20061451 Ver 1_Application_20060908

I f

G

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
?0'
SFP
D
IvFTC'yoF? .,., 2006
SAnoSTO?R
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION wgTF 1111%C8
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 6, 2006
U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 5
Raleigh, NC 27615 _
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 13 Application for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek. Avery County in
Division 11. Federal Project No. BRZ-1321, State Project No.
8.2721201, T.I.P. No. B-3406.
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Please find enclosed the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above referenced project,
along with permit drawings, '/2 size design plans and a Preconstruction notification
(PCN). North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to replace bridge
No. 28 with a new 40-feet long and 30-foot wide cored slab bridge on existing location
that will completely span Curtis Creek. Traffic will use an onsite detour located to the
south of the existing structure during construction. The onsite detour will completely
span Curtis Creek. There are no wetlands located in.the project area. Project impacts
consist of the placement of 121 feet of riprap on the banks of Curtis Creek. No
temporary impacts will occur.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Watauga River basin (HUC
06010108) and will cross Curtis Creek. Curtis Creek is has been assigned a best usage
classification of C Tr, by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Curtis Creek is not
designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic
River, nor is it listed as a 303(d) stream. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II (WS-11) waters occur within 1.0
miles of the project study area. Since Curtis Creek is classified as a trout water, NCDOT
will implement design standards for sensitive watersheds.
Temporary Impacts: No temporary impacts will occur.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone]
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WE©SITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC
f
Permanent Impacts: This project will place 121 feet of riprap on the banks of Curtis
Creek. There will be no impacts to surface waters.
Utility Impacts: No impacts will occur due to utility relocations
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 28's superstructure consists of a timber floor on 1-beams. The substructure
consists of timber caps on timber posts and sills. The existing bridge can be removed in
sections without dropping bridge components into the water. NCDOT will follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Bank Stabilization
Measures necessary for erosion prevention will be required, in order to protect the
integrity of Curtis Creek. Riprap will be placed from the top of the bank to the waters
edge, to eliminate potential erosion in the project area.
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 April 27, 2006 the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists eight federally protected species for Avery County
(Table 1). A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for all applicable species.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Avery County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological
Conclusion Habitat
available
Clemnrys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T (S/A) NA NA
Corynorhinus tonsendii
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E No Effect No
Geuni radiatum Spreading avens E No Effect No
Glauco,nys sabrinus
coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel E No Effect No
Gynuioderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No Effect No
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T No Effect No
MlcrohexIlra nlontivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E No Effect No
Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T No Effect No
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION:
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation
of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design and include:
• Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
• No bents will be placed in the water.
• Replace at existing location.

MITIGATION
Mitigation is not proposed because riprap will be placed on the stream bank.
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 13 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3495 will apply to
this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a), we are providing two copies of
this notification to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance in this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please contact Brett Feulner at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Pettyjohn, P.E. Division 11 Engineer
Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division 11 Environmental Officer
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
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
r
Office Use Only: G n 0 O 6Fo1 n VVersi n March 05
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. .1
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
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 13
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: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: gthorpePdot.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:
Page I of 8
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 1 1 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: Replacement of Bridge No. 28 over Curtis Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3406
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Avery Nearest Town: Heaton
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): The site is located at the
crossing SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
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): 34.4432 ON 77.8339 °W
6. Property size (acres):
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Curtis Creek
8. River Basin: Watauga
(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: Residential, small buisnesses, and forestland
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Standard DOT construction equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose is to replace the old bridge that is
functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.
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.
No
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.
1. Provide a written description.of the proposed impacts: The project impacts are as
follows, 121 feet of bank stabilization
Page 3 of 8
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 Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres)
(yes/no) (linear feet)

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)
Site 1 Curtis Creek Stablization Perennial 20 121 0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 121 0.01
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
Site Number
(indicate on ma) Name Waterbody
(if applicable) e)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.01
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.01
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
Page 4 of 8
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. Best management Practices for
the protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge demolition and removal, proposed bridge
will span the creek
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,
Page 5 of 8
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://l12o.cnr.state.nc.us/ncwctlands/strm,i,i(ie.litml.
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.
No mitigation is proposed because the proposed impacts are from bank stabilization
activities.
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/indcx.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):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. 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.
Page 6 of 8
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 ?
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 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .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.
I Zone* I Impact I Multiplier I Required
(square feet) Mitiuation
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total
* Zone i 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.
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 2B .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.Approximately the same as current conditions
Page 7 of 8

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.
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://h 2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
Replace an existing structure
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).
Applicant/Ageni
(Agent's signature is vali

6 ,zs-
ature
Date
only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

Avery County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(1)
State Project 8.2721201
WBS # 33037. 1.1
TIP Project No. B-3406
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
to-15-1)v skw- aam tee
DATE 0??regory J. orpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
J0 -6 2-OZ/ . D,
DATE John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Avery County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(1)
State Project 8.2721201
WBS # 33037.1.1
TIP Project No. B-3406
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 2004
Document Prepared by
E A R T H@ T E C H
1114
Joh chrohenloher, P.E., Project Engineer
Ea Tech
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
6;1. A U"Oij:k-
Joh adsworth, P.E., Project Manager
Co Itant Engineering Unit
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
fillf *"*-f
CARO
a SEAL =
A OatWa
%,,BC ir4
. I
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Avery County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(1)
State Project 8.2721201
WBS # 33037.1.1
TIP Project No. B-3406
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 Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of
Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division 11
All in-stream work and land disturbance within a 25-foot buffer will be conducted
between April 16 and October 14 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction. Guidelines for
Construction Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters as incorporated into Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines will be implemented and adhered to throughout the
project.
Design Branch
To address community concerns with pedestrian safety, right-of-way impacts, and
relocations, the following measures will be considered to minimize or mitigate impacts:
• Use 3R Guide to design the project.
• Minimize the use of guardrail to minimize property access impacts.
Include pedestrian safety components (e.g., crosswalks and signing) in the
project that enhance the safety of pedestrian movements between the Heaton
Christian Church buildings and its parking lot on the other side of SR 1321.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Approved under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act is required. A copy
of the environmental document will be provided to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Categorical Exclusion
October 2004

Avery County
Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1321(1)
State Project 8.2721201
WBS # 33037.1.1
TIP Project No. B-3406
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 28 is included in the 2004-2010 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 STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 18.3, out of
a possible of 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.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1321 (Curtis Creek Road) in Avery County is classified as "Local Route" in the
Statewide Functional Classification System, and is not a Federal-aid Highway.
Through the project area, SR 1321 has a 20-foot wide clear roadway width and a 50-foot
wide right-of-way. There is no speed limit posted on SR 1321 near the bridge, so the
statutory speed limit of 55 miles per hour applies. The existing bridge and roadway can be
seen in Figures 2a-b.
The existing bridge was constructed in 1959. The superstructure consists of a timber floor on
I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber posts and sills. The abutments
are vertical. The existing bridge consists of one 30.5-foot span and the clear roadway width
is 19.1 feet. The crown of the roadway is approximately 7 feet over the bed of Curtis Creek.
The posted weight limit is 14 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for trucks with trailers.
The bridge is located in a tangent section of SR 1321 and crosses Curtis Creek at
approximately 90 degrees. Photographs of the approaches to the existing bridge are shown in
Figures 4a-c.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 1
October 2004
f
The average daily traffic volume on SR 1321 at Bridge No. 28 is estimated to be 900
vehicles per day in 2003. By the design year 2030, the average daily traffic volume is
expected to increase to 1,500 vehicles per day. The projected traffic volume includes
2 percent dual-tired vehicles and 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers. Two school buses each
cross the bridge four times daily (a total of eight crossings). SR 1321 is not a designated
bicycle route.
In the period between September 1, 2000 and August 31, 2003, there was one accident on
the west approach to Bridge No. 28 (within 100 feet of the bridge).
III. ALTERNATIVES
..A. Project Description
The project replaces the existing bridge with a new bridge on the existing horizontal
alignment and existing grade. The bridge will carry two lanes of traffic over Curtis Creek.
The proposed bridge will be approximately 40 feet long and 26 feet wide, accommodating
two 10-foot travel lanes. The typical sections for the approaches and bridge are shown in
Figure 3.
B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives were considered for the project:
Alternative 1 replaces Bridge No. 28 on the existing roadway alignment (see Figure 2a).
During construction, traffic is maintained on a temporary detour structure located south
(upstream) of the existing bridge and re joins SR 1321 near SR 1320 (Barlow Road). This
alternative relocates one residence. Alternative 1 was not selected as the preferred alternative
because its construction cost and temporary detour impacts are the higher of Alternatives 1
and 4. The temporary impact to Heaton Christian Church parking and terrestrial impacts are
higher than Alternative 4.
Alternative 4 (Preferred) replaces Bridge No. 28 on the existing roadway alignment (see
Figure 2b). During construction, traffic is maintained on a temporary detour structure
located south (upstream) of the existing bridge and re joins SR 1321 approximately 150 feet
east of the existing bridge. This alternative relocates one residence.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 2
October 2004

C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
Alternative 2 replaces Bridge No. 28 south (upstream) of its existing location and realigns
the roadway to the south. The new road rejoins existing SR 1321 at the intersection of
SR 1320. Traffic is maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Bridge No. 28
will be removed when the new bridge is open to traffic. This alternative relocates one
residence. Alternative 2 was eliminated from further consideration due to the new alignment
lying in a floodplain, which would have created a flood hazard.
Alternative 3 replaces Bridge No. 28 just south (upstream) of the existing location and
realigns the roadway to the south. The road is closer to existing SR 1321 than in
Alternative 2. The new road rejoins existing SR 1321 south of the SR 1320 intersection.
Traffic is maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Bridge No. 28 will be
removed when the new bridge is open to traffic. This alternative relocates one residence.
Alternative 3 was eliminated from further consideration due to impacts to Heaton Christian
Church's parking.
Alternative 5 replaces Bridge No. 28 approximately 460 feet upstream of the existing bridge
and realigns the intersection of SR 1320 and SR 1321. Bridge No. 28 will be removed when
the new bridge is open to traffic. Alternative 5 relocates two residences and places the new
road directly adjacent to the Heaton Cemetery (located southeast of the intersection of
SR 1321 and SR 1320). In addition, a large amount of excavation is required due to an
outcropping of bedrock adjacent to SR. 1320. This alternative was eliminated due to the
combination of relocation and cemetery impacts.
Alternative 6 (Do Nothing) This alternative consists of short-term minor reconstruction and
maintenance activities that are part of an ongoing plan for continuing operation of the
existing structure and roadway system in the project area. Many of the structural elements
are decaying or corroding. Decay and corrosion have already reduced the bridge's safe load-
bearing capacity. Although further maintenance activities will slow the decay, closing the
bridge will eventually be necessary. Alternative 6 was eliminated due to there not being any
other existing route that provides practical access to properties that Bridge No. 28 serves.
Alternative 7 creates a new alignment and bridge across the Elk River, connecting SR 1321
with NC 194. The new alignment begins on SR 1321 approximately 400 feet east of Bridge
No. 28, heads north on the east side of Heaton Christian Church, crosses the Elk River, then
connects to NC 194. Bridge No. 28 will be removed when the new bridge is open to traffic.
Alternative 7 has a left turn lane for NC 194 westbound traffic, which requires the
construction of retaining walls on both sides of NC 194. The new bridge will be
approximately 130 feet long, and the approach work extends approximately 250 feet to the
south of the bridge, 350 feet to the west and 450 feet to the east of the bridge on NC 194.
Alternative 7 was eliminated from consideration because of inadequate sight distance on
NC 194 and strong community opposition.
Alternative 8 creates a new alignment and bridge across the Elk River, connecting SR 1321
with NC 194. The new alignment begins on SR 1321 approximately 400 feet east of Bridge
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 3
October 2004
No. 28, heads north on the east side of Heaton Christian Church, crosses the Elk River, then
connects to NC 194. Bridge No. 28 will be removed when the new bridge is open to traffic.
Alternative 8 does not have a left turn lane on NC 194, which does not make any major
modifications to NC 194 nor requires any retaining walls except in the vicinity of the bridge
abutment at NC 194. The new bridge will be approximately 130 feet long, and the approach
work will extend approximately 250 feet to the south of the bridge, 350 feet to the west and
450 feet to the east of the bridge on NC 194. Alternative 8 was eliminated from
consideration because of inadequate sight distance on NC 194 and strong community
opposition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 4, replacing Bridge No. 28 on the existing roadway alignment while
maintaining traffic on a temporary detour structure south (upstream) of the existing bridge, is
the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative because its construction
costs and temporary detour impacts are the lesser of Alternatives 1 and 4. The temporary
impact to Heaton Christian Church parking and terrestrial impacts are less than
Alternative 1.
Measures to enhance pedestrian safety, such as crosswalks and signing, at Heaton Christian
Church will be evaluated. The structure will probably have to use 1 or 2 bar metal rail so that
the structure anchor unit (for guardrail) will attach to the end of the bridge; not to the barrier
on the approach slab. Using one or two bar metal rail will reduce impacts to the driveway
adjacent to the church property by limiting the use of guardrail. Using barrier rail will make
the driveway adjacent to the church unusable.
NCDOT Division 11 supports this alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
Design exceptions include a design speed of 30 miles per hour, which is below the current
statutory speed limit of 55 miles per hour.
Design exceptions will be required for lane and shoulder widths so the Heaton Christian
Church building and parking is not impacted, and to avoid encroachment into the floodplain.
Proposed lane and shoulder widths are not less than what currently exists.
Design exceptions will be required for horizontal and vertical alignment elements. Changing
the existing horizontal or vertical alignments will impact properties adjacent to the bridge.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 4
October 2004

IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Estimated Costs
Item Alt. 1 Alt. 4 (Preferred)
Structure Removal $4,720 $4,720
Structure $90,000 $90,000
Roadway Approaches $201,420 $201,420
Detour Structure & Approaches $99,800 $99,800
Miscellaneous and Mobilization $134,060 $134,060
Engineering and Contingencies $95,000 $95,000
Right-of-Way/Utilities/Relocations $313,800 $296,000
Total Cost of Alternative $938,800 $921,200
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2004-2010 TIP is $820,000, including
$150,000 for right-of-way and $550,000 for construction. Right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled for Federal Fiscal Year 2005, with construction to follow in Federal Fiscal Year
2006.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
An evaluation of natural resources in the immediate area of potential project impact was
performed. The evaluation describes the various natural resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed action. This section identifies and estimates the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. The information in this section is based on the
Natural Resources Technical Report dated March 1999 and later updates.
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 (Elk Park, 1978)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Elk Park, 1989)
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1--1200)
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
5
o Draft soil survey maps of Avery County (Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS] 1994)
e North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1998)
o USFWS list of protected and candidate species
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide Web
by NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). Information concerning the occurrence
of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS list of
protected and candidate species (January 2004). NHP files were reviewed for documented
sightings of species on state or federal lists and locations of significant natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route on February 4, 1999.
Water resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. A habitat
assessment was performed within the project area of Curtis 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). Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale
and Weakley (1990) where appropriate, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et al (1968).
Vertebrate taxonomy follows Potter et al (1980), Martof et al (1980), and Webster et al
(1985). 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.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation
Manual (USACE, 1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al (1979).
The following terms are used for describing the limits of natural resources investigations.
"Study corridor" and "project area" refer to both the permanent and temporary right-of
ways". The "project region" is an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-
minute USGS quadrangle map (about 61.8 square miles), with the project area occupying the
center of the project region. When referring to stream banks, "left bank" and "right bank" are
relative to an observer facing downstream.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 6
October 2004

B. Physiography and Soils
1. Regional Characteristics
The proposed project is in a rural area in Avery County approximately 3.8 miles west of
Banner Elk. Avery County's major economic resources are tourism and horticulture
(Christmas trees and ornamental sluubs).
The project area lies in the western portion of North Carolina within the Blue Ridge
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area are approximately 3,040 feet
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929). The topography of the project vicinity is
mountainous, with steep slopes rising from a narrow floodplain.
2. Soils
The following information about soils in the project area was taken from draft maps
provided by the Avery County NRCS (MRCS, 1994). The draft map unit in the project area
is Reddies loam (0-3 percent slopes). The seasonal high water table for this type is 2.0-
3.5 feet. Reddies loam (16-A) is mapped along the banks and floodplain of Curtis Creek
within the project area. This soil is frequently flooded and occurs on 0-3 percent slopes. It is
a very deep, moderately well-drained soil found on floodplains in the southern Appalachian
mountains. Reddies soils are not on the NRCS list of hydric soils for North Carolina. Site
index information was not available for this soil type.
C. Water Resources
1. {haters Impacted
The project is located in the Watauga River Basin, NCDWQ sub-basin 04-02-01 (NCDWQ
Environmental Sciences Branch Watauga River WATO1 sub-basin). The Watauga River
Basin is 205 square miles in size. One surface water resource, Curtis Creek, will be directly
impacted by the proposed project. Curtis Creek originates about 2.8 miles southeast of the
project area, near Blood Camp Ridge. From the project area, the creek flows northeast
approximately 50 feet to its confluence with the Elk River.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Curtis Creek is approximately 5 feet wide in the project area. The stream flows northeast in a
straight run, with numerous small cascades and runs. The substrate of the river at this point
consists of about 50 percent boulders, 20 percent cobbles, 15 percent gravel, and 15 percent
sand. Stream flow on the day of the site visit was rapid. The water was clear and shallow,
with a maximum,depth of about 2 feet.
The banks are nearly vertical and lined with rocks and boulders or planted shrubs and vines
to a height of 3-6 feet. The banks increase in height towards the mouth of the creek. No signs
of recent flooding were observed.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 7
October 2004
The creek has an open canopy and riparian vegetation consists of landscaped plantings of
shrubs, small trees, and vines.
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the NCDWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Curtis Creek
(Index # 8-22-15, 05/15/1963) 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
activities. The supplemental Tr classification refers to trout waters, which are fresh waters
protected for natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II)
or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur with 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Non-point source runoff from adjacent landscaping, paved parking areas, and pastures is
likely to be the primary source of water quality degradation to the water resources located
within the project vicinity. There are maintained lawns on the left bank of the stream and
gravel and paved parking lots on the right bank. Nutrient loading from fertilizers and
contaminants from the parking lot runoff could affect water quality.
The NCDWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for the
seventeen river basins within the state. River basins are reassessed every five years. The
Basin-Wide Assessment Program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate (benthos) organisms throughout the state. The monitoring sites may vary
according to needs assessed for a particular basin.
Curtis Creek has not been sampled as part of this monitoring program.
Point source discharges in North Carolina are permitted through the NPDES program
administered by the NCDWQ. All dischargers are.required to obtain a permit to discharge.
No point source discharges were observed in the study area. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Curtis Creek as of September 13, 2004.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Mater Resources
a) General Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic
community. Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water
resources:
9 Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
o Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 8
October 2004

• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Based on the right-of-way widths, the project may impact up to 100 linear feet of Curtis
Creek. Most of the impacts would be temporary for the construction of the temporary detour
(50 feet for the proposed permanent structure and 50 feet for the temporary detour structure).
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be followed
during the construction of the project. In addition, Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to
or Crossing Trout Waters as incorporated into Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines
will be implemented and adhered to throughout the project.
4. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
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
will 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 is 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 Threatened and
Endangered 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.
Curtis 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.
It is not classified as a DP.MTW, but it does carry the NCDWQ supplemental "Tr"
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion g
October 2004
classification. Therefore, Case 2 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 28 over
Curtis Creek.
Bridge No. 28's superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure
consists of timber caps on timber posts and sills. The abutments are vertical. Because of its
design, the existing bridge can be removed in sections without dropping bridge components
into the water. There is no substructure in the water. No fill will result from demolition.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Terrestrial Communities
One terrestrial community occurs within the project area-a maintained landscape.
Dominant faunal components associated with this terrestrial area are discussed in the
community description.
This community covers the area on both banks of Curtis Creek. It consists of maintained
residential lawns or parking lots covering the project area up to the stream banks, which are
lined with planted trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Tree species include yellow buckeye
(Aesculus (lava), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
red spruce (Picea rubens), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and red maple (Ater rubrum).
The shrub and herbaceous species are largely horticultural varieties, along with some
common weedy species. These include ornamental rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.), violet
(Viola sp.), periwinkle (Vinca minor), a horticultural variety of ivy, mock strawberry
(Duchesnea indica), buttercup (Ranunculus hispidus), and poison ivy (Toxicodendrort
radicans).
2. Wildlife
The animal species present in the maintained landscape 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. A red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) was observed the day of the site visit. The area
may also be used by gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), Eastern garter snake (Thanuiophis sirtalis), and American toad (Bufo
americanus).
3. Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Curtis Creek is a mid-gradient, third order stream. The bed material
consists of boulders and cobbles, with a small percentage of sand and gravel. On the day of
the site visit, the water was clear with no suspended sediment. The riparian community is
composed of mostly small trees and shrubs.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 10
October 2004

Avery County is designated a "trout" county by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC). Curtis Creek was sampled in 1997 and found to support brown trout
(Sahno trutta) and wild rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss). Streams of this type also
typically support rosyside dace (Clinosto nus fimgiloides) and yellowfin shiner (Notropis
lutipinnis). Curtis Creek is a tributary of the Elk River, which is designated as "Public
Mountain Trout Water" (DPMTW).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be permanently impacted by project
construction from clearing and paving and loss of the terrestrial community area along
SR 1321. Temporary impacts will be incurred by the construction of a temporary detour.
Estimated impacts include the area within the proposed permanent right-of-way of 50 feet
and with the proposed temporary detour right-of-way of 50 feet. Table 2 describes the
potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type.
Table 2: Estimated Areas of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Impacted Area in Acres
Alternative 1 Alternative 4
Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Maintained Landscape 0.75 0.98 0.52 0.69
b) Wetland Communities
Curtis Creek is labeled on the NWI map as a PSS1A (Palustrine/scrub-shrub/broad-leaved
deciduous/temporarily flooded) wetland. No jurisdictional wetlands were observed within
the project area.
c) Aquatic Communities
No wetlands will be impacted by the project. Project construction cannot be accomplished
without infringing on the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the
jurisdiction of the USACE and the NCDWQ.
Assuming a study corridor of 50 feet wide at the proposed permanent bridge location and
50 feet wide at the proposed temporary detour location, Alternatives 1 and 4 will impact
100 linear feet of Curtis Creek, or 500 square feet of surface waters. Impacts will be less
than those calculated if project construction does not require the entire permanent and
temporary right-of-way.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction in
order to minimize effects of runoff on the stream water quality. Potential adverse effects will
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 11
October 2004
be minimized through the implementation of NCDOT Best Nfanagement Practices for
Protection of Surface Maters. In addition, Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to and
Crossing Trout 1Vaters (as incorporated into Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines) will
be implemented and followed throughout the project.
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 waters are regulated by the USACE. Any action that
proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under these
provisions.
Curtis Creek is labeled on the NWI map as a PSS I A (Palustrine/scrub-shrub/broad-leaved
deciduous/temporarily flooded) wetland. No jurisdictional wetlands were observed within
the project area. Curtis Creek meets the definition of surface waters; therefore, is classified
as "Waters of the United States".
2. Permits
a) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permits (NWP) No. 23 (Categorical
Exclusion) and 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering), as promulgated under
67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. Activities under this permit are categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions that
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
Activities authorized under NWP must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular
permit.
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3403 for projects requiring Section 404
permits, from the NCDENR prior to issuance of the NWP No. 23. The project is located in a
designated "trout" county. Although Curtis Creek is not a DPMTW, it empties directly into a
DPMTW, the Elk River. The Elk River, approximately 50 feet from Bridge No. 28, supports
a healthy trout population. The WRC has expressed a preference that the bridge be replaced
with another spanning structure. Final permit decisions rest with the USACE.
c) Bridge Demolition and Removal
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States requires a
permit from the USACE. Effective September 20; 1999, this permit is included with the
permit for the construction of the new bridge. The permit application requires disclosure of
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 12
October 2004

demolition methods and potential impacts to the body of water in the planning document for
the bridge reconstruction.
Curtis 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.
It is not classified as a DPMTW, but it does carry the NCDWQ supplemental "Tr'
classification. Therefore, all in-stream work and land disturbance within a 25-foot buffer
will be conducted between April 16 and October 14 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
Bridge No. 28's superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure
consists of timber caps on timber posts and sills. The abutments are vertical. Because of its
design, the existing bridge can be removed in sections without dropping bridge components
into the water. There is no substructure in the water. No fill will result from demolition.
d) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
The project lies in TVA's jurisdiction. TVA approval must be obtained before any
construction activities (Section 26a of the TVA Act). A copy of this document will be sent to
TVA.
3. Mitigation
Because this project will likely be authorized under a NWP No. 23, mitigation for impacts to
surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE and NCDWQ. In accordance with
15A NCAC 2H '.0506 (h), compensatory mitigation may be required for impacts to
150 linear feet or more of streams and/or one acre or more of wetlands (NCDWQ, Section
401 Water Quality Certification No. 3403). Since there are no wetlands within the study
corridor, wetland mitigation will not be required. The actual stream impacts (estimated at
approximately 100 linear feet along Curtis Creek) will likely be lower than the 150 linear
feet threshold, depending on final design plans. However, if the final right-of-way for the
replacement structure is greater than 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation will be
required.
F. Rare and Protected Species
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 nine species under federal protection for Avery County as of
January 2004. These species-are listed in Table 3.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 13
October 2004

