 0//14/05 DS - REVISED R/W MONUMENTS, STATIONS. OFFSETSA EASEMENTS WE TO UPG
O
12
I \ \ VI
Irv
f?
s \
_4 to \
I r
a
n 2 \ ? N
y 1 N? ? r/
?gj O 1 O° o ~ n
V Z 1 A 0
OA >
P J 1
O ply - ? l l± ' I
' E
N
r
66r m
? m' o
23,
ill I /I'P??
T /
a
E?
0
N
?D19 ?

AP /
/ A •I
SL ' M4 y
' Zt m /
N ?? R
`G Oc w t \ W
I I c? : Zt
u4p4?„ m l A9
?cno ti ? w ??
rCVO?'itN? _ I I ; ' a W t?1
o \
a o

? I I o
r
II u 4 11' I? m^
??VO I
fA
aw
???\iOj I WQ

-v
O ?

m

8
N
?Qm A
$ v :/p
4 y. ?CF?
1/ry z?
?o
L u rn
i6 W 1 ?y
ry' I
N
?
`C
I
r TO PARCEL 4
47ADDED PDE PARCEL 3
TT
+ +
V O
=oo
+ +
O V
H H
4
O
O
?u
0
c c1'
s
rn
_m
;Qc)
0
n
-•r
B =
^
O ?On
4 a.o
3 miy
`" In ??It`D b
N rnuruu?
•: ?v u ? ??_?SIIO\?
2 I ?. o 'YO too
?A
WoH
O
(o}O f9
N!.!
p:::A It y?Q
1
i
cl rn?'r-pv
0 4u44Uo
kA

unn4N
O
r
G
Q
Co.
X')
v
0
,pO
C
a
0
1
a
co
19
`c
1
a
0
a
O
O
O
CA
O

I ?
T-m' I o u2SQ ^u?U O
?zi Ju c 2
o I v 1
+ 8 O N N 12
I
? N ? ?2
G
po

NAD 83
0 II II \
Z" II I
i
i °? Il I
i? ?? II II
i DM II II
M' II II I
i m it II
i? Drri II II 1
'- II I I
o m, II I 1
°m°??Il I /
lo?
/ 1 -
0 1 \
o 11
.. 11 N
0 S
o
m
m
.h 1= ,
o v) rn
C
try
li
::1m
??o I
;qo
v? I
N
.50 -' rl-
- - - ??a i?nd?? ?•z- - - 11 / 1 ??o\ l ?
?? 11 ? 1 c? \ oo \
Nin
~ / \
• I \ oo\
MKM
r7ml
Dm
' m
1 1 Dm
? ? I I ? I can \ ?/
I I `
lo,
i 11 1
llolel 02
, ? ? 11 1 / ? 1
, ? 11 11 ?o., aJ
' 11 1 I Ile?
n 11 ??l ?? I Igo
r i 1
11
' 11 ill ? /. I .
SITE I
PLAN VIEW

w
W
/I
\ ,.
T
,/
i
1
1
1
1
:3
Z
n,
o-
4
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER
IMPACT
So 0 10
111111 1 --_ - SCALE
C3 1:1 FLA
/

31./31
uroe'' y.
M 11p3T.

41
171
m
1A
x
m
o?
O
70
v
O
'T1
Fn
O
Co
?Q
A
RiW REVISION 01114105 05 - ADDED R/W MONUMENT STA 10+76E66 RT AND REVISED
A
>
Nt
r

UNET ADDED 2 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PARCEL 5
da
s a
b
}tom 46 • r
1 bCY {i Y
4
e
r?
m?
H
H _
00
OQ6
0? y07,:4C c N T9N TB brT_5`y
m
O ?
• N
v 4
+ • O
`^? ? I to f Q
t? m
^f a ` ?_ N Ln
7
I ? m
aC`• ?? y UI ~ X
1 8
,? ? R ro O ? i b1 O .? dS.LL.P? S
/4 I-A
O, f
9 +
v n
3 c'E, u o
6? v y t+?S? ??? rn m fr
O? I
O
g to
Q O
r
N
=o
F
N
1c2
8R 0
To
OR
= Olt
E51j m
3•[T.Li9C5 -
4flij
F
y
gS
Om
q
a
u..,.,uouu?
u u rvo
z ?
w
gm
s ?n
.Nno S3wN
o ?
n?
y
urluu?
?www
?N
.q
,o
C
96
a
0
0
-f
0
I

