20040364 Ver 1_Complete File_20040305

oquiv Yt
TO: Steven W. Lund, NCDOT Coordinator
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, USACE
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: May 14, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of Categorical Exclusion document and information associated with a
Section 404 Permit application by NCDOT to replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141
(Morgan Cove Road) over Hominy Creek, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
TIP No. B-3614.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has requested a Section 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). Staff biologists with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the information provided
and conducted a site visit on May 3, 2004. 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. 300 on SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road) over
Hominy Creek with a cored slab bridge on new alignment downstream (east) of the existing
bridge. No bents will be placed in the channel and no direct impacts are anticipated to wetlands
or surface waters. Hominy Creek is classified as C and has been placed on the North Carolina
2002 Impaired Waters List (303(d)). Hominy Creek is considered a spawning stream for trout in
the project area. The French Broad Crayfish (Canibarus reburrus), Federal Species of Concern
has been found near the project site. The hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), Federal
Species of Concern and state Special Concern, is noted downstream in Hominy Creek.
NCWRC can concur with the permit issuance if the following conditions are
implemented:
In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
from November 1 through April 15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout.
B-3614, SR 1141 2 May 14, 2004
Hominy Creek, Buncombe County
2. Stringent sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site until project completion to avoid impacts to downstream
aquatic resources. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on
all bare soil as soon as possible and within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to
provide long-term erosion control. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas. We
encourage NCDOT to utilize onsite vegetation and materials for streambank stabilization
when practicable. Erosion control matting should be used in riparian areas, instead of
straw mulch.
3. Discharge of materials into the stream from demolition of the old bridge should be
avoided as much as practicable. Any materials that inadvertently reach the stream should
be removed.
4. The natural dimension, pattern, and profile of the stream above and below the crossing
should not be modified by widening the stream channel or changing the depth of the
stream.
5. Removal of vegetation in riparian areas should be minimized. Native trees and shrubs
should be planted along the stream banks to reestablish the riparian zone and to provide
long-term erosion control.
6. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for fish and
wildlife. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites.
7. Riprap placed for bank stabilization should be limited to the stream bank below the high
water mark, and vegetation should be used for stabilization above the high water
elevation.
8. Stormwater, including deck drainage, should be directed to buffer areas or retention
basins and should not be routed directly into the stream.
9. If concrete will be used during construction, work must be accomplished so that wet
(uncured) concrete does not contact surface waters. This will lessen the chance of
altering the water chemistry and causing a fish kill.
10. Discharging hydroseeding mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment
in or adjacent to surface waters is strictly prohibited.
11. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel
whenever possible in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
introducing other pollutants into the stream. All mechanized equipment operated near
surface waters should be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination of
surface waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials.
B-3614, SR 1141
Hominy Creek, Buncombe County
May 14, 2004
12. The existing roadway that is to be eliminated should be removed back to original ground
elevations and the natural floodplain elevations and functions should be restored.
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'.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ
Sarah McRae, NCNHP
i
FILE COPY -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 20, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208 G
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 0 3 V
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
MAR 5 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No.
300 over Hominy Creek on SR 1141, Buncombe County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1141(9), State Project No. 8.2843901, TIP B-3614,
Division 13.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. NCDOT is proposing the replacement of Bridge No. 300 with a single span
(completely spanning Hominy Creek) 55-foot pre-stressed cored slab bridge on a new
alignment to the east (downstream) of the existing structure. During construction, traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge. The roadway approach work will extend
approximately 310 feet south and 250 feet north of the existing bridge.
There will be no permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters by the
construction of the bridge, however, the removal of the substructure may create some
disturbance in the streambed.
The bridge will be built using top-down construction and can therefore be built without
the need of a causeway or work pad. This will result in no temporary impacts associated
with this project.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 300 in Buncombe County was built in 1933 and reconstructed in 1957. The
structure is one 35' 6" span, completely spanning Hominy Creek. The height of the
structure above the streambed is 11 feet. The structure of the existing bridge is composed
of a timber deck on steel girders. The end bents are timber caps on timber piles and
concrete sills. This structure can be removed without dropping any of its
components into Hominy Creek. However, the removal of the substructure may
create some disturbance in the streambed. All measures will be taken to avoid any

temporary fill from entering Waters of the U.S.. Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be implemented
Water Resources
Hominy Creek is a tributary of the French Broad River. The North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources classifies Hominy Creek as "C". Class "C"
waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, and agriculture. The classification date and index number for
this portion of the creek is 9/1/74, 6-76.
Hominy Creek is an impaired stream and on the state 303d list. Sedimentation is the
cause of impairment for this system. According to the DWQ 303d list, the sediment
increase in this section may be due to agriculture, specialty crop production, urban
run-off/ storm sewers, or non- urban development.
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I,
or WS-II within 1 mile upstream or downstream of the project study area (DEM 1993,
DWQ 2003b).
Hominy Creek is not designated as a public mountain trout water by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, however wild trout are known to occur in the project
area, therefore in-stream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of
November 1 through April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
Hominy Creek is not designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a state Natural
and Scenic River.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications 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.
As of 29 January 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists twelve protected
species for Buncombe County (Table 1). Descriptions of the protected species are
provided in the referenced Categorical Exclusion. A biological conclusion of "No
Effect" was given to all federally protected species due to lack of potential habitat. The
project site was visited on September 30, 2003 by NCDOT biologists Chris Underwood
and Michael Turchy to update an expired survey for Virginia spiraea (Spirea virginiana).
The species was not found, but potential habitat existed, thus changing the biological
conclusion in the CE from No Effect, to May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Concurrence for this biological conclusion will be sought from the US FWS before
project construction begins.

Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Buncombe County
. - ,,. .may .. .. .. x.
h N rn °. - .,
cientiflxc`NJ? w

taus'
" "`
irtlo ct.co' 'l
Bog turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii (S/A) /A
Carolina northern flying
squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus
oloratus No Effect
astern cougar Puma concolor cou uar No Effect
Gray bat - Myotis risescens ** No Effect
otfin chub - Hybopsis monacha * No Effect
Appalachian elktoe lasmidonta raveneliana No Effect
Oyster mussel ioblasma ca sae ormis *** o Effect
Bunched arrowhead a ittaria asciculata * No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant arracenia 'onesii * No Effect
Spreading avens Geum radiatum No Effect
Virginia spiraea piraea virginiana May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect
ock Gnome Lichen G mnoderma lineare o Effect
KEY:
Status Definition
E - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its
protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to
Section 7 consultation.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**IncidentaUmigrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
***Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January
15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to
this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be required prior to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of
this letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests
that NCWRC forward their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planningjpe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
40
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Turchy at [e-mail] or [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, PhD, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc:
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art, McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John Sullivan, FHWA
Mr. F. D. Martin, Division Engineer
Mr. Roger Bryan, DEO
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Development Consultant Engineer

4
E
e
E
0
a
3
a
3
\
r .\
1141 MFstan Branc
END PROJECT ate Rd.
11 0
110
1s
23
74 ?? Ra Luther CampiRd.
19 _ 74
?.. ?. \.? -1141
130 Southern _ ai/way ?a . _
Hominy ...-.Creek
BEGIN PROJECT`
J
Pisgah National Forest/ 142
PORTION OF BUNCOMBE COUNTY MAP
WETLAND IMPACTS
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
82843901(8-3614)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.300
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1141(MQSAN COLE ROAD)
OVER HOMINY CREEK
SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET I OF
PORTION OF STATE MAP
*pmw 1
QUAD MAP OVERLAID
WETLAND SITE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
1000 0 2000
SCALE IN FEET
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
82843901(8-3614)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO.300
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1141(MOGAN COVE ROAD)
OVER HOMINY CREEK
SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET ? OF 6
I -?
WETLAND
---r1LB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• + •• • • • CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-? TOP OF BANK
1
- WE - EDGE OF WATER
- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--NG-- NATURAL GROUND
--PL-- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-•--••-••- WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
GRASS SWALE
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
82843901(B-3614)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 300
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1141(MOGAN COVE ROAD)
OVER HOMINY CREEK
II II SCALE AS SHOWN SHEET 3 OF ! II
lew
-%./
L
0
E
L
O
o < n
n s U
E rn
'
y
?
M o
65 Z
c c °?
C/) N N O
a wUE

CL

w LL
V
Q a
? c o
3 ~
W
U
Q
D U)

t=n 'a
com
o
.a
..
LL

C L? V
l0 O
Z

C
V

L this O

N
F-

V Cn
C N
O
C
CL

t~j a
f0
> y

o
f- a 3
W c
x

IL ?
=

Z
r LL c
m
9
o
g il
? i
Ea
D

c

U

U ?