Table 3: Species Under Federal Protection in Avery County
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T S/A
Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E
Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E
Houstonia montana Roan Mountain bluet E
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T
Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen 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.
T S/A Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
Clenmtys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Vertebrate Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: 1997
The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle reaching a maximum carapace length of
4.5 inches. These turtles have a domed carapace that is weakly keeled and is light brown
to ebony in color. The scutes have a lighter-colored starburst pattern. The plastron is
brownish-black with contrasting yellow or cream areas along the midline. This species
is distinguished by a conspicuous orange, yellow, or red blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in freshwater wetlands
characterized by open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow moving streams, ditches,
and boggy.areas. The bog turtle is also found in wetlands in agricultural areas subject to
light to moderate livestock grazing, which helps to maintain an intermediate stage of
succession. During the winter, this species hibernates just below the upper surface of
mud. Mating occurs in May and June, and the female deposits two to six eggs in
sphagnum moss or sedge tussocks in May, June or July. The diet of the bog turtle is
varied, consisting of beetles, lepidopteran and caddisfly larvae, snails, millipedes,
pondweed and sedge seeds, and carrion.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
14
I r
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. 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.
Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus (Virginia big-cared bat) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Vespertilionidae
Federally Listed: 1979
The big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) includes two subspecies that are federally
protected: the Virginia big-eared bat (C. t. virginianus), and the Ozark big-eared bat (C.
t. ingen). The Virginia big-eared bat is known from West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky,
and North Carolina, with a current population estimated at 13,566 individuals. The
Ozark big-eared bat is currently known from Oklahoma and Arkansas, with an
estimated population of 1,800.
Big-eared bats have light to dark brown fur and are medium in size, weighing 0.2-
0.4 ounces. The total body length is about 3.9 inches. Distinguishing characteristics
include facial glands on either side of the snout and long ears (1 inch).
Virginia big-eared bats roost in caves year-round. From December through February, the
bats hibernate in caves that range in temperature from 36.5° to 49.1° Fahrenheit. In the
summer, the females gather in warmer caves that range in temperature from 59° to
64° Fahrenheit. While females are raising young in these "maternity caves", males
disperse into smaller groups separate from the females. The diet of the big-eared bat
consists primarily of moths captured in the air along forest edges after dark.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Virginia big-eared bat. There are no caves
located near the bridge. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the
Virginia big-eared bat in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will
not impact this endangered species.
Glaucotnys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Sciurdiae
Federally Listed: 1985
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small mammal weighing about 3 to 5 ounces.
The adult squirrel is gray with a reddish or brownish wash on the back, and a grayish-
white to white underside. It has a large flap of skin along either side of its body from
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
15
wrist to ankle. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying
squirrel to glide from tree to tree. It is a strictly nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part
of North Carolina along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 5,000 feet in
the vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest
types are used to search for food, and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. The
squirrel can subsist on lichens and fungi throughout much of its range; however, the diet
can also include seeds, buds, fruits, cones, and insects.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. The project
area is at an elevation of 926.6 in (3040 ft) with no transition zone between hardwood
and coniferous forests. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of the
Carolina northern flying squirrel in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not impact this endangered species.
Microltexura montivaga (Spruce-fir moss spider) Endangered
Invertebrate family: Dipluridae
Federally Listed: 1995
The spruce-fir moss spider is a small spider, approximately 0.10 to 0.15 inches in
length. It ranges from light brown to yellow-brown to a darker reddish brown, with no
markings on its abdomen. This species is one of only two species belonging to the genus
Microhexura in the family Dipluridae. Diplurids belong in the primitive suborder
Mygalomorphae, which are often popularly referred to as "tarantulas". The spruce-fir
moss spider is distinguished by chelicerae that project forward beyond the anterior edge
of the carapace. Other characteristics include long posterior spinnerets, and a second
pair of book lungs that appear as light patches behind the genital furrow.
The 'spruce-fir moss spider constructs tube-shaped webs in the interface between damp,
well-drained moss mats and rock surfaces. It prefers well-shaded areas of mature Fraser
fir and red spruce forest communities in the highest elevations of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. The spider has not been observed feeding and prey has not
been found in the webs. It is likely that the abundant springtails (collembolans) which
occur in the moss mats are the food source for the spider.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the spruce-fir moss spider. There are no well-
shaded areas of mature Fraser fir and red spruce forest near the bridge. A search of the
NHP database found no occurrence of this species in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 16
October 2004

Geum radiatunt (Spreading avens)
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Endangered
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright
yellow, radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June
to early July. Spreading avens has basal leaves which are odd-pinnately compound;
terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are
reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee section of the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and
escarpments on mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been
found to occur at elevations from 5,060 to 5,800 feet. Other habitat requirements for this
species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils are composed of sand,
pebbles, humus, sandy loam and clay loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky
outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for spreading avens. The elevation of the project
area is approximately 3,040 feet and known populations occur above 5,000 feet. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of spreading avens in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species. .
Houstonia montana (Roan Mountain bluet) Endangered
( = Hedyotis purpurea var. montana)
Plant Family: Rubiaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Roan Mountain bluet is a cespitose perennial herb with erect or ascending, unbranched
or weakly terminally branched stems. It grows to 8 inches tall from a basal winter
rosette. Cauline leaves are opposite, sessile, and ovate, 0.3 to 1.2 inches long and 0.2 to
0.5 inches wide. Flowers are reddish-purple and funnel-shaped. The inflorescence is
few-flowered, with flowers occurring from late May through August, with peak
flowering in June and July. There is considerable disagreement among the experts
concerning whether the Roan Mountain bluet belongs to the Hedyotis or Houstonia
genus, and whether it is a variety or deserves a full species ranking.
Roan Mountain bluet grows on rocky exposures at. high elevations of 4,600 to
6,270 feet. Bedrock geology is critical for the growth of this species. All sites are on
mafic (i.e., basic) rock, which contrasts with most other high elevation rocky-summit
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
17
sites, which are typically on felsic or acidic rock. The plants typically grow in gravel-
filled pockets found on north- or northwest-facing cliff ledges, or on talus slopes
associated with outcrop exposures on the south or southwest slopes of mountain balds.
Most sites are kept moist by frequent fog, mid-elevation clouds, or summer
thunderstorms.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Roan Mountain bluet. The elevation of the
project area is approximately 3,040 feet and this species occurs above 4,600 feet. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of Roan Mountain bluet in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1987
Threatened
Heller's blazing star is a perennial herb with an erect stem from a corns-like rootstock.
The stiff stems are purple near the base, turning to green upwards, and are strongly
ribbed and angulate. Both basal and cauline leaves are numerous, decreasing in size
upward. The leaves are long and narrow, with those at the base 8 to 12 inches in length.
The stems reach up to 16 inches in height and are topped by a showy spike of lavender
flowers 0.3 to 8 inches long. Flowering occurs from July through September.
Heller's blazing star typically occurs on sandy soil on rocky summits, cliffs, ledges, and
rocky woods at elevations of 3,500 to 6,000 feet. The plants grow in humus or clay
loams on igneous and metasedimentary rock. Soils are generally acidic (pH 4) and
shallow. Sites occupied by the Heller's blazing star are generally exposed to full sun.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Heller's blazing star. The elevation of the project
area is approximately 3,040 feet, whereas this species occurs above 3,500 feet. There are
no areas of sandy soil on rocky summits, cliffs, ledges, or rocky woods that are exposed
to full sun. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of Heller's blazing star in
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened
species.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 18
October 2004

Solidago spithamaea (Blue Ridge goldenrod) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1995
The Blue Ridge goldenrod is a perennial herb with an erect, angled stem 4 to 16 inches
tall. This sparsely to densely pubescent herb arises from a stout, short rhizome. The
elliptic leaves are serrate and 3.9 to 9.8 inches in length. The flowers are yellow and are
borne in heads of 20 to 30 flowers in a compact corymb. Flowering occurs during July
and August.
The Blue Ridge goldenrod occurs at elevations above 4,600 feet. It is an early
successional species that occurs in the crevices of granite outcrops in full sun. The
development of the open mountain summits, including construction of observation
platforms, trails, parking lots, and roads, as well as trampling by hikers and sightseers,
has likely contributed to the decline of this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for Blue Midge goldenrod. The elevation of the
project area is approximately 3,040 feet, while this species occurs above 4,600 feet. A
search of the NHP database found no occurrence of Blue Ridge goldenrod in the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome liclien) Endangered
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 1994
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can
be identified by its fruiting bodies, which are born singly or in clusters, black in color,
and are found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen
occurs from July through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These
high humidity environments occur on high elevation (4,000 feet) mountaintops and cliff
faces which are frequently bathed in fog or lower elevation (2,500 feet) deep gorges in
the Southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock
faces where seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The
rock gnome lichen is almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these
vertical intermittent seeps. The major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen
relates directly to habitat alteration and loss of high-elevation coniferous forests. These
coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat occupied by the rock gnome lichen.
The high elevation habitat occurs in the counties of Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Graham,
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
19
Haywood, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey. The lower elevation habitat of the rock gnome
lichen can be found in the counties of Jackson, Rutherford and Transylvania. '
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the rock gnome lichen. The elevation of the
project area is approximately 3,040 feet. In Avery County, this species occurs on
mountaintops and cliff faces at elevations above 4,000 feet. A search of the NHP
database found no occurrence of rock gnome lichen in the project vicinity. It can be
concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern 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. However, the
level of protection given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 4
lists the Federal Species of Concern for Avery County.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Avery County
Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status Habitat
present
Neotoma magister Allbghany woodrat Sc Yes
Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren E No
Sylvilagus obscurus Appalachian cottontail - No
Erimystax insignis Blotched chub SR Yes
Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat Sc No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Hellbender Sc Yes
Poecile atricapillus practicus Southern Appalachian
black-capped chickadee Sc No
Loxia curvirostra Southern Appalachian red
crossbill SR-PSC No
Aegolius acadicus Southern Appalachian saw-
whet owl Sc No
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciencis Southern Appalachian
yellow-bellied sapsucker SR-PSC No
Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis Southern rock vole Sc No
Sorex palustris punctulatus Southern water shrew Sc No
Speyeria diana Diana fritillary butterfly SR No
Ascetocythere cosmeta Grayson crayfish ostracod SR Yes
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 20
October 2004

Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status- Habitat
present
Speyeria idalia Regal fritillary butterfly SR No
Geum geniculatum Bent avens T No
Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass E No
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5A No
Saxifraga caroliniana Carolina saxifrage SR-T No
Abies fraseri Fraser fir SR-L No
Lilium grayi Gray's lily T-SC No
Cardamine clematitis Mountain bittercress SR-T No
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC No
Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivanti A liverwort SR-T No
Plagiochila virginica var. caroliniana A liverwort SR-T No .
Sphenolobopsis pearsonii A liverwort PE No
Notes: Source: Amoroso, ed., 2002 LeGrand and Hall, eds., 2001
E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SC = Special Concern, C = Candidate, W2 = Watch
Category 2, W5 = Watch Category 5, SR = Significantly Rare, PE = Proposed Endangered,
PSC = Proposed for Special Concern
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 at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings
(federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architectural Resources
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on September 21, 1999.
A survey was performed by architectural historians and a report was submitted to the State
Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on January 3, 2000. None of the properties were
considered eligible and in a concurrence memorandum dated March 2, 2000, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural
resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE. A copy of the concurrence memorandum is included in the Appendix.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 21
October 2004
C. Archaeological Resources
The SHPO, in memorandum dated January 13, 1999 recommended that no archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. A copy of the memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" because of its limited
scope and lack of substantial 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
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. Impacts to Heaton
Christian Church's parking will be minimized to the greatest extent practical.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will
be limited. One residence will be acquired as part of the proposed project. No businesses
will be relocated. Relocation will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-
646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS 133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement
site in which to live or do business.
Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice: This-project will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health effects on any minority or low-income populations due to
environmental impacts since there will not be any anticipated displacements of residences,
places of employment, or changes in access. The proposed project will have the same
general horizontal alignment as the existing. In addition, most of the proposed project is
anticipated to be constructed within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, no neighborhoods
will be split or adversely affected by the proposed project.
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 by 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. No prime or important farmlands will be impacted
by the proposed project.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 22
October 2004