X ?
S
y?y
?N ?Zmn
T

'D

0

P
m
fA i7
m
N z Z
X
m
m

RAY REV/S/ON 01114105 DS - ADDED RAY MONUMENT STA b+76E66 RT AND REVlsED 4Av UNE, ADDED 2 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON PARCEL 5
A
C?l
Cfi
7
TO r a%,w
n..?
32V73'? y?M??
h N?SZ
k?B,.J I
`n
rl
?.wn Ew.wcN rm,e s.
4
8
?fl2m

6 N
I q/
Q44
? J
b eg
r?
m
H
?•1
M'
O O ?SqN } O
O? ??a2C`'s v ?- N 29-
=O m
• N
u rNay
g J
hO y 1 Q AO
M o 1 C) I "3 .7
?? / H ? r00 ? ti {,1 1$ 3.CS.2LSr S
I
C P t9
;;Z.:; O 1
°gv ?O
ffluo c I
N
O N
w
?(YS /// La 1A'II ? c J ,O`
SL1.btQ4 ' 1 0
\\
b2
? w Qu
,? p •. t,S?3 ? u o 1
°rlr
V1 A
\ N `m 0
??
rr- POO 2
696 {? "?'
N TL
O ?
1
_ 3•fZ.I5.9E5
LY'iil 1 m?u 4 Q 1) .{.
1 I OO?OL t??p
m ?N Qi`g4?c?.i 0
o Z x ZS n,? 7
N ` g I?Vv
g
us°ti ?D? a
1
? u 1 -h
veg. ??Dy I C
Ao
o
rn u -N, J
?'iu ullU4? O
a $ ? u1L?4?
VVVV ??
N ~
1
Iz
O q C
Q Q ?
ti
N
r
?n O
mNm W
r-9
Q
w
Ao
m p
m Co
m;
N
rn
_T
a A g
z
0
1 •r
O mD
M m [i
r / CA
rn r
t
by 9
A
Y
s
N ?
m
.03

(:D
LINDA and husband.
ERNEST RUSSELL

I?_CIRmX ?_?Sm
Solo/

Qw
\\ 30 M%m\\4
\ \
I \ \ \\ MP
S ITE 2
IMPACTS
50 0 Ion
111111 SCALE
\ 5
1 /
I / \
I /
/ JAMES E. and wife
/ BETTY F. GILLIAM
®DENOTES TEMPORARY
SURFACE WATER

PLAN VIEW
.4 r
14-JUN 0 $9:54
q/e9/g9
C T CT 0201222 TIP PROYECToo B-3119j
A ° ^m?
O ?^ H m yf
O 04 z-
3 Q Z to ?I 1?? / p? • ' 2f
H
y
F=? of OQZ y 072/'Gl ?• yI N
O Z m no o ?C?O Z
f-" 8 S
T,''
Z9 m IL
Z 4 -•4 m JD r t?` \\ Z -4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ` ? ?? 4 ? S ?
a
z / +?
to I
0 In Q
A .+ < -4 O < t?Jl P y O ITS
\\\ 5 C / /,: ` d ti?fR R tl
_ 1 r ( d
OA s \ \ 55+
C) m? Z, to
1 1 1 1 B A '?i ETA Z tn -1 ! m
\ m? / C.1 I O `? +?• m ily ?L°
1 w Co O. -+ myX AP L Z I y. a
r C O o o N a; c,
m ° =: o I I C °Ig y
O aR y O m z Zo 1 O Z O c?
+ .o
oZ? O ow ?°o a is
ci \ E
?yv O Z
m O
'm !Q / Z
O z m o y P x
T p
O R
T N 70 T 1
??O ?p?
APP ? poP O
m ?.I ++ n O +?+ pI
00 wo°o CA)
o NQb OP
m p y 0 0 0 th - o. Z !'C
Am n CDC) 0 o f n !Q tr1
-i Z -411
ZAp 011
\\ po
-? c•1 0 \ Z D +n
%0 oz" r
C. P-4
11 !q ;u -
.,o 0;0 c 0
t-4 ?
rn C n o °
!ti
II II Q9Oo O\\ ??? !@ OQ
p o o O Z Gy\ \ ?0G \ \ 0',t7! cw
-l z
CO)
?
P?
ob
?0 4 xo ? ?
tz4
i'Z CIS
8
4w Nil 0
LOWER SAND BLANCH ROAD p
' - - - - -
V y
O N
w \ ?? Z v
\ a 00
4 SANp D \
c:?
o
+ + m+
?o .0 tn.
c o xo
0
M v Z
C
x Z m rr a y
O m y
p Z I
c
y qa O //\ l m+ y
1.? Z ?a
o
o i ice / ? ? oo ?, %0
m b
y
-71
4
D
1?}Ot
1 ?
? I .
A A? 8
a a?
RP/TOKL
R/W REVISION WIIOI04 SU - REMOVED RIW MONUMENT 0 -YI- 1045X7 RT.AND ADDED M/ITKLVK TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT TO PARCEL 4
R/W REVISION 01/14/03 DS - REVISED R/W MONUMENTS.STATIONS.OFFSETS.& EASEMENTS CUE TO UPDATED SURVEYS- ON PARCELS 1,43A 4:AD0E0 PDE PARCEL 3
i ?i ° 0 a t m zs I
\\
it:
a s + +
72 \?r\ \\ y?,, rn c? I2 12 u-
\ \ p ^i G7 I 'g ' 1 O
0
4
Jk -4
\ 2?" Y
n (P If
N9
t(H
t3 ?°? /? ? IV rnyyyr
-k 4