N
N
In
N U-)

C
O J
Ln
N O
LL

J
O O ?
(p Z O

Z
a?a
.-nr.
P P P O
*10 mm
p
10 i 01711 US
110'
r I $ ---?
L__
I I I?
V N ? \
--
ct-
V)
° ~4
w
I;
44
a ?I
p -? ?? m$
On Re-IV
- I b I 'ilia ?jil (/
w / / 'n'?' ? 'Irk '\
CIl? N ? ? ?ilb
SNV7d M3I1132E WNI3 I I
w
I W
,q !2
y ^I
o
to ? ?n I ? c? ? w
¢ vI CD o
z
83 -4 \ d
`^ o w
01 a d to w
wo U
m? w
0
x
e?
oe
?O
QC
a ? a
z
d
i ?
o W
0 1
N
M
z a o o s R' N ? N Z
O
? a
t3
n n u n n n ?
us
Ts o ? >
os
N N ?
S 8-
C4
y
h ? o
0 0 ? o LL
d
01
Ln 71
tit9£ S ?.ZayfO?Id dIZ tti8O0Z 0 --.LOb'?I.L11t0:O]
bb/6Q1/b N00'45'+-AOk1?b19C0\6u??oe40 wId 7.0b\P_??I\fivnpvo?{\.a
64 ?C b00 8 1-.
N
J
0
<m
t/7

ti
a
11
0
y
W
W
Z
g
CL
J
Q
Z
0
F
Z
W
Z
0
V
I I I
I I I I I I ? I
I j 5 I
I I I I I ?
I I I I I
I I I I
I . I . I I I I . I I I I I . ? I
I
W
yj i i `O
U! • O 'w'? i i i i i
W i i W
h vhf O u i C .
° U v
c o° o a 0 c o c c O
.7 = U O c :3 c °c ° K:3 O G
:3 0 0 :3
3 3 I 1: LL a $° C C7 c7
J9 2
0 U. O a o
' C 2w N C LL N pD N r Q
C F2
As .0
I I I I I i
? I I
`--' I I I I ? I I I I
I
?? III o I o -?-o-?-?o®m©I ? ?¢ooo'?® ?? ? e s
I I I I I I I I
^ I I I I
I I I I I
3 i i R l T
W W
'° . . ' . . Vf IN
w m • i i vi
` i w ° N O
0 o .5 :1
i i
t° o° u u
c° c o o
_ 0
c ? a 1? 0
V ° = g c o
v °
(a U$ o ° 0 o o o a° o L o r o O 0
Fi m d a = 3 d o a c ° I 0 3 0 0 o
Q a c C) LD
c C w t k= y ; O C O C 12 & V a0
9 O O V
a- o
C ° m 3 3 O p C O C O w F ~ a O O
3 -p -p -p
H C 0 In N d. -? C 1? 3E O 0ZW O c C° C C
Op H O O r3 0 O O O O T7 O O ?7
a m as
y d0 a co d0 v m c c 'g € Q££ 02 c `o o m E m c a a a a ~ O
CL LL. O
9
m m_
b ul. rTi O d d s 10- F°- F°- O O
C3 r
?? I I I I I ? i I q a l l
°01 ?a I wW?e2 I IwLLI??? a4 algl
?? f ? I I ? ? ? I Isl
? I I l ? l l y l I I I I I °I?
' I 1 ? I
c E E E
w
I ?1 11 O w LU a.
m a a a Etif s
° hi
_
yg c c c° °- E u
c :3 :3 u J,
0 :53
-60 o o °` c c d U 'Q 'S c9 _ o
a' 3 3 'S 'S
c E E E°€ m o°o LL- o o n S E
Oc? ?? ??aa?a u a .??0 UC,
8 2 c
U U° -o ti F N
o oZ d d ?y U° w Vj w U
c
r- E
° of D ( c c c s c' c c c c °
C pH V LNQ QO. C Q U ?C. ,Qa a CL a a C{ 'LqQ CL CL c c c
OC N OC W d O. 4. 6. C. d U W 02 . W d ^? in V! = 3 O
I I I ? x I I I I I I I I I ?
oe ®X q 3 B o o? 09 o. x ?? I I ICI I?4? 117 e
I
?I I I ?I IJL, II
L?
i
0 ' V
°
c o a
N o
C O ° p ° O C , i ' I I i I I I I I
?` 0 c v° 'G E 'E ~ o i g
c ? d I I
E o' o E °
:3 0 'o
c c E m e o a s y
- ,p
c °E ? m °v b r a°? s o c
c V> o
c j a O o Q u g 3 U ag 3 3 = W W p E c o I O 00 .y 3 C ;
a c f, -t oo a h a a a a 0 - O s ?i $ a
L Z° c c c o 0 o c cc$ c c ° ° {$ E o; a ?E
u u V d d d d d d d ?O in 3 to uo. 4 U m ?i U 0 $ ub 0 vai d
1
16-F EB- 2004 13, 30
\Roo woy 1\9077. Plan Checking\B3614_RDY_typ.DGN
mcwoteon Ar ? DS212418
H
M
8 M `? T
$ -I
? >aO o
D T
H
+
? O r r
y i
8
r
71 - A
yp pN pO LM -u
^ ?
RI O O " f
m
r
m D m
n
z
J ?
gg
z
2
I N
IV
m
m
x
-a
I
H
N - z
O
too -1
<N m
r

v ? >s
xz
s rn 0
C,
S
M 1 ? ?

z _
r T1
=
r v
? O <
>

v ? D
c r
^ '? ? r
-+ s
C
C N O 1
M m m nl
s z n
A s A
0 O
0 „
+ s
z

m m z

s N
q
x D M Z
m z CA

m
? x
v
Z Nm p
r
rn m r -
(A ^m
N ?<
os
o z?
-4 N O
M
z

t N
LA
m tA

v n

M CD

N
m =
v "'
v
0
M
a
m r
?
o ,
° m
M
)
O C)
• : ro
T
>
° O
< Z
'
m
Cl)
D ^
m z D ?-

m
M
>
$
r?+ m
.
A o
6n
C,
m

r
,
°z 0
n r
w
yyy111 m
O S
CD _
A Z
8
7 Ph
+ Z
0
0
? _rA
i
r

s 0
o$ = r

98
m
ro
0

++
w N a
0 Z
r')
0
m
m
_
'z
LA
-Ar
s
ao

-4
¦

l

0
0
r
Ia
H
O
T
H
-r4l)
O
T
y
T
y
•
a
H
s
G
C i N M N N 0
?i K
s ->'u
-Dia?o
zDia
?s
o
Dio
r
rc °
-+ ? ?•° 5
?v m
v m?v ?•o
0 1 T o 52 z
m m m r ? O
O z
O ``
O
O Ty<
D as
i D
O° a)<
' sa
^ i Wm my mm a Zm m
?
'0 m 0 at
0 y am ?f
a y
CD M Oz 0
00 Ox 000 Ox .
m > z y mmm
-4 M. m
-imm • mmm m•
O `
m
Z -1 o
9 A
++
aYx Dm y
i
mD= D
;ro a
W V
Y m m ?m m ' mm 21Nlr zm mu
" -4 m ? ' -1
-8
r
- x o u o
n -1 -0 D o OD D
m arTx T F j
P <s T? mm

?
W
g
D
i
N
r i
pes
o?
om x
aD m
f
A p -
i ro m r 3
1 m
x 0 O,lmz
o
g0 almz ?
1? mWz U3
0 Z
m O !A 0 g SAO yC? mW0 Wo
!0
m o c

W aao
a n
M
••r a
o m
av--4 -1
mz 0• M
m
- z
0
V
m
.+mm q
mi
mm 0
Oa yi
mm ax
mm N
Z9 m
a 77 T 6
9
]7
9
° o X
M i a
W m =
m0W ? z
i
T-V V 0s OM M
W 'V• m co -1• m V4- •n • c 0
m .4 m m f 1 •CfDI <T
C
0 0. v c w
M Om o
2
M 0 -,
o t
o M
• ? r
m
m
> A-U 9 DvD m .00 m

D rmm rA zm-A ao me
,
r mx- m mm m.+ s9
-1
? -+ i -40 CAM r ca
0 m
z
xmm m oM 0 m4
(A zvm o m sc •
10
x CO X!n
to
?
Om
=
m
-1 -
{
- fA