This project is an air quality "neutral" project; therefore, it is not required to be included in
the regional emissions analysis, and a project level CO analysis is not required. The project
is located in Avery 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 substantial.
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 State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA), and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, NCDWQ, Groundwater Section and the Division of Waste Management revealed
neither underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, regulated or unregulated landfills,
nor dump sites in the project area.
Avery County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Flood
Insurance Study maps for Avery County show that Bridge No. 28 is located in a FEMA 100-
year floodplain (see Figure 5). Replacement of this bridge is not expected to affect the 100-
year floodplain. The hydraulic opening of the bridge approximates that of the existing
bridge. The grade of the proposed roadway will remain the same as existing in the vicinity of
the bridge. The project will not to increase the level or extent of upstream flood hazard.
On the basis of the above discussions, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of this project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A newsletter was circulated in March 2000 to inform area residents of the proposed project
and announce a Citizens Informational Workshop. A Local Officials Meeting and a Citizens
Informational Workshop were held on April 6, 2000 in the Avery County Administrative
Annex Building in Newland. A handout with complete details of the project was given to
meeting attendees. On May 16, 2000, a small group meeting was held with the Heaton
Christian Church Board and members to address the potential impacts on the church's
parking facilities.
At the Local Officials Meeting, the project was discussed with the Avery County Manager.
The county manager favored alternatives that moved the roadway farther from the church.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 23
October 2004
Approximately 17 people attended the Citizens Informational Workshop, with the majority
of the attendees from Heaton Christian Church. The attendees' primary concern was the
impact of the project on church parking and in lowering the speed limit on SR 1321 (Curtis
Creek Road) in the vicinity of the church.
At the meeting with Heaton Christian Church Board, the board members reiterated the
concerns expressed at the Citizens Informational Workshop. The members stated that they
do not wish to have guardrails placed on either side of the road in the area of the church, as
this will limit available church parking.
A second newsletter, circulated in April 2004, informed the local community of the latest
alternatives considered (Alternatives 1 through 8), NCDOT's preferred alternative
(Alternative 8), and announced a second Citizens Informational Workshop. The Citizens
Informational Workshop was held on June 1, 2004, at the firehouse located on Main Street
in Elk Park. Approximately 43 citizens attended. NCDOT representatives gave a
presentation, answered questions, and responded to comments during the workshop. The
majority of the citizens attending the workshop were vocal about their concerns with
Alternative 8 being the preferred alternative. Among their concerns were the safety of the
project's intersection with NC 194, effects from Elk River flooding, and effects of bridge
grade during icy conditions. NCDOT received a substantial amount of written
correspondence following the second Citizens Informational Workshop. Most of this
correspondence opposed crossing the Elk River.
IX. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The members of Heaton Christian Church are concerned with pedestrian safety for
movements between their buildings and parking lot on the other side of SR 1321. The local
residents not associated with Heaton Christian Church are concerned about Elk River
flooding potential, NC 194 intersection safety, safety during icy conditions, and right-of-way
and relocation impacts.
Alternative 4 addresses the community (local residents and Heaton Christian Church)
concerns. This alternative:
• Includes a commitment to consider pedestrian safety components (e.g., cross walks
and signing) in the project that enhance safety for pedestrian movements between the
Heaton Christian Church buildings and its parking lot on the other side of SR 1321.
• Minimizes permanent right-of-way impacts by replacing Bridge No. 28 with a new
bridge on the existing roadway alignment and limit all temporary and permanent
construction to one side. Guardrail use will be limited to minimize impacts to Heaton
Christian Church parking.
• Limits relocation impacts to one structure, which is currently unoccupied and is
listed for sale by a real estate brokerage firm.
B-3406 Categorical Exclusion 24
October 2004

• Addresses the community's concern with highway safety (icy conditions and NC 194
intersection) and Elk River flooding with Alternatives 7 and 8. The grade does not
increase and the sight distance does not decrease with Alternative 4.
X. AGENCY COMMENTS
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, September 15, 1999, and February 6,
2003.
Comment. They prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location.
Curtis Creek is not Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters, however, the stream
supports a good wild trout population. They recommend replacing the bridge with
another spanning structure. They recommend that in-stream work and land disturbance
within a 25-foot buffer be prohibited during the brown and brook trout spawning season
of October 15 through April 15.
Response- The existing bridge will be replaced with a spanning structure in the same
location. All in-stream work and land disturbance within a 25-foot buffer will be
conducted between April 16 and October 14 to avoid impacts to trout reproduction.
6-3406 Categorical Exclusion
October 2004
25
FIGURES
NN.
I
HEATON
TENNESSEE
7IjMITC EL j "Nv
%
/ ALbWEj?C
YAN EY,
U K

41 _ BRIDGE
E
cl
c
A Q
N
C1 N
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 28
ON SR 1321 OVER CURTIS CREEK
AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3406
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
.

0
5
s Y'P , e t ? E ? d k 1x j? A? s
44
?w• A ?A?j ? st3w d ?i?` ? i .3
4 f
S e
d
F x t3 ?y a } kk a_14 ?. ,f a ?x
?4E ??, c y7q ??a a'
k ?
? SY? iA
,S.f gy s r. AB "F d° 7 ,?k ? , A)
•. ? Y ;n Ep k - ?..
%
??$A?' 4 3,
e? { xx t 7i111?+ •z^. 'g7
k"i
g?
r ?# 1 2 y
? m
k
tt?°44 A
^ ,? a,> ? ? ??a? ?? , i'ki; ? ? ?;?+ aka ,'a•
.? ?1 F. ? 2 f ?'n
? }yam ? ` ? .S
, 0i
n 7 ?
t
?.a: P ?.i HS •a
f ?!
tz? t P
A ?A?1 z1 5:
J
Vv-
8 . ? •.. 1 a ' Y .R ik 1 .?
0 .!$ , y.e rY ,?qty'„{p' Y AAw? x,50
>- a°o
j ?
co) R o
hrd
°oa
?p Z rn
Q I 1 ^'I Q m
v
Z 55 (D
cu p C ., M m
0 ;a
rn n
0 z ? < y
C
M
lU N
w o
ui
CA
0
O
Ut
O
O
?N
C7
O
u?
O
`T1 O
(D
(D
.-1.

CD m
O b ?
a
m o m 3
m ?
?cc 4 z C c O
(U m N 1 tD N
N (?D
(D CD

U-011 1 101-0" 1 10'-0" 16-0" 1 8'-0"
9' WITH
GUARDRAIL
VAR?Z ?
08
9 1211
ADT
2003 Existing) 900
2006 Construction) 1000
2030 Design) 1500
Duals 2%
TT-ST s 1 %
Functional Classification = "Local"
1'-0"
TENNESSEE
IAY
Approach
Typical Section
GRAD
POINT
AR
.02 •? .08 4:1 n4j, 'Z? VAR.
/ 4:1
GRADE TO THIS LINE
Bridge
Typical Section
.301-011
a
10'-0" 10'-0"
3'-4" GRADE 31-4"
-
TO POINT TO
3'-8"
00000000000000000000
A
1'-0"
r, North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Z Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
'4E tea'
'?l of FIGURE 3
TYPICAL SECTION
Replacement of Bridge Number 28
on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3406
NOT TO SCALE
?s r

Looking West at the Bridge from SR 1321
t
i
f
f
o? Noar++?? Figure 4a
North Carolina - Department of Transportation East and West Views of Bridge
y Y
o Division of Highways Replacement of Bridge Number 28
On SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Project Development and Avery County
?ror?FT?P"aQ Environmental Analysis Branch TIP No. B-3406 I

of roar r °q9
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
H
r Division of Highways
D Q
p99"?t o?Q Project Development and
`rcT OF VIA, Environmental Analysis Branch
w"
F
Looking Downstream at the Bridge
Views
On SR 1
4b
from Creek
dge Number 28
Curtis Creek
Looking Upstream at the Bridge
J ?
? ,r F I
A C'.
J?

4 •`

{
aF ?;
r "'` P'n §t s rw
tA4
r`
View of Curtis Creek Upstream from the Bridge

f Nor?r,? 4 Figure 4c
Rg?q North Carolina - Department of Transportation Views of Creek and Bank from Bridge
Z Division of Highways Replacement of Bridge Number 28
On SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Project Development and Avery County
?`?N?oc?pA?g4o Environmental Analysis Branch TIP No. B-3406
? i I: i
,
t
MCA" HATIONA
1. FOREST
?> 3 ?- f
o?
E A.
j~
ZONE X
It E AT-0
r ti '
ZONE ZONE A--
ZoNE x Project
>.. Elk ri„rer i Area x
a.. /!
v
Wfya x a
ZONE A-
E .4
Note: The FIRMs do not accurately ?
reflect the current (August 2004) road
configuration in the project area. Source: FIRM, Avery County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas),
Community-Panel Numbers: 370010 0025 B & 370010 0050 B gw North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Legend Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Zone A Special flood hazard areas FIGURE 5
inundated by 100-year flood: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
No base flood elevations determined. Replacement of Bridge No. 28
Zone X Other areas: Areas determined to On SR 1321 Over Curtis Creek
be outside 500-year flood plain. AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3406
t

_ APPALACHIAN ,a Prand 11axt.
RBCIONAL y ,1"rtr !'(.lon
COMMISSION
I?
January 7, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:

4? ?J?N i 4 2??.3
Po?t`?, H G ION
Op
T YS
Lop,
Ltd
-3+0?
Thank you for your December 16, 2002 letter offering the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC) an opportunity to comment on the environmental document for the replacement of
bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek west of Banner Elk in Avery County.
The proposed project will not have any adverse effect on the Appalachian Development
Highway System.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
S incerely:
Edward A. Terry,
SeniorTransportation Alvisor
Cc: Mr. Nicholas L. Graff - FHWA Division Administrator
1666 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, ft Y1, SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20009.106E [phone] iAZ [phone]
United States Depdrtrnent of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 23301
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
proj ect 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 Art 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, Hay food County.
5. B-3473, Bridge Number 36^-. on SR 1839 over Pisgah Creek, Haywood County.
6. B-3 )-11790, Badge 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 endanprered and threatened species known from Avery,
Graha , Hayes ood: and Madisor. CoL,-. _s. This list also includes species of Federal concern
that are currently under status review by the L.S. Fish.and Wildlife Service which nay occur in
the project 1PpaCt area. Specie; of rederal concern are not legally prot;zcted under the Act and
are not subject to any Of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposeC
or
1'_5ted' as endan? .red or t?zeatened. We 2e inclu iIi° th-_5e species in 0?ur response, t0 Q?'ve you
advance r_otiiicatlon. y

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 (E'u7ycea junalusl a) 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 (C7yptobranchus 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 bankf ll 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 Loo Number 4-2-99-065.
Sinc rely,
17
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator, !Borth Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field OfEce, 151 Patton
Aveaue,.Room.143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ENDANGERED, THPZATENED, 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 fiom 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 concern, 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 designated.
Aquatic species: Fishes and aouatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are kmown to occur.
However, projects may have effects on dommstreani 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 N_-UME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
AVERY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Virginia big-eared bat
Hellbender
Perecrine falcon
Carolina northem'flying squirrel
Southern, rock vole
Eastern small-footed'ozt
Alleghany woodrat
Southern eater shrew
Appalachian cottontail
Aoualschian Bewick's Herren
Invertebrates
Gray-=on tray-fish 05`.ccod
Svnice-fr meSZ- spider
Diana flitllarv buntruy
P.?za'• 11a_y butier:y
Clenunvs muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Endangered
virg iniallus
Cryptobranchus alle;aniensis FSC
Falco peregrinus anatuni Endangered
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
V
Microtus chroton•hinus carolinensis FSC
MyotLy leibii FSC
Neotonta magister FSC
Sore:. palustris purclulatus FSC
Sylvilajus obscures FSC
2-11ryananes be.vickii altus FSC
,Lceto-fthere cosmeta FSC
Aificroh _ura n-,ontivava
Spe,eria diana -,:Sc
Sveyeria idalia Fjr'

Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fr-aseri FSC
Roan false goat's beard Astilbe crenatiloba FSC*
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematiris FSC
Manhart's sedge Carexmanhartii FSC
Bent avens Geumgeniculatum FSC
Spreading avens Geum i-adiatum Endangered
Roan Mountain bluet Houslonia montana (=Hedyotis purpurea Endangered
var. montana)
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Gray's lily ' Liliurn gravi FSC
Bog bluegrass Poa paludigena FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifr-a.a caroliniana FSC
Blue Ridge goldenrod Solidago spithamaea Threatened
Non-vascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort' Plaoiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila viro pica var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
GRAH.A.M.COUNTY
Vertebrates
Hellbender
Cerulean warbler
7unaluska salamander
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Northern pine snal<e
Appalachian cottontail
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Dendroica cerulea FSC
Ewycea junaluska FSC '
Glaucomys sabr•inus coloratus Endangered
Pituophis rnelancleucus melanoleucits FSC*
Sylvilagus obscures FSC**
Invertebrates
Appalachian ell-,toe Alasmidonta raveneliaha Endangered
Diana fritillary butterfly Soeyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Mountain bittercress Cardamine cleinatitis FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna Brass Glycei-ia nubigena FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxif'ava caroliniana FSC
Virginia :piraea Sairaea vira niana Z?,reatened
Hairy bluebeTy Vaccinium hirsuium F S C
Nonvascular "I ants
?_oc - n, 0-ine liC= --
GiLiriGde17r2a r'in_2Te .. Z
Lneanser:.d
C0Y5 110N 1'AIlT-E SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
E AY'WOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clenviiys ntuhlenberaii
Olive-sided - lycatcher Co]Itopus borealis
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar
Carolina northern frying squirrel Glaucoinys sabrinus coloratus
Bald eagle Haliaeeius leticocephalus
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotonia for•idana haentator•eia
AlleQhanywoodrat Neotoma inagister '
Southern water shrew Sores palustris punctulatus
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus
Appalachian Bewick's wren T71yoinanes bewickii altus
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe .41asmidanta raveneliana
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes bdtesii rnaconensis
Diar_a fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fi•aseri
Piratebush Buckleya disticophylla
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii
Tall larkspur' Delphiriiurn exaltatunt
Glade spurge Euphor•bia pui purea
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria ntedeoloides
Butternut Jualans cinerea
Fraser's loosestrife Lyshnachia fr"aseri
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis
Carolina saxifrage Saxifr-aga caroliniana
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusilluni var. I
1\oavascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gvmnodernta lineare
A I;ve,Voitt Plaa iochila shalpll
A liver+vo? tt Pla,;iochila sullivantii var. sullivantii
.z Iivervort Spllenolobopsis pearsonii
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lalk! _`:U'^°oi: r'_C(D°_n°e1 Jt[lv2SC?1
COTi2I0r'1:i1?I[j (=P[?COaic) 1'j/?71eS7uil
T(S/A)?
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FS C
FSC
FSC
FSC
,
Endangered
FSC*
FSC
FS C
FSC
FSC
FS C
FSC*
FSC
FSC
Threatened
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
rSC
F sc'°