\\\ d
omen
air .. 1? + z
m
w$? r t
r 1 1 A
rRl CA'
%//mar! ? x ?A v
/ N C) (-n
OV
-04 Z` co
O O 1 ? ? w
`. rq 44 is ?. ;Ll
co
XXV ?s 10
J pl 7 n
t7i

1
r
1
W? x
w A
o at
_ .. •. ?. X Obi ?
N
o ?
n /
y4y
?-.x N
.?p N
i =
I
.I
?Dc
taw „
o
T

ca° w°33 $
-?. ?3Nb QI
o+?
w ? ` ?e x
v

1
b
pnfi
?! °1'
/
I bi

n i
1 0
T?
Z
?

J

N 1

a

mC
m

$ilp i
?1 I

: ct
Ln. 0
?
?

I I

I I
1 +

?? ?

0^
? ow
t !

C.
?
I 1 ? I
?. Ree • 1 ? Q
agr-

p? Y

//
it
anm V
J

a
0
r
$E\
co y<
0.7. W
cf .yo
orn
m
u u-4
V.

Zz
r[nQ
.u
rtl
R =
o
l
A?
Z
V1
b
w?
f+ ? N
y 1
I
y 1
O A
IN
c+
V 0
CID
w?

Y
Le
O
W
tp
8 I «'?? -:A
c?i? p 'oor~~i •~.
?a A.
a:::::: y yllyll?
rvgw???+
O? W
I
yrynrCA
O
W

y y y 1
y I
,. q w
,,
+
to
rV
N ?
I ?
a
2
X3
1
A
w
Qw
W

tv

3 p
7 n ?? z
M
t
I
O I r?l
0-
0
q?
7
0
0
3
Q
a
a
pI
7
1 ty
a
Q
-F
O

I
Z
0
z
9
2c" 0
:4- 01-im
won
wCD n
? •z
m
9
N
RI
m
N
x
m
0%
-n
O
m
I
O
-n

REYWONs
R/w REvislam DvHi05 DS - ADDED R/w MONUMENT STA 10+76666 AT AYD REVISED R/w UNEt ADDED 2 T£MPORAW allNAGE EASEMENTS ON PARCEL 5
p? L R
O>•4
>a
ON?
q/ w
b
b '? O
4
•
w M Fj
t0 O
O? 2 O n
• N
Y? A
v
0? v ?'?o or ?j ? ? b
6 ??a? 0• ? •? m O C`
O r t ?
O
(lil
ti
iJ
1s2A
u

r
m
Cogv
N s
N
A t

trio m
II ggqql?
q q Np

o a ? w
O ? R1
p g q u q q u?
o
z
nggq?
_ o
w
uFvb4?
?N

r
0
a
-+$O
c ??44? m
N r

G
3H
a ? t7v
o ? o
-44

O
ar
v
A
{-n
N
m
m
VI
S
rrl
P
0.
;t A
2
p
V
•
•
O
p
7
X
7
,qA
G
"11
O
0
CL
a
0
9
a

Buncombe County
Bridge No. 653 and No. 654
On SR 2804 and SR 2786
Over Broad River and Sandy Branch Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2804(1)
State Project No. 8.2843501
W.B.S. No. 32877.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3119
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Approved:.
D TE +-Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
l v lo+
DATEF. Sullivan, III
4ilino, vision Administrator, FHWA
f
e
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 653 and No. 654
On SR 2804 and SR 2786
Over Broad River and Sandy Branch Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2804(1)
State Project No. 8.2843501
W.B.S. No. 32877.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3119
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
January 2003
r;
`John L: Williams, PE
Project Planning Engineer