.. MOW
z - O
m j
Ov
m - m
-?• ti
T
m O
O M.
D
v• vm m al
E6

M m-
v v
I
iIIof
fills
[I
F
?m
0
?j

? o

ti
a
Ile
LLJ
? o
vwi W~
fifi55?? ?r
1a5 S all 45
? r W
m 3 ?s s d C Q
!It
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road)
over Hominy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1141(9)
State Project No. 8.2843901
TIP No. B-3614
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
l Z-00,;0 - oa-N ?
DATE re 4 ry J. Th pe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
I Z1o*/oZ. &44-z'z9.
DATE _Nicholas L. Graf, PE
+t-Division Administrator. FHWA
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road)
over Hominy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1141(9)
State Project No. 8.2843901
TIP No. B-3614
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2002
Documentation Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
I ?Vv- . \Z-- 3 OZ
Paul R. Koch, PE Date
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Wadsworth, PE
Manager
ant Engineering Unit
a ? a
m Y ,
VI `iT- .
.
C ,y
19t?cl 1a'?`?e
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road)
over Hominy Creels
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1141(9)
State Project No. 8.2843901
TIP No. B-3614
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No. 3, No. 14, and No. 23 Conditions,! the General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State
Consistency Conditions, Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification,
the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Division
In-stream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of November 1 to
April IS to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
Approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act will be required.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
December 2002
Page 1 of 1
Buncombe County
Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road)
over Hominy Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1141(9)
State Project No. 8.2843901
TIP No. B-3614
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 300 is included in the 2002-2008 North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Exhibit 1. No
substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 300 has a sufficiency rating
of 35.4 out of apossible 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.
U. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1141 (Morgan Cove Road) is classified as a rural local. Land immediately adjacent to the
existing bridgeis a mix of agricultural fields and scattered residences.
Bridge No. 300 was built in 1933 and reconstructed in 1957. The structure includes one span
totaling 35 feet 6 inches (10.8 meters) in length. The height from crown to streambed is 11 feet
(3.3 meters). The end bents are timber caps with timber posts and concrete sills. The posted
weight limit is single vehicle IN tractor-truck-semi-trailer 17 tons (12/15 metric tons).
The drainage area at Bridge No. 300 is 23.3 square miles (60.3 square kilometers).
The northbound approach is on a 250-foot (76-meter) radius curve. The southbound approach is
on a short 636-foot (194-meter) radius curve. The existing cross section includes two eight to
nine-foot (2.4 to 2.7 meters) travel lanes with two-foot (0.6 meters) grassed shoulders. The
existing structure is on tangent. There is no posted speed limit, therefore, the statutory limit is 55
mph (90 km/h).
The 2001 estimated average daily traffic volume (ADT) is 550 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected traffic volume is expected to increase to 800 vpd by the design year 2025.
This section of SR 1141 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as
needing bicycle accommodations.
There are no utilities carried by the existing structure. There are aerial power lines crossing
SR 1141 from west to east.
1
There were three accidents reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from
January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001.
Two Buncombe County school buses cross Bridge No. 300 twice each day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The approach roadway will consist of two ten-foot (3.0 meter) travel lanes with five-foot (1.5
meter) grassed shoulders. Based on a, preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure will have
a length of approximately 65 feet (19.8. meters). The design speed will be 30 mph (50 km/h).
The proposed structure will provide a 26-foot (7.8 meters)clear roadway width to allow for two
10-foot (3.0 meters) travel laane& and 3-foot (0.9 meters) offsets to the bridge rails on each side.
See Exhibit 4.
The elevation;of the new'structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. The
length and opening size of the bridge may.increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate
peak flows as.determined from a more detailed' hydraulic analysis, to be performed during the
final- design phase of the project.
B. Build Alternatives
Exhibits 2 and 3 show the two (2) build alternatives for replacing the existing bridge. The
alternatives are described below:
Alternative A replaces the `bridge on new alignment to the east (downstream) of the existing
structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge. The roadway
approach work will extend from approximately 530 feet (161.5 meters) south to 235 feet (71.6
meters) north of the existing bridge. This is the longer of the two alternatives and was not
selected due to higher impacts to the natural environment.
Alternative B (Preferred) replaces the bridge on new alignment to the east (downstream) of the
existing structure. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge. The
roadway approach work will extend 'from approximately 310 feet (94.5 meters) south to 250 feet
(76.2 meters) north of the existing bridge. This is the shorter of the two alternatives.
C. Alternatives Eliminated from. Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the service provided by Bridge No. 300.
Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
2
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative B, replacing the bridge on new-location to the east (downstream of the existing
structure), was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it requires less right-of-way, has
fewer impacts to the natural environment and has fewer impacts on adjacent properties.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
The existing speed limit through the project area is not posted and is, therefore, a statutory 55
mph (90 km/h). However, the existing roadway just south of the bridge is in a sharp curve on a
steep grade. Existing traffic speeds are low due to the at-grade railroad crossing which is also
immediately south of the bridge.
The existing roadway approach grade south of the railroad track is greater than desirable for
approaching a railroad crossing. In order to substantially decrease this grade, construction would
entail undercutting of the existing pavement and necessitate an on-site detour to maintain traffic.
These elements would substantially impact adjacent residential properties. The proposed project
does, however, decrease the grade relative to the existing profile and provides an improved
condition. Therefore, based on the existing roadway alignment and grades, and in order to
minimize impacts to adjacent residential properties, a 30 mph (50 km/h) design speed with a
northbound grade of approximately 4% approaching the railroad track. is recommended.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs based on current prices are listed in Table 1.
In addition to the construction and right-of-way costs listed above, Norfolk Southem Railroad
estimates that installation of automatic flashing light crossing signals and gates at the proposed
crossing will cost approximately $115,000. Norfolk Southem also states that a 36-foot (10.8-
meter) concrete panel grade crossing surface will cost approximately $18,000. The estimated
3
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED COSTS
cost of the project listed in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), is
$475,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and $350,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Enka
quadrangle map (19611photorevised 1990); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil
sheets of Buncombe County; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory Map (Enka 1995); USFWS list of protected and candidate species (March 7,
2002); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique
habitats (May 31, 2002); NCDOT aerial photography of the project area; and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource data Research using these resources was
conducted prior to the 'field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on April 18, 2000.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic. signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, nests, and burrows).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using 100-foot (30-meter) right of
way limits .(minus the existing right of way), the width and length of the replacement structure,
the width of the stream for aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual
construction impacts should be less as the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project site lies within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province. The topography
of the project vicinity is characterized as rolling hills with moderate to steeply sloping banks
along the major streams. Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 2,180 to
2,300 feet (664 to 701 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation in the project area is
approximately 2,180 feet (664 meters) above msl.
Buncombe County does not have a published soil survey; however, field sheets were available
for review. A general soil map is not available according to NRCS personnel. Field conditions
generally conform to the soil survey maps. Soil series found within the project area are
described below.
Comus fine sandy loam, zero to two percent slopes; Codorus loam, zero to two percent slopes;
and Bradson loam, eight to 15 percent slopes are mapped along the creek within the project area.
Comus fine sandy loam is a well drained, nearly level soil found in slightly elevated positions
usually adjacent to streams in wider flood plains. Permeability is moderate and the available
4
water capacity is medium. Codoms loam is a moderately well drained to somewhat poorly
drained, nearly level soil found in slightly depressed areas of the wider flood plains.
Permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is medium. Bradson loam is a well-
drained soil found on broad, smooth high stream terraces. Permeability is moderate and the
available water capacity is medium to high. These mapping units are not listed on the hydric
soils list.
Evard and Saluda stony soils, 20 to 50 percent slopes and Bradson loam, two to eight percent
slopes are located in the southwestern portion of the project area. Evard and Saluda soils are
well drained, soils that are found on low mountain tops and sides, and on side slopes of higher
mountains. Permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is medium. This mapping
unit is not listed on the hydric soils list. Bradson loam is described above.
Hayesville loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes is located in the northeastern quadrant of the project
area. Hayesville loam is a well-drained soil found on intermountain side slopes below 2,500 feet
(762 meters) in elevation. Permeability is moderate and the available water capacity is medium
to high. Hayesville loam is not listed on the hydric soils list.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the French Broad River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
04-03-02. Waters within the project study area include Hominy Creek.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Hominy Creek is a tributary of the French Broad River. Hominy Creek flows . east through the
proposed project area with a width of approximately 25.0 feet (7.6 meters) at the bridge. The
drainage area at Bridge No. 300 is 23.3 square miles (60.3 square kilometers). The flow was
slow to moderate on the west side of the bridge, then became moderate to swift east of the bridge
on the day of the field investigation. The substrate consisted of sand with gravel, cobbles, and
some boulders. The water was slightly turbid west of the bridge and became clearer east of the
bridge. Riffle areas were found downstream (east) of the bridge. The depth of the water ranged
from 0.3 to 3.0 feet (0.1 to 0.9 meters).
Within the project area, Hominy Creek is classified as "C" by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary
recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The
classification date and index number for this portion of the creek is 9/1/74, 6-76.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within one mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project revealed no NPDES permitted dischargers.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater flow or no
5
defined point of discharge. Stormwater runoff from the surrounding residential properties and
SR 1141 may cause water quality degradation. A horse pasture is located in the northeastern
quadrant of the project area. Storm water runoff from this area would introduce additional
nutrients into the stream.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data
as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out several years
ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol. Each river basin in the state
is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling stations has been increased within
each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical, and physical data.
The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality in basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The
method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure
and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information about species richness and
composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes
the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy
source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
According to the information obtained from the French Broad Basinwide Management Plan
