20041146 Ver 1_Complete File_20040714

1.?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEN'T' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovF,RNoR
July 15, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 0 411 4 6
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRFrARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
-"- I zr 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Applications for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105 (Glady Fork Rd) over Glady
Fork Creek, in Transylvania County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1105(9), State Project No. 8.200120 1, TIP No. B-3914.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 116 on new location with a 50 ft single span 21 "cored
slab bridge approximately 40 feet west of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on-site
on the existing bridge. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Permanent Impacts: There will be no permanent stream impacts as a result of this project.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary dewatering is necessary for bridge construction. The temporary
dewatering will occur at the elevation and location as shown in the permit drawings. Diking
materials and methods will be determined during construction by the contractor. Temporary
impervious dikes and associated ponding and dewatering will result in 0.135 acres of temporary
impacts affecting 60 feet of existing stream channel.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 116 in Transylvania County was built in 1963. The 36 ft bridge is composed of a
timber floor on 1-beams, and timber piles with concrete footings. This structure can be removed
without dropping any of its components into Glady Fork Creek. 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.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
4
Temporary Dewatering
There will be 60 feet of temporary impacts to Glady Fork Creek from the construction of the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 116. The area of temporary impacts will result from
dewatering for the construction of the bridge abutments in the existing stream channel.
Water Resources
The water resource impacted for project B-3914 is Glady Fork Creek, a tributary of the French
Broad River. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies
Glady Fork Creek as "C Tr". Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing,
wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The supplemental
classification "Tr"for Trout waters, refers to freshwaters protected for natural trout propagation
and survival of stocked trout. The classification date and index number for this portion of the
creek are 7/1/73, 6-6-7.
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-1, or WS-II within 1 mile upstream or
downstream of the project study area (DEM 1993, DWQ 2003b). However, Glady Fork Creek
flows into East Fork French Broad River, which carrys the High Quality Water (HQW)
classification, approximately 1,750 ft downstream from Bridge No. 116.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Glady Fork Creek is
considered to be trout waters. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters will be implemented during construction. In addition Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B .0024), will be implemented and adhered to throughout the project.
Construction in the stream channel and within the 25 ft buffer will not occur during the trout
spawning period of October 15 - April 15.
Glady Fork 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, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) lists twelve federally protected species for Transylvania County (Table 1). The
Biological Conclusions for each of these species remain valid.
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for all listed species as reflected in the
attached CE dated October 2002, with the exception of the Appalachian elktoe and oyster mussel,
which both received "Unresolved" biological conclusions. In October 2002, NCDOT staff
biologists surveyed for the Appalachian elktoe and oyster mussel and reached a biological
conclusion of "No Effect" for both species.
Table 1. Federallv-Protected Species for Transylvania County
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological
Conclusion
Clemm s muhlenber ii Bo turtle T S/A N/A
Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E No Effect
E ioblasma ca sae ormis oyster mussel E No Effect
Geum radiatum spreading avens E No Effect
4
Helonias bullata swamp pink T No Effect
Isotria medeoloides small whorled ogonia T No Effect
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii mountain sweet pitcher-plant E No Effect
Gymnderma lineare rock gnome lichen E No 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.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of Glady Fork Creek will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
the temporary dewatering of Glady Fork Creek. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance
with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (F number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) will be requested 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.
TVA: 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.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Chris Rivenbark at crivenbarkPdot.state.nc.us or [phone].
cc: W/attachment
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC

W/o attachment
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr Ron Watson, P.E. (Div. 14), Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis (Div. 14), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
Mrs. Robin Hancock, PDEA
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002 041146 USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
Section 10 Pert-nit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: R
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699
Telephone Number: 919-733-7844
E-mail Address:
Fax Number: 919-715-1501
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
F-1
hki
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105 (Glady Fork Rd) over Glady Fork
Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3914
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Transylvania Nearest Town: Rosman
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Located on SR 1105 (Glady Fork
Rd) over Glady Fork Creek southeast of Rosman.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35.1157°N, 82.7636°W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Glady Fork Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application Rural minor collector, with residential and forested land
dominant.
Page 6 of 12
C
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge replacement on new location with a 50 ft single span 21"cored slab bridge
approximately 40 feet west of the existing bridge using mechanical highway construction
equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicates the Bridge No. 116 carries a sufficiency rating of 36.7 out of a possible 100. This
structure is considered to be both functionally obsolete and structurally deficient.
Replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 0.0135 acres of temporary fill in
Glady Fork Creek as a result of the replacement of Bridge No. 116.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Type of
Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1-14+83.70 Temp. fill 60ft Glady Fork Creek 17 ft Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site.
60 ft of temporary fill
Page 8 of 12
4
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number
' Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake> Pand estuary, sound,
Indicate on ma
(
p)
(acres)
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F-] uplands n stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
It is more cost effective and it will have lower environmental impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Page 10 of 12
4
Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No F
IX. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes [:] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1
2
Total
Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
4
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
X. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XI. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes 0 No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
XIII. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

f SR 1107 ,
OJECT
L AT
W
f? V NCH RO
? SR 1114
/J
FRENC BROAD
t
Go
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
VICINITY
PROJECT: 8.2001201 (B-3914)
?? RIDGE0116 ON SR1105 BETWEEN SR1107
AND SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LINE
OVER GLADY FORK CREEK
I _ ISHEET OF 1 051051041
NORTH CAROLINA
? ? o W o
;z
zWW o
0 / / F W F
4k z M WHu
U pq v'
W!S I Z-4 40,
LU .4
c Cie
_? z i- ua o
O ? z
/ N 0) W C
z 8 -
1, 1 en > ZLU
O . ?? \ I
F W p E.,
o-I °z
9<
a I I ------?-??oi?
El ? w
1-o C] I ------?-- J
d
M I d y u o t
(?j V _ o
to
o ?
$ ?- B u
SO/I - a
r
U OV r0
a
F_ U:. o a
°hm u: UQ
tJ ?• wN~
JZIn ? w
aOh
~S W? \ Z?
>?Uce N U) \ w
• 1 \ of
I ? z
Q lu Ln
\ \ ?-
3: r \ \ N p
InOZ \ \ o 00
Zs0 \ LLU-) ir) 3
t9oZQ \ \ N
CL, co cm J o q
I o \ 3 ?
i1 00 \
• V I
0
0
r
°o
tn
r
O
O
v
0
0
W
r
N 11 N
I
i
'O ao
W
0 A o 1
1
N 51,
N
b??? N 1 II II