William T. Goodwin Jr., PE, Ufiit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
r
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 653 and 654
SR 2804 and SR 2786
Over Broad River and Sandy Branch
Federal Project BRZ-2804(1)
State Project 8.2843501
W.B.S. No. 32877.1.1
TIP No. B-3119
Office of Natural Environment -Virginia spires
Potential Habitat for the endangered Virginia spirea is present at the project site and while the
species was not found during an intensive site search, the biologist recommended a follow-up
survey. NCDOT will conduct a follow-up survey during the next blooming season for the species
in summer 2004. NCDOT will not be able to gain a permit for the project until the issues is
resolved.
Division, Resident Engineer Trout Issues
NCWRC has commented that the Broad River is a NCWRC Hatchery Supported Trout
Stream with some populations of wild trout as well. The following will be implemented to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources:
o Instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are
prohibited during the brown trout spawning season of November 1 through April 15
to protect the egg and fry stages.
Y Where concrete is used, work will be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
Y Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish
and wildlife.
• Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel except as required for the construction of the bridge piers.
o Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of completion of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term
erosion control.
Roadside Environmental Unit & Roadway Design Unit - Sensitive Watersheds
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented in the design and
construction of this project.
Categorical Exclusion
Green Sheet
Page 1 of 1

Buncombe County
Bridge No. 653 and No. 654
On SR 2804 and SR 2786
Over Broad River and Sandy Branch Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2804 (1)
State Project No. 8.2843501
W.B.S. No. 32877.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3119
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 653 and No. 654 are included in the latest approved North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and are
eligible for the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The two bridge
locations are shown in Figure One. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion'.
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 653 has a sufficiency rating of 20.6
out of a possible 100. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete on the basis of a Structural Appraisal of 2 out of 10 and a Deck Geometry Appraisal of
2 out of 10. Furthermore, the superstructure is a Pratt thru truss including non-redundant tension
elements that represent a safety concern. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result
in safer traffic operations.
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 654 has a sufficiency rating of 33.0
out of a possible 100. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete.on the basis of a Structural Appraisal of 2 out of 10. Furthermore, the superstructure is
a pony truss- including non-redundant tension elements that represent a safety concern. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southeast corner of Buncombe County (see Figure One). The area is
rural with largely agricultural development and scattered residences.
SR 2804 and SR 2786 are paved and classified as rural local routes in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and are not National Highway System Routes. SR 2786 has recently been
widened along its entire length at a width of 18 feet. These routes are not designated bicycle
routes and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use these roadways.
In the vicinity of the bridges the roadway grade is relatively flat through the project area. Bridge
No. 653 is approximately 24 feet above the riverbed. Bridge No. 654 is approximately 13 feet
above the streambed.
1

Bridge No. 653 is a one-span Pratt thru truss bridge. The superstructure consists of an asphalt-
wearing surface over a timber deck on a steel thru truss. The substructure is composed of two
reinforced concrete abutments. Bridge No. 653 (see Figure Three) was placed at this location in
1961. The overall length of the structure is 122 feet. The clear roadway width is 11.7 feet. The
posted weight limit on this bridge is 10 tons for single vehicles and 13 tons for TTST's.
Bridge No. 654 is a one-span pony truss bridge. The superstructure consists of an asphalt-
wearing surface over a timber deck on a steel truss. The substructure is composed of two
reinforced concrete abutments. Bridge No. 654 (see Figure Five) was placed at this location in
1961. The overall length of the structure is 48 feet. The clear roadway width is 13 feet. The
posted weight limit on this bridge is 18 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for TTST's.
Utility impacts are anticipated to be low. Aerial power lines are present at both bridges. Bridge
No. 654 carries a telephone line on the bridge.
The current traffic volume is approximately 100 vehicles per day (VPD) for both bridges and is
expected to increase to 300 VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes one-percent
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted
speed limit and is therefore 55 miles per hour by statute in the project area. The School Bus
Transportation Director has indicated there are three school busses currently utilizing Bridge No.
653. There are no school busses utilizing Bridge No. 654.
There have been no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 653 or Bridge No. 654
during a check of a recent three-year period.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure for Bridge No. 653 will consist of a 130-foot long bridge. The bridge
will be of sufficient width to provide for two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets on each side.
The replacement structure for Bridge No. 654 will be a prefabricated spanning arch structure
approximately 10.7 feet high by 39.6 feet long. The bridge will be of sufficient width to provide
for two 12-foot lanes with 3-foot offsets on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structures will be approximately the same as the existing facilities
at these locations.
The roadway approaches will be widened to a 24-foot pavement width to provide two 12-foot
lanes. Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side. The roadway will be designed as a
rural local route. A design exception will be required in both cases due to design speed. The
desired design speed is 60 miles per hour but the actual design speed achieved by these
alignments is 20 miles per hour.
2