(2000), the DWQ has a sampling station located in the project area at SR 1141 and Hominy
Creek. The station was last sampled in January 1989 and received a rating of Good-Fair.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) Generallmpacts - Neither High Quality Waters (HWQ), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project study area.
Impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support structures in the creek
channel. In the short term, construction of the bridge and approach work will increase sediment
loads. Sediment loading can reduce flow and result in a decrease in oxygen levels. The removal
of trees and shrubs that provide shade along stream banks could result in an increase in water
temperature and a decrease in oxygen levels as well.
The NCDOT, in cooperation with DWQ has developed a sedimentation control program for
highway projects which adopts formal best management practices (BMPs) for the protection of
surface waters. The following are methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the project;
6
• reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies and
minimization of activities conducted in the creek;
• placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loadings;
• reduction of clearing and grubbing along the creek.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demoliden and Removal - `In order to protect the water quality
and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all potential contractors will
follow appropriate guidelines `for bridge demolition and.removal. These guidelines are presented
in -three NCDOT, documents entitled :' Pre-Construction Guidelines for : Bridge Demolittion and
Removal", -Folicy: -'Bridge Demolition and Removal-in Waters of the United States-,:.and 'Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal". Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented'for Best,Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structures into waters of the United ,States will be avoided unless
there is no other practical=method of removal: In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, a worst case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill .entering waters of the United
States.
The. superstructure. for Bridge'No. 300 is composed of a timber, deek,on a steel girder loorbeam
system. The substructure is composed of tirnber.caps with timber=Posts and concrete sills. Since
the bridge can be removed without dropping` any components ;-into the. water, neither the
superstructure northe substructure will create any .temporary fill-in the creek: However, the
removal of the substructure, may create some disturbance in the streambed. `Conditions in the
stream will not raise; sediment :concerns since the substrate consists of sand with gravel, cobbles,
and boulders.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) states that Hominy: Creek is
considered a.spawning stream for trout. Therefore, NCWRC requests an instream construction
moratorium between' November:I and April 15 to minimize impacts to spawning trout.
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each community and the
relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities is based on. a
system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). If a community is modified or
otherwise disturbed such that it does not fit into an NCNHP 'classification, it is given a name that
best describes current characteristics. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found
in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field
7
guides and other documentation (Conant, 1958; Farrand, 1993; Robbins et al., 1966; and
Whitaker, 1980).
1. Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is the
maintained/disturbed community. Dominant faunal components associated with this terrestrial
area are discussed in the community description.
a) Maintained/Disturbed Community - The maintained/disturbed community is located
throughout the project area (residential properties north of the bridge, the horse pasture in the
northeaster quadrant, the railroad easement and residential home located south of the bridge,
and the road. shoulders). Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. The dominant species within the project area include fescue,(Festuca spp ),
ryegrass (Lolium spp.), morning glory Qpomoea purpurea), clover (Trifolium spp.), thistle
(Cirsium spp.), wild carrot (Daucus carota), buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus), asters (Aster
spp.), wild onion (Allium cernuum), dandelion (Taraxacum qfficinale), and plantain (Plantago
spp.).
2. Wildlife
The animal. species present in the maintained/disturbed communities are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fniits,
and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. An American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
were observed during the site visit. Other species such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), rat (Rattus norvegicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe),
house wren (Troglodytes aedon), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and black racer (Coluber
constrictor constrictor) are often attracted to these disturbed habitats.
3. Actuatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area includes Hominy Creek. Hominy Creek flows east
through the proposed project area with a width of approximately 25.0 feet (7.6 meters) at the
bridge. The flow was slow to moderate on the west side of the bridge, then became moderate to
swift east of the bridge on the day of the field investigation. The substrate consisted of sand with
gravel, cobbles, and some boulders. The water was slightly turbid west of the bridge and became
clearer east of the bridge. Riffle areas were found downstream (east) of the bridge. The depth of
the water ranged from 0.3 to 3.0 feet (0.1 to 0.9 meters).
Vegetation along the creek banks included sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Ater
rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black willow (Salix nigra), black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), silver maple (Ater saccharinum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), roses (Rosa
multiflora), and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). The banks were well vegetated with no signs of
erosion. The banks were well defined and averaged 3.0 to 6.0 feet (0.9 to 1.8 meters) in height
above the top of the creek. Species such as the Pickerel frog (Rana palustris), gray treefrog
8
(Hyla versicolor), Northern water snake (Natnx sipedon stpedon), and red salamander
(Pseudotriton ruber) may reside or forage within this aquatic community or along the waters
edge. Macroinvertebrates such as 'larvae of the mayfly (Ephemeropterm), stonefly (Plecoptera),
and caddistly (Trichoptera) would be expected to be 'found within'the snag habitats and within
the riffle areas in the creek. On the day of the site investigation, mayfly and stonefly were
collected by dipnetting in the creek.
According to the NCWRC, fish species that are likely to be found in Hominy Creek include
rainbow trout (Salmo'gairdnen), brown trout (Salmo trutta), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium
n gricans), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), 'stone roll er'(Cwnpostoma anomalum), shiners
(Notropis SM.), and minnows.
4. Andelvated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Commwddes - `The maintained/disturbed community is the predominant
community wAin the project area.. Plains found within this, community are common and often
associated with ;disturbed .areas. Although :limited wildlifie`,hibitat would be;pravrded,' these
types of disturbed areas .are abundant and thierefore the;i!3ipacts am.not considered sigtifican can. in
that regard: Individual mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals fro m construction
machinery used 'during `clea fin g activities.
Alternative A will result in the greatest amount of impacts to the maintained/disturbed
community, approximately, 0.71 acres (0.29, hectares).
b) Wedand Communities - No jurisdictional wetlands were found within the -study area.
c) AquadcCommunlties The: replacement of Bridge No. 300.over Hominy Creek will result in
up to 0.02 acres (0:01 hectares) of aquatic impacts. This figure .is obtained by measuring the.
width of the bridge over, water, times the length ofthe bridge-over-water.
TABIE 2
ANTICIPATM MWACTS TO
TERRESTRI ANDi . A,DUATI '!G NW,. ITITIES
Alternative A 0.71 0.28 0.02 0.01 28 8.5 0.73 0.30
Alternative B 0.46 0.18 0.02 0.01 28 8.5 0.48 0.19
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on a 100-foot (30-meter) right of way (minus the existing right of way of SR 1141) for each
alternative.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above; calculations were based on the worst-case
scenario.
9
Activities. such as the removal of trees, as well as the construction of the bridge and approach
work will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperatures and a decrease in
dissolved oxygen in the short term.. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of
toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering: the waterways. The combination of
these factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of
invertebrates which inhabit these areas..
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). Waters of the United States_ are regulated by the United .States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was, conducted using methods of
the `1997 Corps of Engineers Wetlands 'Delineation Manual. No jurisdictional wetlands were
found within the project area.
Prgjeet construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on. jurisdictional surface waters.
The creek boundaries were.flagged and surveyed and up to 28 linear feet (8.5 meters) of
jurisdictional surface waters:may be impacted by this project'
2. Permits
a).Section 404 of the Clean'`Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from -the USACOE for projects of this type for the
discharge: of'dredged or 611 material into "Waters of the United States". The USACOE issues
two types of permits for these activities. A general permit may be issued on a nationwide or
regional' basis for a category or categories of activities when: those activities are substantially
similar in nature and cause only a minimal individual or cumulative environmental impact, or
when the ;general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control
exercised by another Federal, 'state, or local' agency provided that the environmental
consequences oftheaction are indvidually.and cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not
appropriate fora particular activity, then an individual permit must be utilized. Individual
permits are authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the proposed
discharges.
It is anticipated that thisproject will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general
permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. Activities- under
this permit are categorically excluded from environmental documentation because they are
included within a category of activities which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must
satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit.
10
b) Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered
through the DWQ, will also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may
result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ,
one condition of the permit is that the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be
utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in
streams and rivers not designated as trout by DWQ and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
c) Section 26a of the TVA Act - This project is located within the jurisdiction of the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA). Therefore, an approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act will be
required.
3. Midention
The USACOE has adopted, 'through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, =and physical integrity of
waters of the ,United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined
bythe CEQ to include: avoiding impacts; minimizing: impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts
over time, and compensating ;for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance - Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ' the ' USACOE, in. determining "appropriate : and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, , and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The project purpose necessitates traversing Hominy Creek; therefore, totally avoiding surface water
impacts is impossible.
Minimization Minimization includes examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be .-required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Minnnization typically focuses on decreasing
the footprint of the proposed project through reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths,
and/or fill slopes.
Specific to this project, the proposed stream crossing is a bridge rather than a culvert to minimize
impacts to the channel. Also in-stream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning
period of November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction
Compensatory Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in
each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
11
been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of waters
of the United States.
As mentioned above, only jurisdictional surface waters will be impacted by the proposed project.
Since the potential impacts are minor, compensatory mitigation is not expected to be required for
this project. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been, or are in the process of, decline due to factors
such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or human related impacts such as
destruction of habitat. Rare and protected species. listed for Buncombe County and any likely
impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists twelve federally protected species
for Buncombe County as of the March 7, 2002 listing (Table 3).
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR BUNCOMBE COUNTY