on"
F-+?qq
1?
1
00 '" 1
U I
N li•

r I?1
j •i
?
°o
/
/ cq
N
/ II

1
1
I
1

1
r1
1
I
N
N
i?
N o. I

ca
W
o z
c
WW o
?. F ?z
W?a
o F `n

?' ? O e
a4
'"yea
® e -4o?° r
C? ° >

N
z j o

Eat
p
F1 W
W

_L
j 2i
0
I
3
W
W
J_
U.
O
w
CL
1
?
N
l ?Oy
g
q
?;
+ O

1 0..aW?C? W
O O
/
I
?
NI N
N

t
L-vE-2G 4 ;'3 8i17,
k; ny aI ou 4c 5I;"l'?" 914 e4.p eh
.!? 1 LT
v
rn
_N
z
N
'G
rn
m
v
X
n
m
O
z
A
A
c_
v
m
.n
r O
rMm
3e z vA
).0-4
rlam
mph
>O
nA
m>
O
O
W
to
0
O
z
Q
m
fan

a
oQ
?m
m
v o ?
m
D

o ?
X
H
O
N
-
I
?
H
D?

c
cn w
S ? H
r?
G) m
w '
co bo
z
o ?
v

m
z

J ccn
Z
8
a
.4
a?
?yy
i
? C
CC?
?r
S
V

t

? C
11

rx
s?
ar4
r
PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE NO. NAME ADDRESS
CHAMPION CATTLE & TREE FARMS P.O. 1BOX 7587
A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASHEVILLE, N.C.
28802-7587

z

Q
cn
a¢

zx 5 m

b
o °
(-• '= Q N
Oo >g

it J ap
z b
9
W
??.. w O
H
a
¢Q
a
w

Ch
c Q
U w
w
z
2
N

O
M

2 d co
In b

E
"
s
rc

E
m c
o?
g
? v
?
z i
o
n

.

1-
U
N L d
w c) E O
Q

w LL ? (h to
C?7
U
? 0 0
Fw - 0 0

7
? U
C
O l0
LL
fn ?

c ? m p
O
Z O
lL -'
?
Q

? C C:

C u
p
S

H
c ?

0
c
y
? Q
x?
o
n. w c
? o

z
a g

W ~ C

N
C ?
C
N O
ll j I O

7 W
F„

O ? O^
f0
v
?
I

Z ? I 0

? 0
z
H
w
Transylvania County
Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105
Over Glady Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1105 (9)
State Project 8.2001201
TIP No. B-3914
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
17-j/- 03
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
t -Environmental Management Director, PDEA
13-7-0
3 ?- ,?-
Date ?' John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA

Transylvania County
Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105
Over Glady Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1105 (9)
State Project 8.2001201
TIP No. B-3914
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
7-Z9-03
Date Robin Y. Hancock
Project Planning Engineer, PDEA
Date William T. Goodwin Jr., PE
Unit Head, PDEA

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Transylvania County
Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105
Over Glady Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1105 (9)
State Project 8.2001201
TIP No. B-3914
evelonment
Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 14 Construction, Structure Design Unit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented. The Bridge is composed entirely of timber. Therefore, Bridge No. 116 will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United States.
Division 14 Construction
Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the wetted
stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate vicinity of bridge
abutments.
All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags or
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
If concrete is used during construction, adequate precautions must be taken to prevent direct
contact between wet concrete and stream water. Water that has contacted uncured concrete will
not be discharged to surface waters.
Construction in the stream channel and within the 25-foot buffer is prohibited during the trout-
spawning period of October 15 - April 15 in order to protect the egg and fry stages from
sedimentation.
Riprap placed for bank stabilization should be limited to the streambank below the high water
mark, and vegetation should be used for stabilization above the high water elevation.
All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly inspected and
maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials.
Any overwidened areas at the bridge site should be restored; and the width/depth ratio typical
of the stream should be maintained through the bridge site.
Division 14 Construction, Roadside Environmental
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to any
ground disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Temporary
or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15 days of ground
disturbing activities. Erosion control matting to conjunction with appropriate seeding should
be used on disturbed streambanks and areas around bridge crossings instead of straw mulch.
Grading and backflffing should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible. Backfill materials should be obtained from upland sites.
Green sheet
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
July 2003
Transylvania County
Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105
Over Glady Fork Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1105 (9)
State Project 8.2001201
TIP No. B-3914
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 116 is included in the latest approved North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and is eligible for
the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 116 has a sufficiency rating of 36.7 out of
a possible 100 for a new structure. This bridge is considered to be both functionally obsolete and
structurally deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in Transylvania County, southeast of Rosman, close to the intersection of
SR 1107 and SR 1105 (see Figure 1). Development in the area is primarily residential and
forested in nature.
SR 1105 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and it is not a National Highway System Route. This route is not a designated bicycle route and
there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1105 has a 21-foot (6.3-meter) pavement width with 2-foot to 4-
foot (0.6-meter to 1.2-meter) grass shoulders (see Figure 3A and 313). The roadway grade is in a
slight vertical sag through the project area. The existing bridge is on a tangent.
The existing Bridge No. 116 is a single span structure constructed in 1963. The superstructure
has a timber deck on I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure is composed
entirely of timber. The bridge is 36 feet (11 meters) long with a clear roadway width of 19.1 feet
(5.8 meters). There is approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) between the deck surface and streambed.
There are two lanes of traffic on the bridge. Presently the bridge is posted with weight
restrictions of 14 tons for single vehicles and 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.