COMMON NAME • SCIENTIFIC NA_OLE 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 tenraria FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleva distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia pu7purea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Sile;le ovata FSC
PMY:
Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in dan.-er 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 notbe listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
infoxtnation to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alli gator)--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.
* **IncidentaUmi--rant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'Ln the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (5582?-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from Ne'J/
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to Gear2ia)
was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(SIA) designation bans the collection and
interstate and international commercial trade of bou 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 cfthe species. In addition to its of-icial status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wiidlii:% Servici considers
the sou=here population of tae bog turtle as a Federal spe=i_s of concern due to habitat loss.
United States Department of Agriculture
ARCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NO 27609
Telephone No.: [phone]
Fax No.: [phone]
January 8, 2003
Mr. John Wadsworth, P. E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Wadsworth:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on scoping comments' on Replacement of
Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek, Avery County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3406
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time..
. Sincerely,
Ia.
t, .
Mary K. Combs
State Conservationist
Tne Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people
conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
An Equal Opporunity Provider and Employer
`?= `u' Lam, ll V Lg
22
r EARTH TECH/ RALEIGH
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
s B. Hunt Jr.. Governor Divisio&f Archives and Historv
r Ray McCain, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow. Director
arch 2, 2000
:EMORANDUM
0: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
'ROM: David Brook 1?,?;?-?i??, `t
Deputy State Histo i Preservation Off eer
IUBJECT: Replace Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321.over Curtis Creek, TIP'No. B-3106,
Avery County, ER 99-7910
thank you for your recent letter transmitting the survey report by Mattson, Alexander & Associates, Inc.
:oncerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
House No. 1
Spring House No. 2
House No. 3
House No. 4
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Reaulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concern in-the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: B. Church

Locution Nailin? Address 'telephone/Fax _
ADiNifNISTR:?TION 507 N. Blount Rs! ' ' ?' t 1€b)
.,nCH St., cr_?i: :NC -417 :tail Sc:':i_c Ccntcr. I:alei?_h \C: _in))• Ir 11 ?
_ 1.-
AEOLOCY 421 N. Einunt St.. Rniciu:n NIA S_rvice Crnt_r. t 2'h•-.., 9194rit ,h
r) !)I'•li 7,_ .=2

?? STATra?
ti Q fi .
? Z z
.5 ?
' rc
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
es B. Hunt Jr., Governor
y Ray McCain, Secretary
January 13, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XX, Bridge 28 on SR 1321 over'
Curtis Creek, Avery County, B-3406, ER 99-
7910
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1J4,V
1g
r?_"? `??f??•?, 1999
C9 9i
Thank you for your memorandum of December 14, 1998, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Old Heaton School, south side of SR 1321, 0.1 mile from junction with NC 194.
J. M. Heaton Store, north side of NC 194 at SR 1308.
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.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
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

tOF Vq A7?CRQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Floss Jr., Secretary
-North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?C G
r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
> r Division of Water Quality
MEMORANDUM
January 2, 2003
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
m_ .o
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator :?cJ6 %
o'<
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 13 `
Curtis Creek, TIP Project B-3406.
?GE1V
'JAN s ?
Cv
D(M JoY OF ?Q:
?L A N P%V
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-raferenced project. Curtis Creek
(stream index 8-22-15; HU 040201) is classified as C trout. Elk River (stream index 8-22; HU 040201) is
classified as B trout).
According to the Watauga River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (February 2002), the primary water
quality problem is storm waterrunoff with substantial amounts of sediment. Substantial amounts of
erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount and time the land is'exposed. Care should
be taken to prevent loss of material into Elk River or Curtis Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following comments:
NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge over Curtis Creek just upstream of the current
location or to eliminate the Curtis Creek crossing and connect SR 1321 directly by crossing the Elk
River. However, without more specific information as to the design, the temporary and permanent
construction impacts, as well as more details about each resource, DWQ cannot select a preferred
alternative.
Regardless of which alternative is selected, the bridge should be designed to span the entire stream
and its floodplain with no piers in the stream.
NCDOT should use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Stu face Waters (March 1997).
BMPs should be carefully installed and maintained during construction due to the steep slopes and
high erosion potential of soils in this area.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
¦ Use a turbidity curtain or other methods (BMPs) proven to prevent violation of the turbidity standard
for trout waters is also recommended.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy).
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. Tile 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 Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
1~ila (-nn%t
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.1650 (Mailing Address)
ZA
NCDEFt:?
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
t?
?,- James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
October 18, 1999

MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Projec eevelopment R. Environmental Analysis
John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water From: y. Quality ? /?
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 23 (05023) over Curtis Creek in
Avery County,. TIP B-3406.
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 Curtis
Creek in the Watagua 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 ieport, 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-oi
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]
A C ?I nnnnr , In:!V ?irrn:!ivc ^ n1in., C - h., cna/ ._ ...1 +/ t nor +
lvtr. William D. Gilmore memo
10/18/99
Paoe 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.\ncdodT.iP B-340&ommentsl13-3406 scoping eomments.doc
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary MCDE "Z NM
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM •
C; 1=
TO: William D. Gilmore Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch 411 2 9 1999• _
FROM: Gloria Putnam, DWQ SEPA Coordinator
'A Ya
RE: Comments on DOT Scoping Sheets, DWQ# 12317.
Group XX Bridge Replacement Projects
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 Kovasekitz - Classifications - 919-733-5083, ext. 572
Andrea Leslie - Use Support Ratings - 919-733-5083, ext. 577
B . Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the orio0inal. stream
banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream'barks 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 party 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 20535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity A tirmiative Action Employer 50% recycled 10°/G post consumer caper

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Esccutive Director
TO. John Wadsworth, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator ?l Z,
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC'
DATE: Februarv 6.200
SUBJECT: Scoping review of NCDOT's proposed replacement of'Bridoe No. 28 on SlZ I3? !
over Curtis Creek, Avery County. TIP No. B-3406.
North Carolina Departmerit of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested comments from
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) regarding impacts to fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject project. Staff biologists have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments. These comments are
provided in accordance with the 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 NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek in Avery
County. The project is being revised to include alternatives eliminating the Curtis Creek
crossing and connecting SR 1321 directly to SR 1322 by crossing the Elk River. Elk River has
good populations of wild brown and rainbow trout and Curtis Creek serves as an important
nursery stream for young fishes. We recommend a spanning structure to cross either body of
water and an in-stream and 25-foot buffer work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 to
protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work
within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath
the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and
boaters.
.,_.... ---
?L1iIi11;1 'A lldre ?: l.):"I• ::i.t':? I1:i.ii1,: 1. =111.6 1 >tl":..?. • .. .'. I:.Nl._' (,W':171
Bridge No. 23 over February 7. 2003
Curtis Creek, Avery County
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. It temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be
planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area .should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws,
mowers, bush-hogs. or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat
intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear batik (riprap free) area of at least 10 fret should remain on each side of the steam
underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters. the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting
additional measures to*protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the
project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, Mr. Hal Bain with the NCDOT
- ONE should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information
on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources must
be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Bridge No. 28 over
Curtis Creek, Avery County
February 7, 2003
14. 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.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should
be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. 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.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
The culvert must he designed to allow for aquatic lilb and fish passage. Generally. the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambet.
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). It multiple barrels are required, barrels other
than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplai-,:
bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be- reconnected to
floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing sills on the
upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be
f lled'with sediment so as not to cause noxious or mosquito breeding conditions.
Sufficient water depth should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to
accommodate fish movement. If culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or
notched baffles should be installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This
should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by
maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish
and other aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s) should provide a
continuum of water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or ceLs are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain
dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water
velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts
aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a
manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should
be professionally designed,. sized, and installed.
Bridge No. 23 over . 4 February 7, 2003
Curtis Creel:. Avery County
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. Ifroad closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing'and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach tills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach tills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore
the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject
project or other projects in the watershed.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning
structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases.
Spanning structures allow wildlife passage: along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation
and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings.
I Fyou need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding brid-c
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thant: you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
cc: Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick. USFWS
s

EJ North. Carolina Wildlife Resources ComraissionN
312N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Devefopment and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator -?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 15, 1999
SUBJECT: Comments' on Group XX Bridge Replacement Projects in Avery. Haywood, Graham and
Madison Counties, North Carolina.
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 (4S Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves 6 bridge replacement/demolition projects in western North Carolina
(listed below). Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the ex-tent 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
t .7Vck dra hro 1. . - i.G rCach 1" e s ?t
u1
C L1u.c?g."'. t EGw t u?.vug?, u .git.ltF..'?aUpland v buu.i..r pnv ms GS:.ble„ u"u:facE `:;iter,"i.
Demolition plans fort he existing bridge structures should be addressed in the environmental documents
prepared for these projects, as well as any proposed causeways, temporary access roads or detours. We
are also concerned about impacts to Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters (DPMTW) and
environmental documentation foi these projects should include a description of any streams or wetlands on
the project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-3406 - Avery County, Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek
Curtis Creek is not DPMTW at the project site; however, the stream supports a good wild trout
population in the project area. We recommend that the existing bridge be 'replaced with another
spanning structure. We recommend that instream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot
trout buffer zone be prohibited during the brown and brook trout spawning season of October 13
t'.nrough April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages from off-site sedimentation.
Troup XX Bridges Page 2 September 15, 1999
3-3335 - Graham County, Bridge No. 70 on SR 1134 over Cheoah River `
The Checah River is not DPMTW; however, the river supports good populations of smallmouth
bass, rock bass, as well as various non-game species in the project area. The Junaluska
salamander (Eurycea junaluska), a species of concern, is also Imown to occur in the project area.
We recommend that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3340 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 94 on US 19 over Richland Creek
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
8-3471 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 180 an SR 1123 over West Fork Pigeon River
w
The West Fork Pigeon River is managed by the NCWRC•as Hatchery Supported trout water. The
river also supports wild trout populations in the project area. The federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonto raveneliana) was recently discovered in the West Fork Pigeon
River. NCDOT should contact the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service concerning potential impacts to
this endangered species. Contact is Mr. Mark Cantrell at [phone] Ext. 227. We
recommend that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
B-3490 - Madison County, Bridge No. Z59 on SR 1345 over Big Laurel Creek
Big Laurel Creek is managed by the NCWRC .as Hatchery Supported trout water. The stream also
supports wild trout populations is the project area. We recommend 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 the Corps of Engineers (COE) recognizes all of the above counties as "trout water
counties", the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 4d4 permits for the proposed projects. The
following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to any .
ground disturbing activities to miainuae 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.
4. *If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area must be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality wand
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Group XX Bridges Page 3 September 15, 1999
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be, retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife,
6. In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited durin. the trout spawnins period of
November 1 to April la to avoid impacts on trout reproduction,
7, Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
mizumze 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 constricting a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows.to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
9. Notched baffles should be placed-in reinforced concrete bok culverts'at 15 foot 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 fdels, 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 [phone],
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Mr. Joe Mickey, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, NCWRC, State Road

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:
L `7 ?J • J J
?7 •t
GROUP XX BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, FRENCH BROAD, LITTLE TENNESSEE, AIND
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 bade
replacements in western North Carolina:
8-3335, SP, 1134 over the Cheoah River, Graham County
B-3340, US 19 over Richland Creek, Haywood County
B-3x06, 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 envirbrurental 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 lowerTVA'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. ey, ana-, r
Environmental Management

DLO 4TION REPORT
f E.I.S. CORRIDOR Q DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DIVISION RIGHT OF WAY OFFICE
ECT: 8.2721201 COUNTY AVERY Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
?.: B-3406 F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1321(1) Nom: bPpc.t C-S ALL
RIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace bridge #28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek Pc LTC?'L-N? S _