YI „Y iY , a K.a'.
Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
(Bog turtle)
Felis concolor cougar E
(Eastern cougar)
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E
(Carolina northern flying squirrel)
Hypbopsis monacha* T
(Spotfin chub)
Myotis griscens*** E
(Gray bat)
Alasmidonta raveneliana
E
(Appalachian ell toe)
Epioblasma capsaeformis E
(Oyster mussel)
Geum radiatum E
(Spreading avers)
12
NOTES:
E Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
T Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
T(S/A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
* Historic Record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
*** Incidental/Migrant Record (the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat).
Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) T(S/A)
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: November 4, 1997
Bog turtles are small (3 to 4.5 inches) [7.6 to 10.2 centimeters] semiaquatic turtles that have a
dark brown carapace and black plastrons. They usually exhibit distinctive orange or yellow
blotches on each side of the head and neck.
The bog turtle inhabits shallow, spring fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows,
pastures which have soft, muddy bottoms, and clear, cool, slow-flowing water, often forming a
network of rivulets. Bog turtles inhabit damp grassy fields, bogs, and marshes in the mountains
and upper Piedmont.
The bog turtle is not biologically endangered or threatened and is not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Felis concolor cougar (Eastern cougar) E
Family: Felidae
Date Listed: June 4, 1973
The Eastern cougar is a large, unspotted, long-tailed cat. The body and legs are a uniform
tawny color. Its belly is pale reddish to reddish white. The inside of the cat's ears are light-
colored with blackish color behind the ears. They feed primarily on deer, but their diet may also
include small mammals, wild turkeys, and domestic livestock.
13
No preference for specific habitat has been noted. The primary need is for a large wilderness
area with an adequate food supply. Male cougars of other subspecies have been observed to
occupy a range of 25 or more square miles (65 square kilometers), and females from five to 20
square miles (13 to 52 square kilometers).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project is located in a residentially developed area; since the cougar requires a
large wilderness area, it is unlikely that this species would be found here. A search of the
NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the Eastem
cougar.
Glaucomys.sabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) E
Family: Sciuridae
Date Listed: July 1, 1985
Carolina northern :flying squirrels are small nocturnal mammals that are three to five ounces in
weight and ten to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) in length. They possess a long, broad,
flattened tail, prominent. eyes, and dense.fur. The northern 'flying squirrels closely resemble
southern 'flying squirrels but are larger,and have. richer. colors. Adults are gray with a brownish,
tan, or reddish wash on the back, and grayish white or buffy white undersides. The northem
flying squirrel can apparently subsist on lichens and certain fungi, but also eats certain seeds,
buds, fruit, starninate cones, insects, and other animal: material.
They typically live _at elevations above 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) in spruce-fir forests and forests
of mixed conifers and hardwoods. They use both areas to search for food, while the hardwood
areas are .needed, for nesting sites. Research suggests that the more aggressive southern flying
squirrel has begun to force the northern species :out of the hardwood forests, which reduces
favorable nesting sites and, `therefore, reproduction by the northern flying squirrel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat is not present in the project area;' the project area is located at approximately 2,180 feet
(664 -meters) above msl, which is well below the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the
NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It
can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the Carolina
northern flying squirrel.
Hybopsis monacha
Family:
Date Listed:
(Spotfin chub)
Cyprinidae
September 9, 1977
T
14
The spotfin chub is a small, slender fish not exceeding four inches (ten centimeters) in length.
Juveniles and adult females are olive above with the sides largely silvery and the lower parts
white. Adult males have brilliant turquoise blue coloring on the back, side of the head, and, along
the mid-lateral part of the body.' The spotfin chub spawns from mid-May to early September. It
appears the spotfin feeds by sight on tiny insect larvae that occur on the stream bottom.
The spotfin chub inhabits clear water over gravel, boulders, , and bedrock in large creeks and
medium-sized rivers [average width 50 to 230 feet (15 to 70 meters)] having moderate current.
They are rarely seen over sand and appear to avoid silty areas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NCDOTbialo g sts visited the site on September .12,. 2002 ` and conducted a.:fish survey using a Smith-root electrofisher 200, feet (60 meters) upstream .and I00 feet (30 meters) downstream of
the bridge. No specimens of spotfin. chub: were. found and Hominy Creek is likely too silty and
too small' to support spotfmchub. A search of the NCNBP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within. the project vicinity. Based on the surveysesults, it is.apparent
that`this species does,not occur in Hominy Creek. It can be conclude&that project construction
will-not impact this species.
Myous grucens (Gray bat) E
Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: April 28, 1976
The gray bat weighs approximately seven to 16 grams. One feature that distinguishes this
species from other bats is its uni-colored dorsal' fur. Also, the gray bat's wing membrane
connects to the foot at the ankle instead of at the base of the first toe, as with other bats. 'Gray
bats are dark gray, for a short period after molt in :the summer, but-their fur usually bleaches to
russet between molts.
Gray bat colonies are restricted entirely to caves or cave-like habitats. During summery the bats
are highly selective for, caves; providing specific temperature and roost conditions. Usually these
caves are ' located within a kilometer of ° a river or :reservoir. They forage primarily over water
along rivers or lake shores where the majority of insects <eaten are aquatic species, particularly
mayflies. In the winter, they utilize only deep, vertical caves where temperatures average 42 -
52 degrees F.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The study area was evaluated by NCDOT biologists and it was determined that a survey was not
required due to lack of potential habitat.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) E
Family: Unionidae
15
Date Listed:
November 23, 1994
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney-shaped shell reaching up to three by
1.5 inches (7.6 by 3.8 centimeters), and one inch (2.5 centimeters) in width. Juveniles generally
have a yellowish-brown outer shell, while the outer shell of adults is usually dark brown to
greenish-black in color. Although rays are prominent on some shells, many individuals have
only obscure greenish rays. The shell nacre is shiny, often white to bluish-white, changing to a
salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the shell.
The Appalachian elktoe has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and
rivers with cool, moderate to fast flowing water. It has also been observed in gravelly, substrates
often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks in bedrock, and occasionally in relatively silt-
free, coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NCDOT Environmental Specialists conducted mussel surveys on September 12, 2002 from
approximately 200 feet (60 meters) downstream to 100 feet (30 meters) upstream of the bridge.
No freshwater mussels were found during the survey. Based on these survey results, it is
apparent that the Appalachian elktoe mussel does not occur in the project stream. It can be
concluded that project construction will not impact this species.
Epioblasma capsaeformis (Oyster mussel) E
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: January 10, 1997
The oyster mussel is a small freshwater mussel with a maximum size of about two inches (5.1
centimeters). Its periostracum (outer shell surface) has a dull to shiny yellowish to green colored
shell with numerous narrow dark green rays. The inside of the shell is whitish to bluish-white in
color.
The oyster mussel inhabits small to medium rivers in areas with coarse sand to boulder stratum
(rarely in mud) and moderate to swift currents. It is sometimes found associated with water
willow beds and in pockets of gravel between bedrock ledges in areas of swift current.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
NCDOT Environmental Specialists conducted mussel surveys on September 12, 2002 from
approximately 200 feet (60 meters) downstream to 100 feet (30 meters) upstream of the bridge.
No freshwater mussels were found during the survey. Based on these survey results, it is
apparent that the oyster mussel does not occur in the project stream. It can be concluded that
project construction will not impact this species.
16
Geum radiatum (Spreading avens) E
Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: April 5, 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb topped with an indefinite cyme of large, bright, yellow
flowers. Its leaves are mostly basal with large terminal lobes and small laterals, and they arise
from horizontal rhizomes. Plant stems grow eight to 20 inches (20 to 50 centimeters) tall.
Flowering occurs from June to September, and the fruits are produced from August to October.
Spreading avens inhabits high elevation cliffs, outcrops, and steep slopes which are exposed to
full sun. It is also found in thin, gravelly soils or grassy balds near summit outcrops. The
adjacent spruce/fir forests [generally found above 5,500 feet (1,676 meters) in elevation] are
dominated by red spruce and Fraser fir. The substrate at all the population sites is composed of
various igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat (high elevation cliffs and outcrops) does not exist in the project study area for this
species; the project area is approximately 2,180 feet (664 meters) above msl, which is well below
the elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction
of the proposed project will not impact spreading avens.
Gymnoderma lineare (Rock gnome lichen) E
Family: Cladoniaceae
Date Listed: January 18, 1995
Rock gnome lichen is a squamulose lichen in the reindeer moss family. It occurs in dense
colonies of narrow straps (squamules) that are blue-grey on the upper surface and generally,
shiny-white on the lower surface; near the base they grade to black. The squamules are nearly
parallel to the rock surface, but the tips curl away from the rock, approaching or reaching a
perpendicular orientation to the rock surface. The fruiting bodies (found from July through
September) are borne at the tips of the squamules and are black.
Rock gnome lichen occurs only in areas of high humidity, either at high elevations, where it is
frequently bathed in fog, or in deep river gorges at lower elevations. It is primarily limited to
vertical rock faces where seepage water from forest soils above the cliffs flows at (and only at)
very wet times. Most populations occur above an elevation of 5,000 feet (1,524 meters).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat (vertical rock faces) does not exist in the project study area for this species; the project
area is approximately 2,180 feet (664 meters) above msl, which is located well below the
elevation for suitable habitat. A search of the NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences
17
of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the
proposed project will not impact the rock gnome lichen.
Saggitaria fasciculata
Family:
Date Listed:
(Bunched arrowhead)
Alismataceae
July 25, 1979
E
Bunched arrowhead is an emersed aquatic perennial herb which grows six to 13 inches (15 to
33 centimeters) in height. It has spatulate leaves up to 12 inches (30 centimeters) long and 3/a
inches (1.9 centimeters) wide that stem from the base of the plant. White, three-petalled flowers
occur in an erect spike. The flowering stalk is erect, with upper flowers male and lower flowers
female. Flowering and fruiting occurs from May to July.
Bunched arrowhead, grows in seepage areas with very low water flow and no stagnation. The
soils are sandy loams overlain' by. muck ten to 24 inches (25 to 60 centimeters) deep. Shaded
sites have larger, more vigorous plants than open areas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The edges of the creek may provide habitat for this species. A survey was conducted on June 7,
2000 to determine the presence or absence of this species. No specimens were found during the
survey. A search of the NCNB? database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within
the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the construction of the proposed project will not
impact the bunched arrowhead.
Sarracenia jonesii (Mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Family: Sarraceniaceae
Date Listed: April 14,1989
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is a perennial herb that grows from 21 to 73 inches (53 to 185
centimeters)`tall. It has hollow, tubular leaves (pitchers) with heart-shaped hoods. The pitchers
are a waxy dull green with criss-crossing maroon-purple veins. The hair inside the pitchers' tube
is usually bent downward, and the tubes are often filled with liquid and decayed insect parts.
The flowers, are usually maroon with recurving petals. The stalks are erect and bear one flower
each. Flowers are present from April to June.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is restricted to bogs and streamsides along the Blue Ridge
Divide. Some populations can be found along the sides of waterfalls on granite rock faces.
Herbs and shrubs usually dominate the bogs where these plants are located. The bog soils are
deep, poorly drained combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high organic matter content and
a medium to highly acidic composition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
18
As this plant may occupy streamsides, potential habitat does exist in the project area for this
species. A survey within the project area for the mountain sweet pitcher plant was conducted on
April 18, 2000. No specimens were found within the area. A search of the NCNHP database
showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that the construction of the proposed project will not impact the mountain sweet pitcher plant.
Spiraea virginiana
Family:
Date Listed:
(Virginia spiraea)
Rosaceae
June 15, 1990
T
Virginia spiraea is a shrub growing from two to ten feet (0.6 to 3.0 meters) tall with arching,
upright stems and cream-colored flowers. The leaves are alternate and of different sizes and
shapes. The flowers are found on branched and flat-topped axes. Spiraea spreads clonally and
forms dense clumps which spread in rock crevices and around boulders.
Virginia spiraea occurs along rocky, flood-scoured riverbanks in gorges or canyons. Flood
scouring is essential to this plant's survival because it eliminates taller woody competitors and
creates riverwash deposits and early successional habitats. These conditions are apparently
essential for this plant's colonization of new sites. The bedrock surrounding spiraea habitat is
primarily sandstone and soils are acidic and moist. Spiraea grows best in full sun, but it can
tolerate some shade. Spiraea is found in thickets with common woody vine associates including
fox grape, summer grape, riverbank grape, winter grape, muscadine and scuppernong. Other
plant associates include royal fern, yellow ironweed or wing-stem, ninebark, smooth alder or
brookside alder, silky cornel, and shrubby yellowroot.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A field survey was conducted from approximately 100 feet (30 meters) upstream to
approximately 500 feet (150 meters) downstream of the existing bridge on June 20, 2002. No
evidence of this species was found during this survey. A search of the NCNHP database showed
no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. Based on the survey results,
it is apparent that virginia spires does not occur within or along Hominy Creek in the project
area. It is concluded that project construction will not impact this 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 of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which
may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
list of Rare Plant and Animal Species and are afforded state protection under the State
19
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 includes listed FSC species for Buncombe County and their state classifications (May
31, 2002).
The NCNBP database shows no recorded occurrences of FSCs within the project area.
TABLE 4
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
BUNCOMBE COUNTY