An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Hyde County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no practical
alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in an impact area of
about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the level or extent
of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. RESPONSE TO AGENCY COMMENTS
A. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
NCWRC has provided written continents (see attached letter) indicating the Rocky Broad River
is a Hatchery Supported Trout Stream. A list of standard requests associated with trout is
included in the letter and will be upheld as part of project construction (see attached Greensheet).
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation held a Citizens Informational Workshop for
this project on August 14, 2001 to gain public input. Forty-five people either attended the
workshop or sent in comments following the workshop by mail or e-mail. The vast majority,
including the Volunteer Fire Chief, raised concerns over permanently closing either of the
structures. Seven requested that we find a way to leave Bridge No. 653, "The Old Iron Bridge,"
in place. These comments have been addressed in Section III C of this document. A newsletter
was sent in April 2002 to alert the community that we had determined to replace both bridges
and that it would not be possible to preserve "The Old Iron Bridge". All correspondence
received subsequent to the newsletter has been requests on updates for the project schedule.
12
C. Archaeology
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has reviewed this project and determined
that there are no likely archaeological resources of historic significance that could be affected by
the project (See attached letter).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacements will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
11
occurrences of rock gnome lichen in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will
not impact this threatened species.
Surveys for federally protected species are valid for two years from the survey date. If the
project is not constructed within those two years then the area may need to be resurveyed prior to
the let date.
C. Conclusions
• The proposed project will impact two surface waters. Thirty-two linear feet of the Broad
River and 220 linear feet of Sand Branch UT1 will be impacted by project construction.
• The proposed project will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands.
• Section 404 NWP 23 and 33 along with their corresponding Section 401 Water Quality
Certification may be required for the proposed project.
• Tentative construction moratorium dates are recommended for rainbow trout between
January V and April 15`h.
• The proposed project may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the gray bat. The affect of
the proposed project remains unresolved for Virginia spirea, until surveys can be conducted
during its flowering time of late May to late July.
• Replacing the Bridge No. 653 in its existing location, and reducing the extent of the slope
stakes would minimize impacts to the Broad River and Sand Branch UTL If the final length
of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required.
Vl. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has reviewed this project and determined
that there are no structures of historic significance that could be affected by the project (See
attached letter).
10
No mussels of any species were observed in one hour of survey time. Based on the fact that this
species does not occur in Atlantic slope drainages and the survey results, it can be concluded that
project construction will not impact the oyster mussel.
Sagittaria fasciculata (bunched arrowhead)
No Effect
No habitat exists within the project area for the bunched arrowhead, and no individuals of this
species were observed during the site visit. Within the wetland there are no stagnant seepage
areas. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this plant within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Sarracenia jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) No Effect
No habitat exists within the project area for the mountain sweet pitcher plant, and no individuals
of this species were observed during the site visit. No level depressions were found along the
stream. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this plant within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Geunt radiatum (Spreading avens) No Effect
No habitat exists within the project area for spreading avens, and no individuals of this species
were observed during the site visit. The elevation of the project area is approximately 2050 feet,
which is well below the elevations where this plant is typically found. A search of the NHP
database found no occurrence of this plant within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that
the project will not impact this endangered species.
Spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea)
Unresolved
Although suitable habitat for this species exists within the project area, no individuals of this
species were discovered. Point bars, braided areas, and rock crevices along the Broad River were
extensively searched. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this plant within the
project vicinity. However, the biological conclusion for this species should remain Unresolved
until a search for this species can be conducted during its appropriate flowering time (late May to
late July).
Gymnoderma lineare (rock gnome lichen) No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the rock gnome lichen. The elevation of the project area
is approximately 2050 feet. In Buncombe County, this species occurs on high-elevation
mountaintops and cliff faces above 4000 feet. A search of the NHP database found no
9
Glaucomysabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. The project area is
at an elevation of 2050 feet (615 m) with no transition zone between hardwood and coniferous
forests. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this animal within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Felis concolor cougar (eastern cougar) No Effect
The project site is not in close proximity to a large wilderness area. No individuals of this
species, or any sign of their presence was observed during the site visit. A search of the NHP
database found no occurrence of this animal within the project vicinity. Furthermore, records of
this species from the western portion of the state are more than 20 years old. It can be concluded
that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Myotis grisescens (gray bat) May Affect- Not Likely to Adversely Affect
No caves were discovered within the project areas, and none were spotted nearby. The Broad
River may serve as suitable foraging habitat for this species. However, no individuals of this
species or indications of their presence were observed. A search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of this animal within the project vicinity. Furthermore, the record of this species in
Buncombe County is an incidental/migratory record, implying that the species was observed
outside its normal range or habitat. Although no bats are known to occur in the area, but
foraging habitat is present, USFWS policy requires a Biological Conclusion that this project may
affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, this endangered species.
Cyprinella monacha (spotfin chub)
No Effect
This species is found only in interior drainages, while the Broad River is an Atlantic slope
drainage. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this animal within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Epioblasma capsaeformis (oyster mussel)
No Effect
The oyster mussel occurs in the Tennessee and Cumberland River basins. This species is not
found within Atlantic slope drainages. The subject project will impact the Broad River and Sand
Branch, which are Atlantic slope drainages. Additionally, Bridge 653 was visited by NCDOT
biologist Tim Savidge on June 23, 2000. Cursory surveys for mussel fauna were conducted from
approximately 300 yards downstream of the existing bridge over the Broad River to
approximately 50 yards upstream. Survey methodology involved wading using a view bucket.
Species Under Federal Protection in Buncombe County
Vertebrates
Cominon Name- Scientific Name, ; Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) N/A
Carolina northern
flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus E No Effect
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar E No Effect
Gray bat Myotis grisescens E** May Affect-Not Likely
to Adversely Affect
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha T* No Effect