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES _
INCOME'LEVEL
of
acee Owner Tenant Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
dential 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
nesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING ; loss DWELLING AVAILABLE
-1s 0 0 0 .0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
-Profit ' 0 0 0 0 0-20M Q so-ISO Q 0-20M Q $ D-150 0
-ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS' M Q 150-250 Q 20-40M 2 150-250 3
No Explain all "YES" answers. M p 250-400 Q 40-70M 3 250-400
13
E
70-
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? rd Q 400-600 Q 70I
' 1 400-600 11
.
t
X 2. Wi11 schools or churches be affect by uP Q 600 up 37 soo uP Q
displacement? L - -t
'
3. Will business services still be available after : REMARKS (Respbnd•by Number)
project? 3) Business services in area of the project are not being
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, Affected.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6) Newspaper, Visual Survey, MLS, and Internet.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 8) Will be implemented as necessary.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 9) It is possible there may be some elderly, large, or disabled
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. People affected on the project
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11) Avery County Housing Authority.
{ 11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12) Yes, as indicated' by the available housing list.
housing available during relocation period? ;
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14) See items 4 and 6. -
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list Comments: (A) Available housing list was compiled from a
source). Partial list and does not indicate the total available housing in
15. Number months estimated to complete Avery County. (B) There is a probability that there are some
RELOCATION? . NIA Minority residents. However, a fair estimate from the limited contact
and present information cannot be determined until initial contacts with those affected are made.
i
' I

A. A. Adams 12-16 99 .moo y?
Relocation Agent Date Approved by a,p
Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d ?
original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
26-APR-2006 11:36
r:\roodwayy\FQ o]\b3406_rdy-tsh.dgr
$QQZUSERNAMEt$ t
O, jEC
C U
O [n
O
'? r I
v Op w w
O T

Fri

0
8
H
O o o

L; h
N
O O
o O
O
v v
•

1 II II II II II ?.'
a w o.
? 3aeae?e? a
N = •
aR
O L G
P
Z O
g
O
to i
m
a
0' O P
P
1 1 11
O O O
A O
P m m

N
C)
T
m

o t
a o
N m o

o
14

0

o
? o? m
o,p n
G
,
z
i
y p 3r)(D
b W Y Y mrvo
?
ti
yy p ,
v m_ (p
a o PA
x
? {
y
m n y
i f

?
T m
p
T
? v ? m
i
4 m in
Ogg.
n
33037.2.1
[>fl ? N
YY N
Z Z
0
z
:? Z O
Ui o Z
c
m
Z o
N
O
p
m C r*
v Z
M (l
?0
M O O
v C:
0 o
T
m O
C M
N 0
m H
m
r m
UI
v
O
v

7fgd' 11'118OJ1EC7f: B3406

/I ? N •" J ?'V?
N .? m
H 4
sLwn
n
1 Im s
Ull
"11 ? W ? ? ti a IO
m 1L
ap?l N???9
08
4?
cb a
4
h C?
b o ,?
? a
cj Z '
vJ ?I J ? ? ? ? `1
ao ?i
Y
C a
2
a
h x

a
a
CA W C?
to w m ? 7
r U
y ?F
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --____-_____________-_-____--------J
t7
H
?C
Y
ro
0
b
0
a
A
O
P
Lb-Arm-Z b IZW]
_7A ,45F\P:PJ\b34f)6_rdy_tsh,dgn
m
?, 7.
d mU. ?
a o o 0
m ? c
CL go
m
0 0
= o
A n
a c
o ?

In
C) :r
Q 7 O ° A
.O a o
a 3 m 'D A
a
s p 7 _

0.
'
A O 0 0

rA -1
0 l

S to

N
W
°

w
A

i n
3
?!
C) O
n O

I
N
I
I ° X
n I I
I?I T T I ?. 4 Y
ICI g ? ` i y
u '
'O 'V f1l '9 ?11 'V 'D g- ?1 q
o a a N 0 0 O O N
U
A o m o o m o m m m o
0 R. 4r z
•° •° o 0 0 ' w, o ?-
v
a a 0 0,f?1,c??; ?::E 0,0
' rt O h a• ' O
© o I yw? Q. C -a c C
m m O a N ' 0 4 -•
o a m p o ?_ ?_ 7c
3 H S O T Q
? w w a •o ? v ?- ;
C
7 O i O ' i
C ?^ N
0 co
1
I

-o
a -0 m m
a
' v m m
a a a m
a -o
a m n
a= m
a-
`? 'D w O y 'O 'D V a• O
m
'
0
?
?
C
C
?ps
?

o
o
0.
?,
N A A
a O a' 13• Q m O i O
A b a. .
a
y r
y w
° o o a :
Q
?;
n
a r
-
(A FA
o o n 4 n;
A ' ? 'a 7 n° ? - •cr '

?J
L I I I
f I I
L ® I I
o 11
I I I
m c -' 0 4 0 o n o A oo o o
0 -C3 z
Pr rt f n N N a a co *0 ca ca ?" co w ca ca w n• o- ci u p v ',-1 w a 0
C'O O O N -1 -1 O O C 3 2 O ° O O O (? D '0 O O O m• OCr C)
. C QQ X
w F 7 ?, 03 j Cl (A a O O m T O 0 O O A Q 0 U Oi w w 0 Q O n ° n p m
n 7 w 7 W O 'V 7 7 A N 'fl
y n
n' °, ° = o ti o_, o 0 0 o L T w a C C o o S =r :L
-p -0 ° a
.0 CL.
_" 7 -^^ _ O ' 3 I © O O O O O < N ° ° 0 :3 :3 0 O O ' C
0 D: O O = w D ? 0 S ,' w ? ; ?' ._ 0
« O ' ? ? 0 ? i i I O
° O '•i O 7 CO O O S
° X N = ca o ° ;
m o W o ;
° go o
'V I X I I I I I I
W O ; ? I I I ; I I
3
n i ;
1 ' I I 1 ; i ' 1
1 1 , I ' I 1 '
I , I I , I I I ' . • ' , I I I I , I • ? ' I 1 I ? ? I ' ! , 1 !
®O O Q O o m 0 ® O fl ® I i O S 0O+ ® CS b y o- IEl
a
r I a ? II
to ?n -o -n -o -v -v -o -0 7o n -1 n cn m gt O A p? C O M O W O T O m O? N O A
Lt a ?' ; Q a a a ?' o a ° g a o N ;= N (10 C) CO 3 ?. o A' a
N
C4 -
7 j O O Q O Q h O 0 O O. rt W O m O 40 ° G] O tti O to -? co (O 't :3 a. to U3 a I '^
to Z o
03 A 3 ??• n q :3 :3 wa. o o ?' A caa• a w 'o a. ' n
m r- 0.
:3 :3 a W ° Q. c p o? -o C o o C © o p ° a _ a• 'n o_ -? A- °- --1 a- v o. n cn N °
o? C w o w o
9 w , t Q upi q 7
7 7°-' 7 -Oi Q- = q 3 N O 7° O ; O 0 M A IUD qq (11
C] G] A i "? S, ( 'fl w O n A w
CL w
w w w o a H O g c• a v o C C 3 a; w
92-
oo 3 a. o' •,
'w w
O c m m C T a o o; a o
C n m 'U O
-Oi 3 n" 7. ' i I ' r r O n O n ?' O C a' N H I
:3 -n
Q7 M. N ' ; r ; vJ O' 0 0 ° O n ° C in O
O O i C
O
O 0 i i 4 _ n 0 ?if ; O A i m i
0 CL
CL. 0 Z;
=L CL n
o o C m m A
I I i?? I I I I I III II V I
I I I ?? I I I o a l I' I l l A A a N I l
I I I I ?, I ? j r I I ? I I I I I I H N
m l O w F`"D ;e0 f-7 O
I I i y ® I I I I I I I I ( I I
I I I `? I 1 1 A A i? }
+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II
i ?
C
m

W
0
Cf)
5/28/99
m
II
N
c
C
205
n
m
z
0
m
y
f?
® -I
00
-----------------------------------------------
I ? I
L1:M? /Iii/I11 TIY[.' q}iYEq
PRF? /fPRfq
Z
O
-1
m
a
r
r
m
z
m
z
1
mm
0
M
ca
0
m
a
m
m
N
0
X
X
m
m
m
m
N
T
0

n
n
r-
r
m
w
O
O z

o
w
?<

O N
m
m
:-n
I"

O _

O

-? O
c7 O o
0
D 0 .
0 r
O

m O
n Q
0
o? zo

O ?? o
Z
O
Z O
O O
7 Z
O^ i
D<
O IN
mm n

-
N O •- m ?
v
O
• m
z0 Vl

n m.
n r
' -?
W
r WN

on
m-
n
n

z oo (n
mw
Z m
l /
m
--I Z
n cn
<A
m ° Z
r0
rm Z
mo 0
N
r
ni N

..
m
m-A
Z ?
2 -
O W
fJ ?
z O
-4 O
n
r m
C) z
°

?
CO
mu
Cl
Nm
r
n
z
N
m m L
0o N
zz m
rr ?
I ?
D n _V
C•)
++ n
a p r
O o (n
m? F l
O
Wr
0
0-4 Z
m_n
-? - Z
0+ 0
I N I
ra
N O .•
nm
m
+ Z
co
?u+ A
00
00
m
-A O N A
19 < a I
=
x > A i:0
m • II
v m ° `°O
U) a y va
v o

Q a my ov am> >M
-i
o

m 91 m x• ?o
< 7° X
a ?X zQ ?X
n
i
a W
M. 0
m
r, V
Z D - max m•

? M P-3
M> z ?m> >01 -0
N
.n 03
m TD m <
> •n
O
M
M
A as
y
W ON mr m
O m-1 O
mz ?
O
mz NO m II
700 -aj oz 0•°?M +O
m m0 m m AZ CD
mm orn omm °M C)
:13 -4 w r. m
2
y N ??++
9 mNm m
p (p
M IJp
M °IZ
-i > vc
C
vm m
•°°c mz z
• ? m
w m O
O NO
N O m.00 pm
-n mD --imm O

m +m c
c
v O ff a
o
m c m
< m
w <m v v
N oN -4m -4
w m x <
- N v
o •II m
m -Am
o•
m
s
D

V
W
Wr N O

D

?
or n
o-a

(n
v c? M

r
-?
o> - ,I < n
_ .0
0 N _°
m O . M
VI
z

z
n°
m

CO ? w

o
0 0 -i
0
o do
N
r
z
m h ? O
i
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I Ctii?'Po IIttiY1f1 TIYE?? NT Yt[N
? a
? i
O O
J
'I
O -
N O O N O
? O
m N I
?O o mm
o Zn O
N? ?O
Cl
C)
0
m a
?
O w p
i
-1 O
S
N
r
z
m
a
m m
77 77
O O
i ?
O ?
m m
?-4
D D
N O
+ +
O
D I
-1 onm
m
? N
W
? n
? N
m +
0 a
0°
+
o ?
m
m
N _O
D Z
W
+
?D .
W W
J
N O
C?
m
z z
0 0
-i m
m m
0m ?>
mm ••r
U) m r-
0
m co CT
Hx zD
vm r<
Im mm
" --1 dl .Z
O 10 m
z N 2
O -I
°-no =m
m mo
Do fm
<m
m -1 m rn
.D mr.
mr o
zr my
-+ m x m
0 om
m x
0 za
x im
m m
0
C
r
m
C -i m N r
m m A N < -+

_ D
H N

?
U' <
-
i 2 m _ m
H N (n m
01 tO a)
_
O co 6 fD -1
m D
D o to Cl)
m D S
m
m
c
z
m

I
?I
J
of
NV
A w
M
O
-4 a
O
-? tJ
z r O
m N o GJ'
Xm C
0o N
rr. M
--
W o na n
LAO
I-
wa N
NN I • 1
?-
? 0
00
z
I .
^^ z
-4?
nD
a
N W
O O?
w-
I
r
V I
i
Jn O
oA D ?I
m J
O
R
fFl ' w
0
m
n
o
R
_ O
a 7
R L
. z
4 O
T m L
00 N
mm m° {
? I
!n N _?
n n C7
ap r
N O
;0 O
a0
. wO m
-+- n
OO -
O
00
Z
1 I
LA
LA Z
Pn O
+o+ W
N Ln
a
to
J J
r
m
I
i
IIVSEFII
I tCY.NII
If 11
min
m n?
r,O
o ?
[o c.
? (b :0 - -opt
it II it 11 II 4 U (?
uN e c
rri
tiN
10 %
btnY??ii ?i a ?i a cn
§§?
? y
bu a„„„ucn
ua? ?? g
y
bnuuu„u?,
z
REVIS40M
TIY[rI If?IYLi
\ 7r4
N
N
? N12 Op

.N q ? JJJ

t m N

Nam
A
m
v
m
F,p -DE -PTSlo.l2
??? ?'>s. ?? 4• ?+ 10*54•02
?Ji bs '> F
-D?T??
14
a
m
m o o ?
K
? x ?
Fri

? ? n

U
ink m
i
yyI??
o Y
a
A
[dam A F
? ?
?O
T11A
A ? V?

fJ
o ?
Od Q,?