Aegolius acadicus
T No
SouthernAppalachian saw-whet owl
Aimophila aestivalis *
SC No
Bachman's arrow
Neotoma magister SC No
(Alleghany woodrat
Erimystax insignis SR Yes
(Blotched Chub
Buckleya disticophylla
E
Yes
iratebush
Calamagrostis cainii

Cain's reed s E No
Corynorhinus (= Pleeotus) rafinisquii * T Yes
(Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
SC Yes
Hellbender
Dendroica eerulea
Cerulean warbler SR Yes
Euphorbia purpurea
SR-T
Yes
Glade spurge)
Hexastylis rhombiforrnis
tench Broad heartlea SR-L No
Lilium grayi T-SC No
(Gray 's lil
Loxia curvirostra SC No
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Lysimachia fraseri *
E
Yes
Fraser's loosestrife
Monotropsis odorata
SR-T
Yes
Sweet inesa
Myotis leibii SC No
Eastern small-footed bat
Neotoma floridana haematoreia SC Yes
Southern Appalachian woodrat
20

C Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended)..
E Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state taws).
T Threatened (species which- are afforded, protection by state laws).
SC Special: Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
SR Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended),
W Watch list (any other. species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state
but not warranting active monitoring at this, time)
* Historic record, the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
(USFWS)
? Listed'bythe USFWS but not by the NCNB?.
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential habitat was present for five federally protected species: the spotfin chub, the gray bat,
the Appalachian elktoe, the oyster mussel, and Virginia spiraea. Surveys for these species were
conducted to determine the presence or absence of these species in the project area. No
specimens of any of these species were found and biological conclusions of no effect were reach
for all of the above-mentioned species.
21
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 Architecture
Mattson, Alexander & Associates, Inc. conducted a field survey of the Area of Potential Effects
(APE) in September 2001. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later a
NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed the photos. An in-depth evaluation was necessary
for one property, the O.H. Winchester Farm. A report on the eligibility of the farm for the
National Register was prepared and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on
November 26, 2001. In a memorandum dated January 10, 2002, the HPO concurred the O.H.
Winchester Farm is not eligible for the National Register. A copy of the letter is included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated October 29, 2001,
stated that there are no known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, SHPO recommended that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be
damaged or destroyed.
A survey was conducted and submitted to SHPO on April 8, 2002. The results of the survey
were that no sites were located within the project area and no further archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this report. SHPO concurred with these recommendations in a
memorandum dated May 16, 2002. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the
Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
22
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection. Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and
construction projects. This project impacts approximately 0.9 acres (0.4 hectares) of prime or
locally important farmland. The average farm size for Burke County is 40 acres (16 hectares).
Therefore, a substantial impact to prime or locally important farmland is not anticipated.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Buncombe 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.
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 of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
There are no known underground storage tanks (USTs) present in the study area.
Buncombe County is a current participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown on Exhibits 2 and 3. The amount
of floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
23
result in a crossing of approximately equal magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
Based on the above statements, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts
will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A Public workshop was held on March 26, 2002 in the Candler Elementary School Library in
Candler. A newsletter was also mailed two weeks in advance of the workshop. Four citizens
attended. One of the attendees, a Buncombe County Schools representative, stated that the
school system would like gates installed, if possible, to protect the railroad crossing as part of
this project. {Norfolk Southern provided a cost estimate for installing signals and gates, see
Section IV)
Adjacent property owners were concerned with impacts, but stated that they understood the need
for the project and also agreed with the location of the Preferred Alternative. They wanted to be
sure that they would be informed about the project prior to construction. No written comments
were submitted.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments are summarized below. Letters from the commenting agencies are included
in the appendix.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)- USFWS states. that there are no known
locations of federally listed Threatened, Endangered, or Species of Federal Concern in the
project area.
USFWS recommends that temporary fill be minimized, that no heavy equipment operates in the
stream channel, and removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks be avoided to the
extent possible. USFWS also recommends removing any fill in the floodplain associated with
the existing structures to restore the natural floodplain elevation and function.
USFWS recommends that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge and the design should
include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer. Bridge
design should not alter natural stream form or morphology or impede fish passage and piers or
bents should be placed outside the bankfull width. Bridge and approaches should be designed to
avoid damming the channel or floodplain. USFWS recommends erosion and sedimentation
controls to be in place prior to construction. No wet concrete should come into contact with the
stream.
Response: In order to minimize construction impacts, the construction will be conducted in
accordance with "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters", "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
24
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and `Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal'.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) - The North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) states that Hominy Creek is considered a spawning stream for
trout. Therefore, NCWRC requests an instream construction moratorium between November 1
and April 15 to minimize impacts to spawning trout.
Response: The construction moratorium has been incorporated in the Project Commitments.
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) - The HPO stated that there are no known-recorded
archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, HPO recommends that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the
significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed. Potential. effects on
unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Response: A survey was conducted and submitted to SHPO on April 8, 2002. The results of
the survey were that no sites were located within the project area and no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this report. SHPO concurred
with these recommendations in a memorandum dated May 16, 2002.
Buncombe County Schools - The Buncombe County School Transportation Department stated
that as long as an on-site detour is available, there will not be an adverse effect on current school
bus mutes.
Response: None required.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) - The TVA stated that the federal categorical exclusion
documents prepared for this project should note that an approval under Section 26a of the TVA
Act will be required.
Response: A copy of the environmental report will be forwarded. Approval under Section
26a of the TVA Act is noted and has been incorporated in the Project Commitments.
Norfolk Southern Railroad Norfolk Southern Railroad, in a letter dated April 26, 2002,
recommended the grade for the northbound approach to the track be lessened to improve riding
characteristics at the grade crossing. Norfolk Southern also provided cost estimates for signals,
gates, and a new crossing surface.
Response: In order to substantially decrease the grade of the northbound approach,
construction would require undercutting of the existing pavement and necessitate an on-site
detour to maintain traffic. These elements would substantially impact adjacent residential
properties. The proposed project does, however, decrease the grade relative to the existing
profile and provides an improved condition.
25

is North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SR 1141
Replace Bridge No. 300
over Homin Creek
Buncombe Loun
North Carolina
B-3614
Project Vicinity
Not to Scale Exhibit 1 ?