Coiniiion Nain'e = Scientific.Nairie`; Federal Status,;' Biolot ical Conclusion
Oyster mussel Epioblasma
capsaeformis E No Effect
Vascular Plants
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasiculata E* No Effect
Mountain sweet
pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E* No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E No Effect
Virginia spirea Spirea virginiana T Unresolved
Nonvascular Plants
Rock Gnome
Lichen Gymnoderma lineare E No Effect
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.
T(S/A) Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
* Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Incidental/Migrant record-the species was observed outside of its normal range or
habitat.
Clemmys muhleubergii (bog turtle)
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
to the northern population; therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and a Biological conclusion is not needed. No habitat
exists in the project area for the bog turtle. There are no freshwater wetlands characterized by
open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow moving streams, ditches, or boggy areas near the
bridge. A search of the NHP database revealed no occurrences of the bog turtle within 2 miles.
B. Jurisdictional Topics
Surface Waters and Wetlands
The Broad River, Sand Branch, and UT1 are considered jurisdictional surface water under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Calculated impacts to waters of the United States reflect the
relative abundance of each surface water observed within the proposed construction limits.
Permanent impacts to the Broad River and UT1 will result from project construction. No
temporary impacts are associated with the proposed project. Assuming a study corridor of
variable width for Alternate 1, the following table lists the potential impacts to surface waters
within the project area.
Estimated Impacts to Surface Waters