An underground telephone and fiber optic line is located along the west side of SR 1105. These
go under the stream at a depth of 4 feet (1.2 meters) and are 8-10 feet (2.4 - 3.0 meters) west of
the bridge. Utility impacts are considered low.
The current traffic volume of 160 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 300 VPD by
the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 2%
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is statutory 55 mph (90
kmh).
According to NCDOT's Traffic Engineering Branch, no accidents have been reported in the
vicinity of the project during a recent 3-year period.
According to the Transportation Director for Transylvania County Schools, there are four school
bus crossings per day over this bridge. They would not be able to re-route the buses.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure for Bridge No. 116 will consist of a 55-foot (16.7-meter) long bridge
located west of the existing bridge. There will be sufficient width to provide for two 11-foot
(3.3-meter) lanes with 2-foot (0.6-meter) offsets on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 22-foot (6.6-meter) pavement width to provide two
11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes. Shoulder widths will be 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each side. The
shoulder widths will be increased 3 feet (1 meter) where guardrail is warranted.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
There are two "build" options considered for this bridge replacement. They are described as
follows:
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 116 with anew 55 foot (16.7 meter) long bridge by realigning
SR 1105 east of the existing bridge. Construct the replacement bridge at
approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. Traffic would
be maintained using the existing alignment during construction.
Alternate 2: (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 116 with a new 55 foot (16.7 meter) long
bridge by realigning SR 1105 west of the existing bridge. Construct the
replacement bridge at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained using the existing alignment during
construction.
2
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
An off-site detour is not considered to be prudent due to the lack of a suitable detour route.
The "do-nothing" alternative is not practical and will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge.
This is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1105.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. This is
due to the fact that major structural components of this bridge are timber, thus replacement is
more prudent than rehabilitation.
D. Recommended Alternate
As recommended in Alternate 2, Bridge No. 116 will be replaced with a new bridge on new
location at approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge (see Figure 2). The
new Bridge No. 116 will be approximately 55 feet (16.7 meters) in length and 26 feet (7.8
meters) in width. A travelway of 22 feet (6.6 meters) will be accommodated, with an offset of 2
feet (0.6 meter) on each side. During construction, traffic will be maintained along the existing
roadway. A design exception may be needed.
The approach roadway will consist of two 11-foot (3.3-meter) travel lanes and shoulder widths of
at least 4 feet (1.2 meters). The shoulder widths will be 3 feet (1 meter) wider where guardrail is
warranted. There will be approximately 380 feet (116 meters) of approach work on each side of
Bridge No. 116.
The construction of the recommended alternate does not have the potential to cause substantial
impacts to the local environment. Alternate 1 provides an improved horizontal alignment, but
incurs more stream impacts. It also results in impacts to the Cassell Cemetery located
approximately 100 feet (30 meters) east of the existing bridge. Alternate 2 crosses the stream at
a better location and is more cost effective. For these reasons, Alternate 2 is the preferred
alternate.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS (Table 1)
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:

COMPONENT
ALTERNATE 1
(new location east) Recommended
ALTERNATE 2
(new location west)
Structures $ 115,000 $ 115,000
Bridge Removal $ 6,000 $ 6,000
Roadway & Approaches
Detour & Approaches $ 796,000
$ 0 $ 159,000
$ 0
Engineering & Contingencies $ 133,000 $ 70,000
Total Construction $ 1,050,000 $ 350,000
Right of Way $ 41,000 $ 52,000
Total Cost $1,091,000 $ 402,000
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with respect to
possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly influence the
potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area present important management
limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In
addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
Regional Characteristics
The project area lies in the western portion of North Carolina within the Blue Ridge
physiographic province. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 2250-2400 feet
(675-720 meters) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1969). The topography of the project
vicinity is mountainous with steep slopes rising from southwest and northeast banks, and gradual
slopes rising from the northwest and southeast banks.
4

The proposed project is in a rural area in Transylvania County approximately 15 miles (24.3 km)'
southwest of Brevard, NC. Transylvania County's major economic resources are forestry and
tourism. The population of Transylvania County in 2000 was 29,429 (North Carolina Office of
State Budget, Planning and Management 2002).
Soils
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of Transylvania
County, North Carolina (USDA 1974). The map units in the project area are Rosman fine sandy
loam, Ashe fine sandy loam with 25-45% slopes, and Tusquitee loam with 6-15% slopes.
• Rosman fine sandy loam is mapped along both banks of Glady Fork within the project area.
This soil is very frequently flooded for brief durations. It is a well-drained to moderately
well-drained, nearly level soil on stream floodplains. The seasonal high water table is at 2.5
feet (0.75 meters) in winter. This soil is not classified as a hydric soil by the NRCS.
• Ashe fine sandy loam with 25-45% slopes is mapped adjacent to Rosman soils along both
sides of Glady Fork Road, and on the north side of Glady Fork. This soil is somewhat
excessively drained, sloping soils on side slopes with rough topography. The seasonal high
water table remains below a depth of 5 feet (1.5 meters). This soil is not classified as a
hydric soil by the NRCS.
• Tusquitee loam with 6-15% slopes is mapped adjacent to Rosman soils along both sides of
Glady fork Road, and on the south side of Glady Fork. This soil is found in upland draws
and on foot slopes. It is well-drained and the seasonal high water table remains below 5 feet
(1.5 meters). This soil is not classified as a hydric soil by the NRCS.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height, in feet,
that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years
(typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands. The soils in
the project area have the following site indices:
• The Rosman soils have a site index of 85-95 for white pine (Pinus strobus), 75-85 for
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), 95-115 for tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and 80-90
for red oak (Quercus rubra).
• The Ashe soils have a site index of 75-85 for white pine and 55-75 for shortleaf pine.
• Tusquitee soils have a site index of 85-95 for white pine, 75-85 for shortleaf pine, 90-110 for
tulip poplar, and 75-85 for red oak.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to 'be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical characteristics likely to be
impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and
water quality aspects of the water resources. Probable impacts to surface waters are also
discussed, as well as means to minimize impacts.
5

Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is designed to
maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Glady Fork [Index # 6-6-7] is
classified as a Class C Tr water body (NCDENR, 1999). Class C water resources are waters
protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human
body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or
incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. The
supplemental Tr classification refers to trout waters, which are freshwaters protected for natural
trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. The two unnamed tributaries present within the
project area and project vicinity have not been classified individually by DWQ, therefore they
carry the same C rating as their receiving stream.
No streams classified as Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of the project study area, however two streams classified
as High Quality Water (HQW) occur within 1.0 miles (1.6 km) of the project study area. Glady
Fork Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as
a National Wild and Scenic River.
Neither stream is located within the watershed drained by Glady Fork. Laurel Branch drains into
the north side of the East Fork of the French Broad River approximately 1 mile (1.6 km)
downstream from the confluence of Glady Fork and the East Fork of the French Broad River.
Boring Creek drains into the south side of the East Fork of the French Broad River
approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) upstream from the confluence of Glady Fork and the East Fork of
the French Broad River. Both Laurel Creek and Boring Creek are classified as Class C Tr HQW.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the French Broad River basin (FBRO1 subr basin, HUC 06010105).
Glady Fork originates about 6 miles (9.7 km) south of the project area near the South Carolina
state line, as the South Prong of Glady Fork. The West Prong of Glady Fork originates about 5
miles (8 km) southwest of the project site. These two streams converge to form Glady Fork
about 1 mile (1.6 km) south of the project site. Within the project area, Glady Fork flows in a
northwesterly direction. Just over 1 mile (1.6 km) north of the project site, Glady Fork empties
into the East Fork of the French Broad River.
Glady Fork is approximately 15-20 feet (4.5-6 meters) wide in the study area. The 2 to 4 foot
(0.6-1.2 meter) high banks are well vegetated and appear to be stable. The stream flows swiftly
within the project area, forming small rapids over cobbles, gravel, and sand. Some bedrock is
exposed forming a small waterfall just upstream from the bridge. On the day of the site visit the
flow seemed higher than normal, as indicated by many submerged, moss-covered rocks, and
slightly turbid water conditions. At the center of the channel the water depth ranged from 6
inches to 1.5 feet (0.15-0.45 meters). The stream has a completely closed canopy, except in the
area nearest the bridge, and its sinuosity is moderate.
6
Two unnamed tributaries flow into Glady Fork within or very close to the project area. The first
unnamed tributary (called UT1 for the remainder of this report) flows into Glady Fork on its
south side, and on the west side of Bridge No. 116. UT1 meanders outside the project area at all
times at a distance ranging from 75 to 150 feet (22.545 meters). This perennial stream is
approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters) wide and 4 inches (10 cm) deep. Its banks are 6 inches to 1
foot (15 cm-0.3 meters) high, and very well vegetated. The substrate is mainly gravel and sand,
however some riprap is present in the area where UT1 crosses under a gravel road to the west of
Glady Fork Road. On the day of the site visit the water was flowing swiftly and had good
clarity.
A second unnamed tributary (UT2) flows into Glady Fork on its south side and on the east side
of Bridge No. 116. This tributary actually parallels Glady Fork Road on its west side just south
of the project area, crossing under Glady Fork Road near the gravel road mentioned earlier. UT2
then flows in a northeasterly direction, leaving the project area briefly. Outside the project area
(80 feet or 24 meters), UT2 flows through a very small wetland. It eventually enters the project
area again and flows within 20 feet (6 meters) of Glady Fork Road on its east side before finally
reaching Glady Fork. UT2 is a perennial channel with characteristics much like those of UT1. It
is approximately 3 feet (0.9 meters) wide and 4-10 inches (10-25 cm) deep. Its banks are 6
inches to 1 foot (15 cm-0.3 meters) high, and well vegetated. Its substrate is mainly sand and
gravel. In areas closest to the road, riprap has also been added to the streambed. On the day of
the site visit the flow was swift and the water clarity was good.
Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential impacts
to water quality from point and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are
based upon published resource information and field study observations.
General Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a forested, largely undeveloped watershed. Within the immediate vicinity,
one residence borders Glady Fork Creek. A small garden and lawn are adjacent to the stream,
however a vegetative buffer is in place between the stream and the maintained landscape. Recent
small-scale logging activities are evident in the southwest portion of the project area. Potential
threats to stream quality in this area are larger scale forestry operations that would result in
increased soil erosion.
Basin-wide Assessment Report
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch,
Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring stations for
sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have varying levels of
tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived from the number of taxa
present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can then be given a bioclassification
ranging from Poor to Excellent.
7
There are no monitoring stations on Glady Fork, and no monitoring stations on the East Fork of
the French Broad River. In fact, the nearest sampling location is over 20 miles (32.4 km)
downstream from the project site, on the French Broad River. This site is located within
Transylvania county, northeast from Brevard, where the River crosses SR 1129. This location
was sampled in 1997 and was classified as "Excellent".
Impaired Waters
North Carolina's §303(d) List (NCDE 4& 2000) is a comprehensive public accounting of all
impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants, such as
nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal colifonm bacteria, and by pollution such as hydromodification
and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from point sources, non-point
sources and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation might be due to an individual
pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution or an unknown cause of impairment. This list is
compiled by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and submitted to the EPA by April 1
of every even year.
None of the water resources described above (Physical Characteristic of Surface Waters Section)
are designated as biologically impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of CWA
§303(d).
Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. Not all discharges, nor all
dischargers, are required to obtain a permit under NPDES. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Glady Fork as of June 2001 (NCDENR 2001).
Non-Point Source Discharge
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source (NPS) pollution comes
from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt runoff moves over the earth's surface,
natural and man-made pollutants are picked up, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes,
rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes
fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and
chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; sediments from construction sites, land
clearing, and eroding stream banks; salt from irrigation activities; acid drainage from abandoned
mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal wastes, and faulty septic systems; and
atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS pollutants on water resources vary, and in many
instances, may not be known. These pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water
supplies, recreation, wildlife, and fisheries (USEPA Office of Water, Non-Point Source Pollution
Control Program, What is Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution? - Questions and Answers;
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ga.html).
8