?5 FT (1.2M) WITHOUT OR
8 FT (2.1M) WITH OR
ORIGI
GROL
ORIGINAL
GROUND

1
26 Au l1
CLEAR ROADWAY
J FT 10 FT 10 FT J FT
(0.9M) (J. 0114) (3.OM 0.9M)
LANE LANE
GRADE

.02 POINT
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
Design Data
ADT 2001 550 _ LOS B
ADT 2003 _575 LOS B
ADT 2025 _800 LOS _MB
DUAL 3%
TTST 1%
DESIGN SPEED 30 mp_h 50 Km2
POSTED SPEED _ statutor y 55 =t_(90 Km/h
PROPOSED POSTED SPEED 25 mp_h40 Km1h?
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Rural Local
MIN RADIUS 250 ft (80m)
MAX GRADE
MIN DES. K FACTORS SAG_ 371-131-
CREST- 19 (Z)--
]English (Metric)]
..,``,q';.... North Carolina
?Department of Transportation
SR 1141
Replace Bridge No. 300
over Hominv Creek
B-3
Typical
Not to Scale
Exhibit 4

Approach
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
No. 300
Creek
Looking Downstream
ortn czouna
B-3614
Photos
of to Scale
ibit
Northbound Approach
APPENDIX
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
August 9, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
According to your letter of June 7, 2000, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is
proposing 12 bridge replacement projects in Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison
Counties, North Carolina. These are Group XXXII Bridge Replacement Projects, listed as
follows:
Buncombe County
1. B-3614, Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek
2. B-3616, Replace Bridge No. 740 on SR 1319 over Mill Creek
3. B-3619, Replace Bridge No. 56 on SR 3439 over Bill Moore Creek
Burke County
1. B-3620, Replace Bridge No. 292 on SR 1001 over the Henry Fork River
2. B-3621, Replace Bridge No. 148 on SR 1547 over Micol Creek
3. B-3622, Replace Bridge No. 334 on SR 1900 over an unnamed creek
Haywood County
1. B-3470, Replace Bridge No. 163 on US 276 over the Pigeon River Overflow
2. B-3656, Replace Bridge No. 419 on US 19-23 over the Pigeon River
3. B-3659, Replace Bridge No. 112 on SR 1147 over Allens Creek
4. B-3661, Replace Bridge No. 36 on SR 1503 over Crabtree Creek
Jackson County
1. B-3667, Replace Bridge No. 47 on SR 1131 over Trout Creek
Madison County
1. B-3869, Replace Bridge No. 146 on SR 1151 over Big Pine Creek
As requested, we have reviewed the proposed projects and are providing the following comments
in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 15311543) (Act), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e). The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or its designated
non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway
Administration. In addition to general comments applicable to all of the projects, specific
concerns for listed species are provided with the individual bridge description.
Enclosed is a list of species from Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties
that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as species
of Federal concern. Although our records indicate no known locations of these species in the
project areas for Buncombe County projects B-3614, B-3616, and. B-3619; Haywood County
projects B-3659 and B-3661; Jackson County project B-3667; and Madison County project
B-386, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for these species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts occur to these species.
Our records for Burke County indicate there is a known location of the federally threatened
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near projects B-3620 and B-3621. If this species
occurs in the area of either of these projects, additional consultation will be required.
Additionally, there is a record for a species of Federal concern--sweet pinesap (Monotropis
odorata)--from a site near project B-3622. The project areas for these bridges should be
surveyed for these species to ensure they are protected from impacts.
Our records for Haywood County indicate that there are known locations for the federally
endangered Appalachian elktoe mussel (Alasmidonta raveneliana) near projects B-3470 and
B-3656. The effects to the Appalachian elktoe must be assessed prior to implementation of these
proj ects.
Species of Federal concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response to give you advance notification and
to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found in the vicinity of these projects.
The information that accompanied your letter concerning these projects related only to the
removal of the existing bridges. According to this information, there will be temporary fill
associated with several of the projects. We recommend that this fill be minimized, to the extent
possible, and that no heavy equipment be operated in the stream channel. To maintain bank
stability, any cutting or removal of woody vegetation along the stream banks should be avoided
to the maximum extent possible. We also recommend removing any fill in the flood plain
associated with the existing structures in order to restore the natural elevation of the flood plain
and its function. This will minimize the potential for stream-bank and channel scouring that may
occur during storm flows as a result of any constriction of the flood plain or stream channel
associated with the existing structures.
As stated above, the information you provided addressed only the removal of the existing
bridges; no information was provided concerning the types of structures that will replace the
existing bridges or what measures will be implemented to minimize the potential effects
associated with the new structures and their construction. We recommend that the existing
structures be replaced with bridges and that each new bridge design include provisions f6r the
roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected
stream. This buffer should be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from the run-off of
storm water and pollutants. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and
stream-bank morphology or impede fish passage. Any piers or bents should be placed outside
the bank-full width of the streams. The bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any
fill that will result in the damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the
flood plain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the
approaches in order to restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce
high velocities of flood waters within the affected areas. We recommend that erosion- and
sedimentation-control measures be in place prior to any ground-disturbing activities. Wet
concrete should never be allowed to come into contact with the stream.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. Please
reference our Log Number 4-2-00-280 in any future correspondence concerning these projects.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Mark Davis, Environmental Compliance Officer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, P.O. Box 37, Sylva, NC 28779
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN BUNCOMBE, BURKE, HAYWOOD,
JACKSON, AND MADISON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Buncombe, Burke, Haywood, Jackson, and Madison Counties, of North Carolina's federally listed
and proposed endangered, threatened, and candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete
list of rare species in the state, please contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The
information in this list is compiled from a variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and
herbariums, literature, and personal communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's
database is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. Please note that this list cannot be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal
species of 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 aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl
Bachman's sparrow
Bog turtle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Hellbender
Cerulean warbler
Eastern cougar
Carolina northern flying squirrel
Spotfin chub
Southern Appalachian red crossbill
Gray bat
Eastern small-footed myotis
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Southern Appalachian black-capped
chickadee
Longhead darter
Paddlefish
Southern water shrew
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied
sapsucker
Appalachian Bewick's wren
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
French Broad crayfish
Aegolius acadicus
Aimophila aestivalis
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Dendroica cerulea
Felis concolor couguar
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
Hybopsis monacha
Loxia curvirostra
Myotis grisescens
Myotis leibii
Neotomafloridana haematoreia
Parus atricapillus practicus
Percina macrocephala
Polyodon spathula
Sorex palustris punctulatus
Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis
Thryomanes bewickii altus
Alasmidonta raveneliana
Cambarus reburrus
FSC
FSC*
T(S/A)'
FSC*
FSC
FSC
Endangered*
Endangered
Threatened*
FSC
Endangered***
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC*
FSC
FSC
FSC*
Endangered
FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 1 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Oyster mussel
Tawny crescent butterfly
Diana fritillary butterfly
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir
Piratebush
Cain's reedgrass
Glade spurge
Spreading avens
Mountain heartleaf
French Broad heartleaf
Butternut
Gray's lily
Fraser's loosestrife
Sweet pinesap
Pinnate-lobed black-eyed susan
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Carolina saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Mountain catchfly
Virginia spiraea
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen
BURKE COUNTY
Critical Habitat Designation:
Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Phycoldes batesii FSC*
Speyeria diana FSC*
Abies fraseri FSC
Buckleya dWichophylla FSC
Calamagrostis cainii FSC
Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Geum radiatum Endangered
Hexastylis contracta FSC
Hexastylis rhomb formis FSC
Juglans cinerea FSC
Lilium grayi FSC
Lysimachia fraseri FSC*
Monotropsis odorata FSC
Rudbeckia triloba var. pinnatoloba FSC
Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered*
Sarracenia jonesii Endangered*
Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Senecio millefolium FSC
Silene ovata FSC
Spiraea virginiana Threatened
Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
Mountain golden heather, Hudsonia montana - The area bounded by the following: on
the west by the 2200' contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge Wilderness Boundary north
from the intersection of the 2200' contour and the Shortoff Mountain Trail to where it
intersects the 3400' contour at "The Chimneys"--then follow the 3400' contour north until
it reintersects the Wilderness Boundary--then follow the Wilderness Boundary again
northward until it intersects the 3200' contour extending west from its intersection with the
Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south--at this point the Boundary extends due
east until it intersects the 2200' contour.
Vertebrates
Bald eagle
Alleghany woodrat
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Neotoma magister
Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
FSC
Invertebrates
Brook floater
Edmund's snaketail dragonfly
Alasmidonta varicosa
Ophiogomphus edmundo
FSC
FSC*
June 16, 2000 Page 2 of 3
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Pygmy snaketail dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Vascular Plants
Spreading avens Geum radiatum Endangered
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Mountain golden heather Hudsonia montana Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's blazing star Liatris helleri Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Nonvascular Plants
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
HAYWOOD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis , FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered*
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscures FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 3 of 6
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
JACKSON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Sicklefin redhorse Moxostoma sp. FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
(winter records)
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC
Whitewater crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere prinsi FSC
Tawny crescent butterfly Phycoides batesii maconensis FSC
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
June 16, 2000 Page 4 of 3
COMMON NAME SCIENTMC NAME STATUS
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivicolor FSC
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila. sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila virginiea var. caroliniana FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC
A liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula FSC*
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
MADISON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens FSC*
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) rafinesquii FSC*
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Spotfin chub Hybopsis monacha Threatened*
Olive darter Percina squamata FSC
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula FSC
Invertebrates
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered*
Sculpted supercoil Paravitrea ternaria FSC
Vascular Plants
Piratebush Buckleya distichophylla FSC
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
June 16, 2000 Page 5 of 6
KEY:
Status Deflnition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.
June 16, 2000 Page 6 of 6