II
1 I ?
n
a m o
a
?n x
O
m
? v
u O .
ti
I r+z
°?Sz
_F. oo
?. z

0
0
III
z

w 0 gtri
z
0
3: ?z Z
'
Z
?'
w N g
I
?S
??
'-4 o
t
m aF ?y

REYGiONS
prsA? %lCGh11I TIN[. N7/N(N
Pff. IIVPf II

+
O
rl)
7YI

m
Qo

m y

?Vl
r A

I l "
A
/
3
N
?
p/ a s ? I

O

4+

?L

?
N
N
• O
+
15+00
Q°
l
1
m n {a 1
-NI
?mrn g m x
N ,?K
own a
"" II
mlrn N I
M
??1 I
"?b s ili
3, y
m ? l
<19'J 7'18'1
?m X1111 -°J. N °O K° I 111.82'
°w?? aO .BS f y ?+ m ' .? I
>mmocro- x i
' m L` I
_ a
O O A4? ?? ? a
?z1 Hy?Ks
= CNy s
mm Om Oir'.!'7 N
v11?.,,2 v -N -1 1
?oSog
rr•1 ? ref
N? ? ?ECk I d Y w o
y'61.. ° •8 • 10054.0,
?o W a° C,
O tam ?•?? // f 11 m /I
5_ :5 r. x Pi _.. I?
?w m
? c n =

1
(b :tj -I?oD-0 ?u c" 'Jo - it) -0 +
aaR"?? na??wdN +
Ll I +
I
+ 1
r_ / p
mm /
? Ir yr I
n?
n ?n
DH y16 b?._
00 cj?
zrl e y? ?I .?
H
N?j rJ i 2 f ? ? t 4 ?.
BA
a St \\
O ? y1
-1 U. I
?/ Ofn O(rIti N ? I
Nn O I
O m~ J I
l;/ fns
^ /a?•N vmZ \ , IAA f
nP I
Z "?O;
(mil- ?;9J.'c• f?
o s
?i
/
'D
a '/?" o n
?_
'r
_ 9 g

:D ?D

l
am ? ?J

n In
1 '' I
/ ? JO 18,4c •? ',
n
I O1 y , 78.91'
?'0T # 5+ 406.1 I
/ ? wry
o I ? 1/ 4?
= I
p?nSr/o /Q
/Q'c fe 79
e ? / D?' NC?^ \k\
1
D 1 ? kfROSE
r 4 / / n 74 ywNf
//f2 qg I / / ° m 9 /
btJ l+ ? p?
n I ?
I o? n N -Iyy?+Q i? ri v o I / ? ° r mN ? P }SSW
N vb? o0O
b
?' .^yJ JJ z z /
?1±? I N2352' 1?5
op 0y
w I r
r? ??Z$? ?1 I ( ?2 N
?N}p IT D I '' 11 O ? '
?qo
°°-3A ('ro ? N19'00' ? I I N'9'00'00'
2? b6.9 1 61.95' 9?1
I p' po
bra /5+ an9

w R ur4 I
?
•
`
X
m
b i
¢

10 15+40.96 ?
a?
f°i w ZpZ > V ?j ?
z ?

48'WM 2$ W N2d'IC'15'E - R
I
I ?I I
S
?? ? ?3B2Si 5'
I I n m
I o° o
I? o A
I Q® v
Q
o xEj SHED
m
gNZ?
n ? m p
`QUCO
wzz

15 \? ?\
\ \ o
\9 "no
? moo
`^mm
\\ \\ `i - . y z z
1 \ \
r \ \
1 1
I
I I
N\ ? II III
rl? ?I
- ?I
! ? I
?y tio. I II
II PI m
- . is '?Imi1 II I
? ?r I I
z?
mo.
rs
99.0 . \ G

`L
tTll
?r
s

m
x??
z
s W

0
500?0,p0'C
1212•`'6
91
? o
?o
i
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II-APR-2006 15:50
s:\engrcoord\?rojects\galen\b-3406\design\b3406-rdy_tsh.dgn
ocall AT HY221524
as
1 33037.2.1 TIP PROJECT: B-3406

0

A
0
N
o
N

47
f1
z1 v
y H

C
_
mO

;,

$$

o

?n

o

o

'? A Z
^

t

/ ?/ti

Y ?'
I

v
. n
-i v?
?p
9 f/1
o
o cn N 0
Z
Z PA
Im w
co I\ ?- h

fA o 10 '

!u 1 Z.

Q,
o (n A
o A 0 scan = a `, / t I
y D m (? ti
° D D
g g ttl o
0 \
n IA
??+
d
2
0
<
aE
II
II II II a a
II II '?
x m
-- C
Z
n C1 n / m,
p O I?
w m W
f? J F,p
L to
-
_ r
m n
'?I c 'l?r
O
a = v "- crnj
m a

to b

??
b
w
n
I
Zr
c? c? ? I
V I
3 3

Z

m
)
rn

j

p
c
i C) I m 1
o
,n
rn
La 74
I
y
a I m

n n n
`
?= L
W
-
I? ?;

W 0-4
N //
N, 4k
a to m r4

I
\ 00
O
I/ \
nrl

c ?'

p ?

?

mac" i rn

O \

\
"

iU
k<
c? m
I
n
?
O h N ?, g
, ??? I ` /I / I \ \ cn 1
J?

31

?
m m dm- ?
am' ? - L
? ?i
H ?,;% co
}
C C Z x ?A I zEGJ C-) (A

1
D-4

to m C y t\
n c o

rr :tf
? \

ti ti

W to
ca Ea

y
C.) ca
_ ]
4 v R

c

y
a b s m m ? 0,
.?,0 g z a

,fl
O? cn

"SIONS
?r rrD?r rr
IN prlM H
:0 co z-?°p?
°
b1 n z-I
?°
En
r r° r
,
y r r° r °?
a
x
? I
AI) - bt°??4
`4? O
A
A
R =4
? p 4
`i (
VJ `? ?
? C, ?

x4:b C.)
ar r r r r
? :4?o yr,Op?
br r r
r °cn
p l
NN
2 Eo `9q
??QQ
A o
?6 Wm ?o
N O
A

A

I
/
C?r
D
NO 3v?t??
? ? UlbO?i I /
,
r
m

I?
II
lfi
inn
r0
mSn I
I

zz /?.
"; mr
1.•
r ° ,4N I
°m; n I Q
p ?0
I
xa
Aso.
9$ "96'W
oa y la.s9-
00
x ( i
. ? ? j ? HER
x ?
a
?fr3;o /o
1 lo, /Ot / l o°e
1194
n ?
a /
m / 1 h
2 4 1 / / ?. At
pos,
m o r h'^N
o /
d 1? / e W mm ? f
ee n n o?
Si9'7l'19'M I// f^'i? qm 9H'cHE
n 62.79' ? 111/ ? k? ©? ` B ?i f
n ? / z x $ 1
iv ? ? opO m ? // j
u ' r
OJ 1-- ??11 =z /
B5 71'

U1 W •1•

O
m
n
Z
??
?
? I{
V1 1
RoN
I
x
I O n x ?
t

P i? m 'II I? ? ??

14
?
V1 O
I

n

+ N rn
In
? N
V
O
cn
R° 15 t00
l
/ f•9a v?'y c o
? n
n > ? ? /(-?'tybo
A `t.vy? of 1P•//
?D
w 9
m
N?
z
?M
A
©Na 112
i ° Im

r _ n
2y. ?uvJ
1 I ?t
) ml I ? m
J2?
y?
°'U p
?G• SNED
cn ? ??rK?wr /?' I ? I
°aa
om ?? ` ? I I m?
F; cy
?qz
mo Z, rn ( p ??

_ C
m'° °
"`? ,?6 raj,} o I ? ?
P L'f7 I
iw= ?`oa / cep e?.!^F .?
,yv2 ? ? I ciq•}7i8•
?x 72 }z"JJ! N ??F/fa I l? tII.B2'
CBS- A N 1 Tzl
o E.,n?tr5fi y,ZWp(,??? SNED ,,. * ( a
m OmON ?v ti( ) -+?_ -a\ ?. 111 I:
N ,?,??^y' C 1 ? ?t
?N, ?T?? v , •t 'I I
m> Gngzgo a NNpp -'11 _ x
.y Fn
r? p 5 z 1 `V' o
f?l ? ???'EC1 .:. 1
.l7 9 V 1 71 u?
10r
4. o?
m m r? m 4
A N A ? f mt I la ?° r l?
PC51o /5+40.96
Q a I r \
Q rn ti C?,` _ k ??ms?m
Q
> aa,? °. °i 8
z f ? r-- ? `"xzz
d? ?'' I 'aa•en 2.EW Na o•to'is•
P' _T--
1 m?
yl .o
lSD 9'
n L -q
m ZO?II /
? ? I n
'1?q?(•O? Ni9'00" 1
3.95' ZyZ(1
V G?
WO
ao
00
,mm
\\ \\^ lzz
1 \ z y
B c 1
1 II
? gl
C, CLi D D `1 v? l I t' v
__ZZ I I ° F I IIW
w Z Z
O I J/
I- ?
n ?v1 I I
? ? my I I
zs
In 'm0.
?° I I
s ros'orw
99.0
/ r
• \ q
n ? A
a
CA cn 1(Y -cm IM
eoa
c ?
•
S?? ?? p0 f
Il
---131 1 O

OKI {J(Y?I.J TIYE.? JJTIMEq
OK I
w.0
REVISIONS

?Y, ` Ro l1\ y

x

I I '- -? o f?
I
? jm /3 4

' N
/ s? a
'
` I
I r /4110
0

? ? Cn O

-
I n ?t^?

n
T ? , yr
N
U?
op

Q° /51100
I
?J
1? `D 6
0 0.
S r
f
It
k
ti
om ?mU
mo m?
m
am
N
c6
bu u u n u u' ,bn u u u it
n,
A ?
Iq?'J?i ??`O r ?
?
?m :0 tiroD- :m :0 NrOp?
'bu 11 11 ?I 11 11 so P11 II 11 II 11
vl O I
m
?o>
wn?U
? nO
U (D r
m m
\ 01-
m nq?7 ?
o AzO4 So?? A
?mr` a -J
mT xJ2 -????1?W0?
n mjV p
Jim
n?LL ?NO ??p?-1
of mm<
oases inch=
inAy yy S? ??...
f*?lm nmInr.?N
ric
ci;
??sm g-I
s
-
Cv < w ? C ? ? ? I I , ^
* 4 b . a I •.? 4B'x
CUs / ? , ii
•T
r L ? \
a
?I o Y .? rF N. 5'5675'1
_ J87.51'
1 /
I ?,I/ Y ?Il ~f
?z
Y T\ `. ?1Y\..\
r
F
II ?.
^
4 ^ i
fi `a
I? ?R
0
? i i / o c r4v?NF
(? A
D ?
44
62.71' 1 ? ? ? k ^ ??? ? Z S
+r .
1 00 D ? /:( t /
a
III ? /
N27'52
i
tiir n 9
/51140
c >; Tiro. ? ? ?? . a) ??I ((??k ? ??Z•
`? ? 1 \\? III i. I (il
? ?? ??': i.l II?I?I1 I III III :.:11111 ;?
i? .r3 ? I ?I i I
I
??i ??=ti Ih { I ? E
h
I ? ?Y rII \ \ \\
I f ?.
I
ff?? '' S ill h?yll
Z' •'A ? 1 ? ?\ Ill ' 1 CU'?;\II 1` ? 1 ,
? I?IIi `?\ 11 \ z
N Q
o g
ri is
n Ail-
A°p
O ?
USMI IIVSERII
PN£. .,PRfii
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o [, ?,?j[ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
t? :0 -?Op-
I I I I I l y
mm?Gt-
?cb ??trOD?
blurlal?
y
by t 441
1
b 1 Y tl tl 1 1 l
Ln
?a
N
°z
0
ti
I
rn ?
rn?
?n

H 4
h'a6.
syo isF
m
n A
H
11 T nv
r ? .l D i
-DfT`_ p? TSB
95
?mN
o?,A s
m A
A ? O
a
a o
a a
4' C?vl
1
1
1
c. r
? ? o A
? mn
n n i
_ r n
' II'^ pro
o ?
4 CG)? Q?
4

moo
.,. ? z
0
m
0
c
z
o
{

>.