The investigating' biologists conducted a visual observation of potential NPS discharges located
within and near the project study area. Atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles; fertilizers,
herbicides, and insecticides from nearby residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff
from nearby residential driveways and parking lots and were identified as potential sources of
NPS pollution near the project area. Land clearing activities were observed within the
northwestern portion of the project area. These activities have the potential to increase sediment
loads in nearby streams.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary impacts
during the construction phases may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic community. In
general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-site detour is the
preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location results in more severe
impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge replacement. Alternative 1
would fill approximately 110 linear feet (33 meters) of UT2, and Alternative 2 would fill
approximately 60 linear feet (18 meters) of UT2.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation removal,
erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction activities and
construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to surface
and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity
occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, during the construction phase of the project
to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. In addition, "Guidelines for Construction
Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters" as incorporated into Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines will be implemented and adhered to throughout the project.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of 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
9

relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in
the context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-referenced to The Nature Conservancy
International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the
Southeastern United States (Weakley et al., 1998), which has recently been adopted as the
standard land cover classification by the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Representative
animal species that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions)
are also cited. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the
plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the
common name only. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed community, a
floodplain forest, and an upland forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these
terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned
separately in each community description.
Disturbed Community
This community includes three types of habitat that have recently been or are currently impacted
by human disturbance including regularly maintained roadside shoulder, powerline right-of-way,
and residential area. These habitats are kept in a low-growing, early successional state. The
regularly maintained roadside shoulder is mowed frequently and is dominated by herbaceous
vegetation. The dominant species include virgin's bower (Clematis virginiaria), fescue (Festuca
sp.), touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), black seed plantain (Plantain rugeli:), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
The powerline right-of-way is periodically mowed or cleared and is dominated by dense, scrubby
vegetation. The dominant species include red maple (Acer rubrum), joe-pye weed (Eupatorium
fistulosum), dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), blackberry,
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca
americana) and various ferns and grasses.
The residential area includes a maintained yard and garden, as well as a small poultry yard.
Several outbuildings and a mobile home are also present. The residential area is dominated by
various turf grasses, red maple, white pine (Pinus alba), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), forsythia (Forsythia sp.), daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), rose-of-sharon (Hibiscus
syriacus), and hosta (Hosta sp.).
10
t
Floodplain Forest
This community occurs along the banks of Glady Fork. The canopy is dominated by white pine,
but red maple and tulip poplar also make up a small component. Due to the planting of white
pines, the tree component of this community has been altered from its natural state. The
understory is very diverse and includes species such as black cherry (Prunus serotina), mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
viburnum (Viburnum sp.), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplissima), great rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). Herbaceous and viney
species include various ferns, jack-in-the-pulpit, galax (Galax aphylla), dog-hobble, sphagnum
(Sphagnum sp.), and grape (Vitis sp.). This community probably represents a marginal example
of a Montane Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The TNC
classification is most likely I.A.8.N.b.14 Pinus strobus Forest Alliance.
Upland Forest
This community occurs at higher elevations along Glady Fork above the floodplain community.
Small-scale logging operations have recently taken place in this community within the southwest
quadrant of the project area, creating an opening in the otherwise closed canopy. The canopy in
this area is dominated by planted white pines. However, a few other species are also present,
such as red maple, white oak (Quercus alba), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis). The
understory is generally dense and includes mountain laurel, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), witch-
hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), sourwood, sassafras (Sassafras albidum), and viburnum. The
herbaceous species present here include whorled loosetrife (Lysimachia quadrifolia), Indian pipe
(Monotropa uniflora), poison ivy, and various species of fems. This community is also a
marginal example of a Montane Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
The TNC classification is most likely I.A.8.N.b.13 Pinus strobus-Tsuga Canadensis Forest
Alliance.
Faunal Component
Species that prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in can be found in the disturbed
communities. The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and
capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living and dead
faunal components. The European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and American robin* (Turdus
migratorius) are common birds that use these habitats to find insects, seeds, or worms. The
American crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are
true opportunists and will dine on virtually any edible items including vegetation, fivits, seeds,
insects, and carrion. The roadside and residential areas may also be used by the woodchuck
(Marmota monax), which enjoys the grasses. Various species of mice (Peromyscus spp.) will
collect seeds and nest near human dwellings. The American toad (Bufo americanus) eats insects
found in grassy areas and near human dwellings, and the Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis) will feed on the toads.
11

Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or prefer a
mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefers a mix of
herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation or out in the
roadside, powerline right-of-way, and residential areas. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open areas. The black rat snake
(Elaphe obsoleta) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open areas. Indigo
bunting* (Passerina cyanea) and common yellowthroat* (Geothlypis trichas) are Neotropical
migrants that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas. Blue jays (Cyanocitta
cristata) and bluebirds (Sialia sialis) also utilize edge habitat.
Forested areas are important habitat for many species. Neotropical migratory birds, in
particular, are dependent on these areas. Species such as wood thrush* (Hylocichla mustelina),
hooded warbler* (Wilsonia citrina), and black-throated green warbler* (Dendroica virens) thrive
in heavily wooded locations. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the Northern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) may be found.
Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis) are often observed in wooded areas. The spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer) can be found under forest litter and in brushy undergrowth. The Eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry
weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) may also be found in forested communities.
Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Glady Fork is a mid-gradient, third-order stream. The bed material
consists of mostly of cobbles and gravel, with a small percentage of bedrock and sand. On the
day of the site visit, the water was slightly turbid with small amounts of suspended sediment. The
riparian community is mostly evergreen trees, with some deciduous trees and evergreen shrubs.
No aquatic vegetation was observed.
Transylvania County is designated a "trout" county by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC). Although this section of Glady Fork is not designated a Public Mountain
Trout Water (PMTW), it supports populations of wild trout. (A portion of the East Fork of the
French Broad River just downstream from the confluence with Glady Fork and approximately
1500 feet (450 m) downstream from the project site is Designated Public Mountain Trout Water.)
According to a communication with Scott Loftis, District 9 Fisheries Biologist for the WRC,
Glady Fork is likely to support brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta),
blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), mottled sculpin (Cottus baird:), saffron shiner (Notropis
rubricroceus), and warpaint shiner (Luxilus coccogenis).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and aquatic
communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the plants and animals
12

affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here along with recommendations to
minimize or eliminate impacts.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project construction
from clearing and paving. Estimated impacts are based on the length of the alternate and the
entire project area width. The project length for each proposed Alternate is 800 feet (244 meters)
long. The proposed project has variable dimensions. Table 2 describes the potential impacts to
terrestrial communities by habitat type. Because impacts are based on the entire project area
width, the actual loss of habitat will likely be less than the estimate.
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres (Hectares)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
(Recommended)
Community Permanent Permanent
Disturbed Roadside 0.19 (0.08) 0.39 (0.16)
Floodplain Forest 0.13 (0.05) 0.01 (0.00)
Upland Forest 1.37 (0.55) 0.26 (0.11)
Total Impact 1.69 (0.68) 0.66 (0.27)
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of foraging
and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will be
displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and some reptiles are mobile
enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals and less mobile species, such as
many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. The plants and animals that are
found in the upland communities are generally common throughout western North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate slopes, can
result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity
occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts should be made to ensure that no
sediment leaves the construction site.
Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a result of the loss
of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and terrestrial portions of
these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the terrestrial communities. The loss of
aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial fauna that rely on them as a food source.
13
1 .1
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and recolonize
the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and
other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of gills and other
respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering
water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased sedimentation may cause
decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity. Trout populations are particularly
sensitive to water-quality degradation.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction as it
can adversely affect aquatic life. Potential adverse effects can be minimized through the
implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. In
addition, "Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to and Crossing Trout Waters" as incorporated
into Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines will be implemented and followed throughout the
project. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide trout stream buffer zone
should be prohibited during the trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect
the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory issues:
"Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR §328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under these provisions.
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The Eastatoe, NC NWI map shows no wetlands in the project vicinity. No jurisdictional
wetlands were observed within the project area. Glady Fork and UT2 meet the definition of
surface waters, and are therefore classified as Waters of the United States. The channel of Glady
Fork is approximately 15-20 feet (4.5-6 meters) wide within the project area. The tributary's
channel is 3 feet (0.9 meters) wide. Both these streams are perennial.
Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States must be addressed
when applying to the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) for a permit. A worst-case scenario of
dropping components of the bridge in the water is assumed. Effective September 20, 1999, this
14
issue is included in the permit application for bridge reconstruction. The permit application
henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential impacts to the body of
water in the planning document for the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads
and Structures stipulates that "excavated materials shall not be deposited.... in rivers, streams, or
impoundments," and "the dropping of parts or components of structures into any body of water
will not be permitted unless there is no other practical method of removal. The removal from the
water of any part or component of a structure shall be done so as to keep any resulting siltation to
a minimum." To meet these specifications, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters, as supplemented with Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
All in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of Outstanding
Resource Waters or threatened and/or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion
of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible
agency to protect the Outstanding Resource Water or T&E species.
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration,
spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition document, dated
September 20, 1999.
Glady Fork in the vicinity of the proposed project is a Class C Tr water. It is not known to
provide habitat for aquatic species on the federal list of threatened and endangered species. It is
not classified as Public Mountain Trout Water by the WRC, but it does carry the DWQ
supplemental Tr classification. Therefore, Case 2 applies to the proposed replacement of Bridge
No. 116 over Glady Fork.
The superstructure consists of a timber floor on I-beams. The substructure consists entirely of
timber. Therefore, Bridge No. 116 will be removed without dropping any components into
Waters of the United States
The stream bed in the project area is nearly all cobbles and gravel. Therefore, conditions in the
stream do not raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is not recommended.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on the surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ.
Within the project area, Glady Fork is approximately 20 feet (6 meters) wide, and UT2 is 3 feet
(0.9 meters) wide. Table 3 lists the potential stream impacts, assuming a project area of 80 feet
15
(24 meters) for each alternate.'
Table 3. Estimated Area of Impact to Jurisdictional Surface Waters
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Recommended)
Water body Width in Impact in Impact in Impact in Impact in
ft (m) Linear ft (m) sq ft (m) Linear ft (m) sq ft (m)
Glady Fork 20(6) 80(24) 1,600 (148.6) 80(24) 1,600 (148.6)
UT2 3(0.9) 230(69) 690 (64.1) -
Total 23(6.9) 310(93) 2,290 (212.7) 80 (24) 1,600 (148.6)
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. Permits and
certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to construction
activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as promulgated
under 61 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in part, by another Federal agency
or department where that agency or department has determined that, pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions that neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment; and
• the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3361 from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. In addition, the
project is located in a designated "trout" county, where NCDOT must obtain a letter of approval
from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Final permit decision rests with the USACE.
Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding impacts, minimizing
16
impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical 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 COE, in determining "appropriate and
practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Practical means to minimize impacts to surface
waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median width,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
• Judicious pesticide and herbicide usage
• Implementation of a proposed tentative in-stream construction moratorium from October 15
through April 15 in order to minimize impacts on fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas
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. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site (i.e., compensatory
on-site mitigation).
Because this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide Permit, mitigation for impacts
to surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with the Division of
Water Quality Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than one
acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150
linear feet of streams may require compensatory mitigation." Written approval of the final
mitigation plan is required from NCDWQ before the regulatory agency issues a Water Quality
Certification. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020; 2092; January 15, 2002, the US
17
Army Corps of Engineers requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that
adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed project
impact and function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in
determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Final
compensatory stream mitigation requirements will be determined by the US Army Corps of
Engineers under the statutory provisions of CWA § 404 and the January 15, 2002 Final Notice of
Issuance of Nationwide Permits.
There are no wetland impacts associated with this project. However, a small, linear wetland
exists along the banks of UT2 approximately 80 feet (24 meters) outside the project area. This
wetland will not be affected regardless of which Alternate is chosen.
Each proposed Alternate would impact 80 linear feet (24 m) of Glady Fork. Alternative 1 would
fill approximately 110 linear feet (33 meters) of UT2, and Alternative 2 would fill approximately
60 linear feet (18 meters) of UT2. Although impacts to Glady Fork are probably unavoidable
since the project proposes a new alignment, choosing Alternative 2 will result in the least
impacts to UT2.
In addition, "Guidelines for Construction Adjacent to and Crossing Trout Waters" as
incorporated into Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines should be implemented and followed
throughout the project. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide trout stream
buffer zone should be prohibited during the trout spawning season of October 15 through April
15 to protect the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
Because the stream in the proposed project area is designated as a Class C Tr, control methods
for high quality waters should be implemented as included in NCDOT s Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines.
If the final length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters), compensatory
mitigation may be required. The environmental regulatory agencies will ultimately provide final
permit and compensatory mitigation decisions for the project.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces or their
difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed for
Transylvania County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project
construction, are discussed in the following sections.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
18
The USFWS lists 9species under federal protection for Transylvania County as of February 25,
2003. These species are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Species Under Federal Protection in Transylvania County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus E
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe lasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis E
Vascular Plants
Spreading avens Geum radiatum E
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesff E
Nonvascular Plants
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare E
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T (S/A) Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance with other rare species.