?rl+ l ? J T . 1 ?'?.?
4 4 Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 West Summit Hill Drive. Knoxville, Tennessee X7,)02 '49D
t X
June 19, 2000
5
A 44.
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
GROUP XXXII BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, FRENCH BROAD AND LITTLE
TENNESSEE RIVER WATERSHEDS, BUNCOMBE, HAYWOOD, AND JACKSON
COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
Your letter of June 7, 2000 to John Shipp has been referred to me for a reply. TVA has reviewed
the project descriptions and maps for the following proposed bridge replacements in western North
Carolina:
,1• B-3614;SR 1141 over Hominy Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3616, SR 1319 over Mill Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3619, SR 3439 over Bill Moore Creek, Buncombe County
• B-3470, US 276 over Bird Creek/Pigeon River overflow, Haywood County
• B-3656, US 19-23 (Park Street) over Pigeon River, Haywood County
• B-3659, SR 1147 over Allen Creek, Haywood County
• B-3661, SR 1503 over Crabtree Creek, Haywood County
• B-3667, SR 1131 over Trout Creek, Jackson County
• B-3869, SR 1151 over Big Pine Creek, Madison County
The federal categorical exclusion documents prepared for these projects should note that an
approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required for each of the bridge replacements.
At this time, we are not aware of any unusual environmental concerns present at the bridge
replacement sites.
When completed, TVA wishes to receive a copy of the federal categorical exclusion documents to
assist in its environmental review of the same actions. inclusion of information related to wetlands
and potential mitigation, Floodplain Management Executive Order, National Historic Preservation
Act compliance, and Endangered Species Act compliance would greatly facilitate TVA's eventual
approval of the projects. Other issues to be discussed would vary according to project location and
'impacts but may include, as appropriate, state-listed species (biodiversity impacts) and visual
impacts.
Mr. William D. Gilmore
Page 2
June 19, 2000
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Jon M. Loney, Manag
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
.,

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
October 29, 2001 a4-A
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
Divf,?ion of Archives and History
,?Je ey J. Crow, Director
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek, B-3614, Buncombe County, ER 00-101 `.'
Thank you for your letter of June 7, 2000, concerning the above project.
We regret the omission of comments on archaeological resources in our previous responses.
There are no known-recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological
resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and toe
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. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618
14orn-'s
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 9733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone].715-4801

e?s?o
North ;Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State' Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
January 10, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Oti
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager ?h
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook"
SUBJECT: B-3614;`Replace Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek, State Project
#8.2843901, Federal Aid # BRZ-1141(9), Buncombe County, ER .02-8268
Thank you for your letter of November 26, 2001, transmitting the survey report by Mattson, Alexander
and Associates for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 o£ the. National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that
the following property is not eligible for listing in' the National Register of Historic Places
O H. Winchester Farm
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,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Mattson, Alexander and Associates
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
C........ ?. os___t__ ci c xi R{.,..n? Qt Go1Pi.r, yr Af i R Mo.t q-;-r-t- P.wah 77FoQ_dh1R
Telephone/Fix
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
(919) 71114761.715-401
d?.Ern1Eo?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow. Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
May 16, 2002
MEMORANDUM
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director MAY 2(,)

TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
•"'
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?y?', lslV;udsYti° ps
Division of Highways
,f Nh?ronYS{,'
Department of Transportation
??'?-`? ±-?•,?''`- "
FROM: David Brook
t;
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creek, B-3614, Buncombe County, ER 02-9495
Thank you for your letter April 8, 2002, of transmitting the archaeological survey report by Brad
Duplantis, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. for the above project.
During the course of the survey, no sites were located within the project area. Mr. Duplantis has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Brad Duplantis, The Louis Berger Group, Inc

Location Melling Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2 7 69914 6 1 3
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
Telephone/Fax
[phone] 9733-8653
[phone] •71514801
[phone] 9715-4801
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comm- S* slo
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT n ?.FROM! Owen F. Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 9
DATE: August 21, 2000
SUBJECT: Scoping for Group XXXII Bridge Replacement Projects in Buncombe, Haywood, Jackson,
Madison and Bladen/Sampson Counties
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. We apologize for the delay in our response but a
staff shortage has put us behind in our reviews. 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)(e)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves nine bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina and one
project in Bladen/Sampson Counties. Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend
on the extent of disturbance in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We prefer bridge designs
that do not alter the natural strearn morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge designs should also include
provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the subject
surface waters. We are also concerned about impacts to designated Public Mountain Trout Watcrs
(P1ViTW) and environmental documentation for these projects should include description of any streams or
wetlands on the project site and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by
construction.
B-3615 - BladenJSampson County Bridge No. 44 on NC 41 over the South River
There is a record of the broad-tailed madtom near the bridge. Additionally, there appear to be
significant wetlands associated with this area. This reach is also considered anadromous fish spawning
area An in-water work moratorium is requested between February 1-July 1 to minimize impacts to
anadromous fish and other spawning fish. We prefer that debris not be discharged to the river during
dernolition activities to prevent obstructions to navigation and impacts to potential habitat for the broad-
tailed madtom.
B-3614 - Buncombe County, Bridge No. 300 on SR 1141 over Hominy Creels
Hominy Creek is considered a spawning stream for trout- We request an instrcam construction
moratorium between November 1-April 15 to mini.miu impacts to spawning trout.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] cxt. 281 - F2x: (9191 715-7643

Group XXII Bridges
2
August 21, 2000

B-3616 - Buncombe County, Bridge No 740 on SR 1319 over Mill Creek
This creek is not considered to be trout waters. We have no concerns other than minimization of
impacts to water quality and habitat.
B-3619 - Buncombe County, Bridge No. 10056 on SR 3449 over Bill Moore Creek
This stream reach is used by trout for spawning. Baldwin Field Branch, which drains off of
nearby National Forest Land, is a designated trout stream. The confluence of this stream is in
close proximity of the bridge structure. We would prefer the existing bridge be replaced with a
spanning structure due to the importance of this area for trout movement. We request an instream
construction moratorium between November 1 and April 15 to minimize impacts to trout
reproduction.
B-3470 - Haywood County, Bridge No 163 on US 276 over Pigeon River Overflow
This reach of the Pigeon River supports trout. We request a moratorium on in-water construction
between November 1 and April 15. Additionally, there are records for the Appalachian Elktoe
upstream of this site. If suitable habitat exists, the animal maybe found downstream of this
project. Therefore, we request that you consult with the US Fish-and Wildlife on this project
concerning impacts to this species.
B-3656 - Haywood County Bridge No. 419 on US 19-23 over the Pigeon River
The reach of the Pigeon does not support trout. We do not anticipate a moratorium would be
required.
B-365 9 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 112 on SR 1147 over Allens Creek
Aliens Creek is considered trout waters. We prefer that the old bridge be replaced with a spanning
structure. We request a moratorium between November 1 and April 15 to minimize impacts to
trout reproduction.
B-3661 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 36 on SR 1503 over Crabtree Creek
This section of Crabtree Creek is not considered trout waters. We do not anticipate a moratorium
would be required.
B-3667 - Jackson County, Bridge No. 47 on SR 1131 over Trout Creek
Trout creek is considered trout waters. We request a moratorium on in-water construction between.
November I and April 15.
B-3869 - Madison County, Bridge No. 146 on SR 1151 over Big Pine Creek
Big Pine in this reach is not known to support trout. We do not anticipate a moratorium would be
required.
Because the Corps of Engineers (COE) recognizes all of the above counties as "trout water
counties", the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed projects. The
following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
Group XXII Bridges
August 21, 2000
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Structures should be
inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
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 and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and back£illing should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gameflsh and wildlife.
6. In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout-spawning period of
November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
8. If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts an utilized, they should be designed so that all
water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could
be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstr am 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 box culverts at 15400t 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.
1 I . 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.
'T'hank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any quostions 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. Mark Cantrell, Biologist, USFWS Asheville
Mr. David Timpy, NCDOT Coordinator, COE Wilmington
Buncombe
Transportation Department
74 Washington Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28804
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]. -
July 5, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: COMMENTS FOR GROUP XXXII BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
PROJECTS IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding the proposed Group XXXII Bridge
Replacement Projects for Buncombe County. In your letter, you solicited comments
concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts these projects would have on our school
svstem.
Buncombe County school buses operate in all areas of the Group XXXII Bridge
Replacement Projects. Our primary concern is safe school bus routing. As long as an
on-site.detour for each project is available and is constructed to provide a safe route for
school buses, there will not be an adverse impact on our current school bus routes.
If you need further information, please contact me at the address or telephone number
listed above.
Sincerely,
Pamela Harding
Senior Supervisor
Countv Public Schools
Pc: Harold F. Laflin
Director of Transportation

NORFOLK
sw $OLP MERN
Norfolk Southern Corporation J. N. Carter, Jr.
99 Spring Street, S.W. Chief Engineer
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-0142 Bridges and Structures
404/529-1408 Philip N. Decker
Fax: [phone] Engineer
Public Improvements
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Subject: Luthers, North Carolina - Proposed Relocation of the SR- 1141 (Morgan Branch
Rd.) Grade Crossing at Milepost T-11.1 (AAR/DOT No. 720 372E) as Part of a Project to
Replace Bridge No. 300 Over Hominy Creek. TIP No. B-3614, Buncombe County.
April 26, 2002
File: 117-28912 PND
Ms. Stacey B. Harris, P. E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Harris:
Reference is made to your letter dated April 16,. 2002 furnishing. us with
preliminary plans showing the subject project and requesting our input into the design.
I have reviewed the plan and recommend that approach grade of relocated SR-
1141 south of the track be lessened to improve the riding characteristics of the grade crossing.
We estimate the cost of installing automatic flashing light crossing signals and
gates at the relocated crossing to be approximately $115,000. The cost of a 36' concrete panel
grade crossing surface is estimated to be $18,000.
Please contact me at 404/529-1436 should you have questions.
Sincerely, -,
7
P. N. Decker
Engineer
Public Improvements
Cys & Attachments:
Mr. C. K. Rickman
Mr. T. E. Grim
Mr. E. G. Cody
Ooeratina Subsidiary: Norfolk Southern Railway Company