II

g
-ji
3

U`.EN'Po lIUSERI!
PIiF. /IP?I!
. 1
bYUUUYY?
0
CTlrnviinZ wa
?b?AY
(A R
N
?? ?tiroDb
b Y tl tl Y tl Y i
Y obr? ???c„o
rnA?? N*
r
?o :0 N0tZ)
b y Y tl Y Y Y cn
WON o
N y
?o ??trODv
b y Y tl Y Y tl lil
1? ?p
lfl
t.?
r'
0
0
m?
m?
i

I ? rfl
{ ?.
EIP r I?
LL Q
-DET tail I

NA-F ?` :? I 0
4 ?
5\? N >
m E? /
?1 {
n n f n
T y wit
1?,
)r ? ?? ? N \r ? f
?s \ \?- 1i --ate! ,a } x _' .l\ ?/ ut IIp-y? ./7 / / ?ti• 11 !Ak
y b> e.
Jc?imN nO o- ?, \ i?
off,
4
ae'n
k ;a
Lai
t ?
i
mm?
ASS
11\e? rte:.
?l
n x
O ? C V
NZ?
?Il4

IIII ,??, ?I
???It - 1!''?'?II
AI y II.
J
I \\??IIIIII
IRS!I
%
Q
Ed
CA U N
r a ?t_
oil
rfl ?$t 7
x?
a
b ?
i ? i
. ,
a
WETLAND LEGEND -
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
WL
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® 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
- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- . EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -7- -- - WATER SURFACE
X XX LIVE STAKES
X X X X
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
F1 PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
AVERY COUNTY
PROJECT: 33037.2.1 (B-3405)
REPLACE BRIDGE ;; 28
OVER CURTIS CREEK ON SR 1321
SHEET I OF \
z
0
m D N Z
?;
s ' r o

a
? N
W T U)
ne o 3
P r O
y C
C
2.
m '
0
0
m
N 0 cn (n
o °'" cn
CO
;u ?
D ?;
m
g
-??
G Z m
X
m o
G)
m
o (D 21
o =>>
CL (D
O

° _T
n cv - 3
O
= 'D
a <
G
N m
x D
o d
n °1 < z
O
IX 0 CC

G
U) = v m
?.
? D
n -I
(
o (D = U) Z

CL m v
to a m

0 cwi o, ' ?
? ?
o .
? v

I'D D
n
N
0 o
?
N

r D

0 N D
m
v
? C7

m
y1 m o m
C C'7 N W N j N.
' --1
m z = o = S
(D y fD f? m
O
0
W n
-3
O u
ci C:
A

=
O n
t.
J {
Z
m O ? '
d N
3 w = j
(n
o v

--3
it
it

ocnz
o
i
i
L (A d c

z

- (ji

3 cu

z
O

O
?U)

za

I- M
F-=
U
Z,.
D C:)
O=O? >cn
F- LL U O
z0} moo 0

rN
Y
W Z
a) _
o

> a-m O
F-
>
?U¢M oU

N
CN
0
O N
C'4 ?
d> M cu
LU M C
cD (1)
O (DD
a) [Y
U)
W N
ti
.- U M
N ?
>
?
U U L
z
, U
fn
w x Y
o
LL
m
C Y
`
X
p m cu

a U) -

E
° c cu
p d
a: w v
Co
(D o Y

04 MU
U)
a)
E.
It L
U T
3
W
z =3
L
U
a?

0 c
`°
g T

U cu Y
U
w c L
a o cu c
N N
ca
a = Y
N
0
C
O
?
w
Q)
L)
N
V
M
o a
a
4-
0
N
J
•, a
}e^' -YO
?Y y {
t S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NIICIIAEL F. EASLEY
Govr,RNoR
July 26, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615 .
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Y?1 6?9?Irl
env 6FI-L
Aiv ?jff1 ?p 11."'ct•
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 13 Application for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek. Avery County in _ U
Division 11. Federal Project No. BRZ-1321, State Project No. J_
8.2721201, T.I.P. No. B-3406.
gar Dear Mr. Thomas:
f
,y? rr? Please find enclosed the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the a ove referenced project,
or `?,,1 , 11 n with ermit drawings, '/2 size design plans and a Pr construction notification
(PCN). plans to replace bridge No. 28 with a new 40 feet long and 3Q?D)ot wide
cored slab bridge on existing location that will completely span Curtis Creek. Traffic
will use an onsite detour located to the south of the existing structure during construction. The onsite detour will completely span Curtis Cree There are no wetlands located in
the project area. Project impacts consist of the pla ment of 121 feet of ri ra on 1
banks of Curtis Creek.
qnd will ne;mez a1y auoc'kl-a-? l
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES -?ypo?arY iMpacts. v
General escription: The project is located in the Watauga River basin (HUC
60 U 10108),,rTk+3 ct will cross Curtis Creek. Curtis Creek is has been assigned a best
usage classification of C Tr, by the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Curtis Creek is not
designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a*tional Wild and Scenic
River, nor is it li 03(d)_ stream. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), b Quality Waters (H , Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply H (WS-
II) wat6rs les-oft project study area.
Temporary Impacts: No temporary impacts will occur.
Permanent Impacts: This project will place 121 feet of riprap on the banks of Curtis
Creek r TtVu fit) C I ( 12,t iu ( NFU S U v`C(LU Mabw,
h
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD
1598 MAu SFRVIr:F CFNTFR I/VCCCITC' IA1.AaA1 AlrnnT l1Df_ RAI Fj,-H NC '..

Utility Impacts: No impacts will occur due to utility relocations
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 28's superstructure consists of a timber floor on 1-beams. The substructure
consists of timber caps on timber posts and sills. The existing bridge can be removed in
sections without dropping bridge components into the water. NCDOT will follow
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Bank Stabilization
Measures necessary for eros'i' prevention will be required, in order to protect the
integrity of Curtis Creek. Rip_*ap will be placed from the top of the ban?o the waters
edo eliminate potential erosion in the project area.
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 April 27, 2006 the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists eight federally protected species for Avery County
(Table 1). A Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for all applicable species.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Avery County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological
Conclusion Habitat
available
Clemmvs muhlenbergii Bog turtle T (S/A) NA NA
Corpiorhinuus tolvsen.chi
virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E No Effect No
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E No Effect No
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus Carolina northern flying
squirrel E No Effect No
Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen E No Effect No
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T No Effect No
Microhezura montivaga Spruce-fir moss spider E No Effect No
Sohdago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod T No Effect No
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION:
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation
of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design and include:
• Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed.
• No bents will be placed in.the water.
• Replace at existing location.
ow) S?gvlcl ?'tL1 . f Nj • C 2 M ng7YV.4`P I P4td o 67-" J l?oc?-
co : fi-&k 4-9 1 ;v mil ?w .-, A r-M wni 7

MITIGATION
Mitigation is not proposed because riprap will be placed on the stream bank.
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 13 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3495 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 Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance in this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please contact Brett Feulner at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael A. Petty john, P.E. Division I 1 Engineer
.Mr. Heath Slaughter, Division I I Environmental Officer
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
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
BRIDGE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL INFORMATION
BRIDGE GROUP XX
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1321, Bridge No. 28 over Curtis Creek
Avery County
TIP Number:
NC Structure Number:
Superstructure
Timber floor on I-beams.
Substructure
B-3406
Bridge #28 (05028)
Timber caps on timber posts and sills.
Maximum potential fill calculation
Not applicable.
C.
L ?? I1
J
I??

is
4?-
\y1 N
1
BRIDGE
c
n
N ?
W
,
m,
CC
HEATON
y94
s,A
i

7
TENNESSEE
Sy
North Carolina - Department of Transportation
o Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 28
ON SR 1321 OVER CURTIS CREEK
AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3406
0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 Kilometers
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ATTENTION:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE UNIT
B GE SSE CTION REPORT
TYPE OF INSPECTION: R d U 7-//-\/,e
COUNTY A V E R Y BRIDGE NUMBER _C?2 INSPECTION CYCLE _Q y .
ROUTE 5
- R 43,7/ ACROSS l,lR`j-IS R
LOCATION 0. / /$f/. W, ,5 R /,3 Z D M.P.
DESCRIPTION SPAN TIA& 9c-k Dot/ ? 9M5.
PRESENT CONDITION Fa / 2
INSPECTION DATE
PRESENT POSTING
COMPUTER UPDATE ? G -0,
POSTING LETTER DATE M f,
INVENTORY RATING P, S 7
OPERATING RATING ! / -S /2-
PROPOSED POSTING C`'l oY1
J
ANALYSIS DATE (O ( /
OTHER SIGNS PRESENT?i</) D f5,Lzd-
Wp-
t,
y M ? f
.r
-UT
SPECIAL PE?
IT
, 'oRRjFcT-
SIGN NOTICE NUMBER
ISSUED FOR REQUIRED
WEIGHT LIMIT
SPECIAL PERMIT_
DELINEATORS
NARROW BRIDGE
ONE LANE BRIDGE
LOW CLEARANCE
Revised 1-10-96
?DOK/n?G n?o,z iH

I
RAIL. HT.
-,--1PE :a) .
T
ly"
D'p k.
SPAN LEtq6-rl4
30? ?..
AR67. To 5P,&.
Oct `.2 ` ±
7`ip. DIAPN- Cc9f4 J-
,4 y?
o 11 ..
o s Y, "
° l
3/g" .?cES
N
L? Tn?
T
fi ?

STRc?CTr?R 'DATR Oo2KS4FFT' Q, z

;'•: li' I ' I ;( I i i( : ? ? i I ? I ?I? ?;; I I I ; I.;;. II ? I il i'?

17 O T c4 L

?I I J -
l?? F F F T F - - ;
- - - - 1
_ _ _ = LT L

i d _ H _

.1

' I - - - - - - - - - - I - 1 '

1 4 .

i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ? ? -?

4 4 +

-
T 1

I - - - - - -- I .
H
1 1 1 4 +

,,,. O?OF W A T ?9QG
> y
o ?
Michael F. Easley, G
William G. Ross Jr., SE
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Re:
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. I
Division of Water
Ii
January 2, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator Wd")
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments for Avery County, Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over
Curtis Creek, TIP Project B-3406.
This letter is in response to your request for comments on the above-referenced project. Curtis Creek
(stream index 8-22-15; HU 040201) is classified as C trout. Elk River (stream index 8-22; HU 040201) is
classified as B trout).
According to the Watauga River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (February 2002), the primary water
quality problem is storm water runoff with substantial amounts of sediment. Substantial amounts of
erosion can be prevented by planning to minimize the amount and time the land is exposed. Care should
be taken to prevent loss of material into Elk River or Curtis Creek during construction.
The NC Division of Water Quality staff has the following comments:
¦ NCDOT proposes to replace the existing bridge over Curtis Creek just upstream of the current
location or to eliminate the Curtis Creek crossing and connect SR 1321 directly by crossing the Elk
River. However, without more specific information as to the design, the temporary and permanent
construction impacts, as well as more details about each resource, DWQ cannot select a preferred
alternative.
¦ Regardless of which alternative is selected, the bridge should be designed to span the entire stream
and its floodplain with no piers in the stream.
NCDOT should use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (March 1997).
BMPs should be carefully installed and maintained during construction due to the steep slopes and
high erosion potential of soils in this area.
¦ Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation shall be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of
ground-disturbing activities to provide long term erosion control.
¦ Use a turbidity curtain or other methods (BMPs) proven to prevent violation of the turbidity standard
for trout waters is also recommended.
¦ Use BMPs for bridge demolition and removal, Case 1 (9-20-99 NCDOT policy).
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 Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
pc: John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
F;tP r T?,• ?'
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
W--" '
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAIT F. EASLF,Y
GOVERNOR
December 19, 2002
LYNDO
Ms. Cynthia Van der Wiele
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
SUBJECT: Request for Scoping Continents on Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 Over
Curtis Creek, Avery County, TIP Project No. B-3406
Dear Ms. Van der Wiele:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is preparing a Federal Categoric
replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1321 over Curtis Creek west of Banner Elk. 7
project is included in the Draft 2004-2010 North Carolina Tjransportation Improver
T.I.P Project No. B-3406. 7 D1 p2-c-) l
A Categorical exclusion completed in March 2001 recommended replacing the exis
upstream of the current location. However, this project is being revised to include ,
the Curtis Creek crossing and connecting SR 1321 directly to SR 1322 by crossing
crossing of the Elk River would eliminate adverse impacts to the surrounding comn
from a new structure over Curtis Creek. The purpose of this letter is to solicit your
potential impacts of the project on the social, economic, demographic, land use and
conditions in the project vicinity. A vicinity map of the project area is attached for
Please note that there will be no formal Scoping meeting. This letter constitutes
comments related to the project. To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the
respond in writing by January 16, 2003 concerning nay beneficial or adverse im1
alternative.

Exclusion for the
is bridge replacement
mt Program (T.I.P.) as
nv brides iust
Elk River. Anew
ty that may result
ut concerning the
lur information.
tation for Scoping
osed project, please
of the proposed
If you have any questions or comments concerning this project, please contact John Wadsworth, P.E. of the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch at [phone] extension 209.

lak gkwll?'
D `fo201
g ,2- 0$
l I' '
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Sincerely, _ 17v lb "to ?1n
to Y&A
Gregory J. h.D., Environmental Management
Director

Ire;

and Environmental Analysis
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
WEBSITE: WWWNCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
F- ?
r
I
r C? N
/ SR13o o f,
BRIDGE SITE
k
N
N 70 ? .??
t3t
-? HEATON
\ 794 ?? ?
r
wnrti ,
TENNESSEE North Carolina - Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MITC EL Z
AL FIGURE 1
YAN EY VICINITY MAP
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NUMBER 28
ON SR 1321 OVER CURTIS CREEK
AVERY COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3406
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
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
MENITORANDUNt
k ric Pa
N mltmn
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Proje e elopment & Environmental Analysis
e
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality,
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 28 (05028) over Curtis Creek in
Avery County, TIP B-3406.
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 Curtis
Creek in the Watagua 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 5096 recycled/ 100,6 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 (Bodv 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.
J. 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) ), 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 115A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) ), 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-3406\comments\B-3406 scoping comments.doc