Water body Channel Width
in Feet Impacted Length
in Linear Feet Impacted Area
in Square feet
Broad River 75 32 2400
UT1 1.5 220 330
Sand Branch 15 0 0
Total Impact --- 252 2730
Bridge No. 653 is a single span 122 feet long and 12 feet wide, and was built in 1961. The
substructure is composed of two reinforced concrete abutments. The amount of resulting fill is
unknown as a method of removal has not yet been determined. Bridge No. 654 was built in
1962, and consists of a single span 48 feet long and 14 feet wide. The substructure is composed
of two reinforced concrete abutments. It should be possible to remove Bridge No. 654 with no
resulting fill.
Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permits (NWT) No. 23 (Categorical
Exclusion) and 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering), as promulgated under 67
FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
Certification No. 3361, from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
prior to issuance of the NWP 23.
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 11 species
under federal protection for Buncombe County as of January 29, 2003 (USFWS 2003). These
species are listed in the table below.
6
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
The project is located in eastern Buncombe County about 12 miles south of Black Mountain, NC,
in the Blue Ridge physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately
2050 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1978). The topography of the project vicinity is
mountainous with steep slopes rising from both riverbanks. No hydric soils are mapped by the
NRCS within the project area. A small jurisdictional wetland was discovered during the initial
site visit just outside the project area associated with Bridge No. 654.
A. Physical Characteristics
Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in subbasin BRD01 of the Broad River
Basin (HUC 06010105). The Broad River, Sand Branch, and an unnamed tributary to the Broad
River (UT1) are located within the project area, and are all perennial features.
The best usage classification of the Broad River and Sand Branch (Index numbers 9(11) and
9(10), respectively) are Class C Tr (NCDENR 2002). UT1 has not been indexed by DWQ;
therefore, it receives the same classification as its receiving stream (the Broad River). No water
resources classified as High Quality Water, Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding
Resource Waters are located within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
None of the water resources within the project area are designated as biologically impaired water
bodies regulated under the provisions of CWA §303(d).
Biotic Resources
Three terrestrial communities were identified within or near the project area: a disturbed
community, a mixed hardwood forest, and a wetland. The following table shows the impacts of
the project on these communities.
Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres
Community Bridge 653 Bridge 654. Total
Disturbed 0.03 0.02 0.05
Mixed Hardwood 0.15 0.02 0.17
Total Impact 0.18 0.04 0.22
of Historic Places. For these reasons rehabilitation and continued maintenance of the existing
structure are not prudent.
Approximately one third of those offering feedback during public involvement requested that the
Department leave Bridge No. 653 (The "Old Iron Bridge") in place. The existing south end of
the bridge is the best location for an intersection with NC 9 offering the best sight distance in
both directions and drivers are already familiar with the associated turning movements.
Therefore the best location for the new bridge overlaps the south end of the existing "Old Iron
Bridge" and thus the "Old Iron Bridge" must be removed. Even before this was determined to be
the case and in consideration that Bridge No. 653 is not eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, the Bridge Maintenance Unit had indicated a strong preference for removal of
the bridge due to budgetary constraints.
Realignment of Bridge No. 654 was not considered due to topographical and environmental
concerns. Bridge No. 654 is located in the middle of a curve. To the outside of the curve is a
steeply climbing mountain slope. To the inside of the curve is a wetland.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 653 will be replaced on new alignment as shown in Figure 2. Bridge No. 654 will be
replaced on the existing location as shown by Figure 2. These alignments are recommended
because they are the only practical alternative for replacing the bridge. Impacts to the natural
and human environments are minimal.
The NCDOT Division 13 Engineer concurs with this recommendation as the preferred
alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the build alternative is as follows:
Bridge No. 653 Bridge No. 654
Item Cost Cost
New Structure $ 251,000 $ 175,000
Removal of Existing Structure 16,000 6,000
Roadway Approaches 106,000 42,000
Misc. & Mob. 53,000 29,000
Eng. & Contingencies 43,000 38,000
Total Construction Cost $ 469,000 $ 290,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 24,000 $ 11,000
Individual Bridge Total Cost $ 493,000 $ 301,000
Grand Total Project Cost $ 794,000
4
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
After consideration of several replacement scenarios, only one build alternative for each bridge
was determined to be reasonable as described below.
Bridge No. 653 will be replaced on a partially new alignment. The south end of the new bridge
will be at approximately the same location as the old bridge. The north end of the new bridge
will be shifted approximately 130 feet to the west of the current north end of Bridge 653 (See
Figure 2). The new alignment will be approximately 164 feet long. SR 2786 will be realigned for
a distance of approximately 300 feet to the east and to the west of the intersection with SR 2804.
The realignment is necessary to facilitate construction of the north abutment of the new bridge.
Traffic will be detoured around NC 9 and SR 2786 during construction.
Bridge No. 654 will be replaced on the existing alignment with a prefabricated spanning arch
structure. Approach work will extend 131 feet west of the structure and 134 feet to the east.
Bridge No. 653 must be replaced and carrying traffic prior to the beginning of construction for
Bridge No. 654. If Bridge No. 654 were to be closed first, Bridge No. 653 does not have
sufficient turning radius to permit larger vehicles access to SR 2786; the road would effectively
be shut down to larger vehicles such as tractor trailers. The delay due to the detour should be
less than 2 minutes for the average road user
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
Because Bridge No. 653 and Bridge No. 654 are so close together, serious consideration was
given to removing both bridges and replacing only one of them. This possibility was included
during the public involvement stage of planning. There was general opposition to closing either
bridge due to a specific safety concern. The local Emergency Services Coordinator indicated that
there is a section of NC 9 between SR 2786 and SR 2804 which develops a "black ice" condition
on cool mornings which regularly causes accidents. The detour including the two bridges allows
traffic to detour around during a wreck. Many of those attending the public meeting and many
who wrote in comments noted that this very condition dictated which bridge they crossed when
traveling from the north end of SR 2786.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridges. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2786 and SR 2804.
Older truss structures were not designed with redundancy meaning that the failure of an
individual member could cause collapse of the entire bridge. Many of these bridges have been
retrofitted with a light guardrail inside the truss but this does not provide adequate protection to
the truss. Metal truss structures also require very high maintenance to keep the structure in good
repair relative to other structure types. These particular structures have been evaluated for
historical significance and have been determined Not Eligible for listing on the National Register
EUzaboth
Ch,W 1
2807 2805 2790
2786 2789
2850 Laura Spring3
Ch.
28 654
5
2804 ? . ?/.?
O > 2797
2802
^L'2803
s
2 2882
Henderson County
ry 2801
9 ?
?J
DUTCHMAN RIDGE ,P
Y Branch
?.o
w 2794
tono Mtn. 2795 VIM
Ch.
.
.
2797 f
' Rutherford County
2796
2799
-14
? MoATM G
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
F

? PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
`?'f fi
os r a.
Buncombe County
Replace Bridge No. 653 and No. 654
On SR 2804 and SR 2786
Over Broad River & Sandy Branch Creek
B-3119
Figure 1

J
??
3'r'
?. ?Ir

a J r?f'? tVh'

A
6??.
4

x4
; °M'
Ft

t ?
x

i

East Face of
Bridge 653
r:
a
f
View of Bridge No. 653
from NC 9

J.
r
tt. ?'
C ? ,-w

7
I
Bridge No. 654
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Proiect Development &
County
Figure Five

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch - NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 5, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for scoping comments, Bridge No. 653 on SR 2804 over the Broad River,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3119.
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves replacement of an obsolete roadway bridge. We anticipate
that a spanning structure will be constructed on the site. The Broad River (also called the Rocky
' Broad River) is managed by the NCWRC as Hatchery Supported trout water downstream of the
project site and may also support wild trout populations in the immediate area. Construction
impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources will depend on the extent of disturbance in the stream
bed and surrounding Iloodplain areas. Environmental documentation for this project should
include description of any streams or wetlands on the project site and surveys for any threatened
or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
Because Buncombe County is recognized as a "trout water county" by the COE, the
NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the project. The following
conditions are likely to be placed on the 404 permit:

4}
J`' a
? i
4 ti

? a

TIP No. B-3119 Page 2 March 5, 1998
1. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of
pier construction. Channel relocations have catastrophic effects on aquatic life, and
disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream
erosion problems, possibly affecting adjacent land owners.
2. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be completed in a dry work area.
Sandbag or rock berms, coffer dams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
3. Grading and baclffilling should be minimi7.ed, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and
wildlife.
4. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
5. If concrete is used during construction of piers and abutments, a dry work area should
be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and stream water.
Uncured concrete affects water quality and is toxic to fish and other organisms.
6. All instream work should be conducted between November 1 and April 15, to avoid
impacts on trout reproduction.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this
project. If I can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

STAir
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #653 on SR 1804 over Broad River,
Buncombe County, B-3119, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-2804(1), State Project 8.2843501, ER 98-
8624
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
J--ffrey J. Crow, Director
Q/GEf V O
S APR 3 0 1998
DIVISION OF
HIGHWA;?S
$?An;
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
April 7, 1998. - However, Debbie Bevin met with John Williams of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on April 15, 1998, to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms. of historic architectural resources, Bridge #653 is the only structure over
fifty years old within the project area. This Pratt through truss bridge was
evaluated and determined not eligible for the National Register in 1997. We
recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
No archaeological survey is needed unless replacement is to take place on a new
alignment.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
log East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2607 ???
Nicholas L. Graf
April 28, 1998, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the-above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
J
j/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 114' F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Asheville-Buncombe Historic Resources Commission
sTA rr d
s'
?r
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
June 28, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: John L. Williams
Bridge Planning Unit
NC Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook' i-4L?st /J't?-
Deputy State Htstori Preservation Officer
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 653 on SR 2804 over Broad River. Buncombe County.
B-3119. FA Project ivo. BRZ-2804(l}, State Project 78.2843501. ER 98-6624
& ER 00-10283
Thank you for your letter of June 23, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the design information for the proposed bridge replacement location forwarded.by,
your office. Due to the very small footprint for this project, it is unlikely that sivnificant
archaeological resources will be affected. We. therefore, do not recommend any archaeological
investigation in connection with this project as currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Presen-ation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance % ith Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions coincemin_l the above
comment. please contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev. environmental review coordinator. at 919!733-4763.
DB:scb
cc: Tom Padgett, NCDOT
bc: Claggett/Hall
Moore
County
RF
Location Mailing Address TelephnneJFas
ADMINISTRATION j07 N. Bimini St.. Raleigh NC -1617 M;iil Service Center. Raleigh NC ."b9J=hl7 t9[9) 733-a7h3 733-x653
mtCI1:iiF.0L0(;Y 11
1 N. Mount St.. Raleigh NC ahit) Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC :"fiyy »h l'1 019) 733•"'42 'li._t,71
l2F:Sl'l)Ft,\rIUN _
315 N 116n,ut St.. R::Ieigh NC Masl Scrvicc Center. Raleigh NC ."bV1.1h13 )911)) '3 -r i' . 'I S.Ixul
,
MINTY & PLANNING .
515 V. illvunt 5t.. Raleigh Nt: 41,1`( %1:111 Service (:enter. Raleigh NC xt)I
191')) 711-t,54< "li.-