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows, along
with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Vertebrate Family: Emydidae
Federally Listed: 1997
The bog turtle is a small freshwater turtle reaching a maximum carapace length of 4.5 in (11.4
cm). These turtles have a domed carapace that is weakly keeled and is light brown to ebony in
color. The scutes have a lighter-colored starburst pattern. The plastron is brownish-black with
contrasting yellow or cream areas along the midline. This species is distinguished by a
conspicuous orange, yellow, or red blotch on each side of the head.
The bog turtle is semi-aquatic and is typically found in freshwater wetlands characterized by
open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow-moving streams, ditches, and boggy areas. The bog
turtle is also found in wetlands in agricultural areas subject to light to moderate livestock
grazing, which helps to maintain an intermediate stage of succession. During the winter, this
19
species hibernates just below the upper surface'of mud. Mating occurs in May and June, and the
female deposits two to six eggs in sphagnum moss or sedge tussocks in May, June, or July. The
diet of the bog turtle is varied, consisting of beetles, lepidopteran and caddisfly larvae, snails,
millipedes, pondweed and sedge seeds, and carrion.
The southern population of the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
to the northern population, therefore, the southern population is not afforded protection under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. No habitat exists in the project area for the bog turtle.
There are no freshwater wetlands characterized by open fields, meadows, or marshes with slow
moving streams, ditches, or boggy areas near the bridge. A search of the NHP database revealed
no occurrences of the bog turtle within 2 miles (3.2 km).
Glaucomysabrinus coloratus (Carolina northern flying squirrel) Endangered
Vertebrate Family: Sciuridae
Federally Listed: 1985
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small mammal weighing about 3 to 5 ounces (95 to 140
grams). The adult squirrel is gray with a reddish or brownish wash on the back, and a grayish
white to white underside. It has a large flap of skin along either side of its body from wrist to
ankle. The skin flaps and its broad flattened tail allow the northern flying squirrel to glide from
tree to tree. It is a strictly nocturnal animal with large dark eyes.
There are several isolated populations of the northern flying squirrel in the western part of North
Carolina along the Tennessee border. This squirrel is found above 5000 feet (1517 meters) in the
vegetation transition zone between hardwood and coniferous forests. Both forest types are used
to search for food and the hardwood forest is used for nesting sites. The squirrel can subsist on
lichens and fungi throughout much of its range; however, the diet can also include seeds, buds,
fruits, cones, and insects.
Biological Conclusion: ' No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the Carolina northern flying squirrel. The project area is
at an average elevation of 2250 feet (675 meters) with no transition zone between hardwood and
coniferous forests. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this animal within the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1994
The Appalachian elktoe is recognized by a thin, kidney-shaped shell about 3.2 inches (8.1 cm)
long, 1.4 inches (3.5 cm) high, and 1 inch (2.5 cm) wide. The outer shell surface of juvenile
mussels is yellowish-brown whereas the adult shell is dark brown to greenish-black in color.
20
Rays may be prominent to obscure. The inside shell surface is shiny white to bluish-white,
changing to a salmon, pinkish, or brownish color in the central and beak cavity portions of the
shell.
The Federal Register lists two known surviving populations of the Appalachian elktoe. One is in
the Little Tennessee River between Emory Lake in Macon County and Fontana Reservoir in
Swain County. The other is in the Nolichucky River system in Yancey and Mitchell counties.
The habitat in these locations can be described as relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and
rivers with cool, well-oxygenated, moderate- to fast-flowing water. Substrates are gravelly mixed
with cobble and boulders, or occasionally coarse and sandy.
Two additional occurrences were found in the files of the North Carolina NHP. One is a finding
of a single specimen in Yancey County in the Cane River, a major tributary of the Nolichucky
River. The other finding was a single dead specimen in the Tuckasegee River in Swain County.
Additional information from the USFWS Asheville Field Office indicates that the extant range
has recently been expanded in both the Little Tennessee and French Broad basins.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of this species include water quality and
habitat degradation resulting from impoundments, stream channelization projects, and point and
non-point sources of pollution and siltation.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Historic information indicates that the Appalachian elktoe was once widely distributed in western
North Carolina; historic locations include the French Broad River, which lies just downstream
from the bridge replacement site. A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of the
Appalachian elktoe in the project vicinity. A visual and tactile survey above and below the
existing bridge was conducted at the project site on October 23, 2002 by NCDOT biologists Jeff
Burleson, Neil Medlin, and Tom Dickinson. No evidence of freshwater mussels was found.
Epioblasma capsaeformis (oyster mussel) Endangered
Invertebrate Familiy: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1997
The shell of the oyster mussel is a dull to sub-shiny, yellowish to green color with numerous
narrow dark green rays. The inside of the shell is white to bluish-white. Shells of females are
slightly inflated and very thin toward the posterior margin of the shell.
The oyster mussel historically occurred throughout much of the Cumberlandian region of the
Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages in Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. It is
now considered endangered in Kentucky and Virginia, and is known to survive in small
populations in only a few locations in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia. Recent research
uncovered a record of a collection of this species in Madison County in 1918 and from the
French Broad River at Asheville.
21
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Historic information indicates that the oyster mussel was once widely distributed in western
North Carolina; historic locations include the French Broad River, which lies just downstream
from the bridge replacement site. A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of the oyster
mussel in the project vicinity. A visual and tactile survey above and below the existing bridge
was conducted at the project site on October 23, 2002 by NCDOT biologists Jeff Burleson, Neil
Medlin, and Tom Dickinson. No evidence of freshwater mussels was found.
Geum radiatum (Spreading evens) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: 1990
Spreading avens is a perennial herb having stems with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow,
radially symmetrical flowers. Flowers of spreading avens are present from June to early July.
Spreading avens has basal leaves that are odd-pinnately compound; terminal leaflets are kidney
shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Spreading avens is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee section of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on
mountains, hills and ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at
elevations from 5060 to 5800 ft (1535 to 1759 m). Other habitat requirements for this species
include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. These soils are composed of sand, pebbles, humus,
sandy loam and clay loam. Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for spreading avens. The project area is at an average
elevation of 2250 feet (675 meters) with no scarps, bluffs, cliffs or escarpments. Furthermore, the
soils in this area are generally deep. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this
plant within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
endangered species.
Helonias buUata (swamp pink) Threatened
Plant Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: 1988
Swamp pink is a perennial, subscapose herb with evergreen leaves occurring in a basal rosette.
The leaves are oblanceolate, parallel-veined, and about 3.5 to 9.8 inches (9 to 25 cm) long. A
stout, hollow stem arises from the basal rosette and can grow from 7.8 to 35.4 inches (20 to 90
cm) during flowering to 5 feet (1.5 meters) during seed maturation. The stem bears an ebracteate
raceme about 1.2 to 3.1 inches (3 to 8 cm) long. The raceme consists of a cluster of thirty to fifty
fragrant, pink to lavender flowers. The plant often grows in dense clumps as a result of
22
reproduction by' clonal root growth or limited seed dispersal. - Swamp pink is one of the first
wildflowers to bloom in the spring. In winter, the basal rosette persists and turns reddish-brown,
with the next season's flowerhead appearing as a button in the center.
Swamp pink occurs in a variety of wetland types from the coastal plain to the mountains in New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. It is found
in Atlantic white cedar swamps, Blue Ridge swamps, swampy forested wetlands bordering small
streams, meadows, and seepage areas. The plant requires saturated but not flooded conditions,
and often occurs in association with evergreen trees such as Atlantic white cedar, pitch pine,
American larch, and black spruce. The largest North Carolina population occurs in the Pink
Beds area of Pisgah National Forest. Other populations are known from Ashe, Jackson,
Henderson, and Transylvania counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for swamp pink. The small wetland just outside the project
area was thoroughly searched for state and federally listed species, however none were found.
Furthermore, the evergreen trees present within the project area are not those generally associated
with swamp pink. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this plant within the
project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: 1982
The specific epithet of the small whorled pogonia comes from the resemblance of this perennial
orchid to young plants of Indian cucumber root (Medeola virginiana). However, the small
whorled pogonia has a stout, hollow stem in contrast to the solid, slender stem of Indian
cucumber root. The stem is 3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25 cm) tall, with a terminal whorl of 5 or 6
light green leaves that are elliptical in shape and measure up to 3 inches by 1.5 inches (8 by 4
cm). One or two flowers are borne at the top of the stem, appearing from mid-May to mid-June.
The flowers lack fragrance and nectar guides, and apparently are self-pollinating.
The small whorled pogonia was formerly scattered in 48 counties in 16 eastern states. Currently,
the majority of populations are found in New England at the foothills of the Appalachian
Mountains and in northern coastal Massachusetts. The habitat of the small whorled pogonia
varies widely throughout its range, although there are a few common characteristics among the
majority of sites. These include sparse to moderate ground cover; a relatively open understory;
and proximity to features that create extensive, stable breaks in the canopy, such as logging roads
or streams. The pogonia has been found in mature forests as well as stands as young as 30 years
old. Forest types include mixed-deciduous/ white pine or hemlock in New England, mixed
deciduous in Virginia, white pine/mixed-deciduous or white pine/oak-hickory in Georgia, and
red maple in Michigan. Understory components in the southern part of the range are most
commonly found to be flowering dogwood (Cornusflorida), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
23
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), American chestnut (Castanea dentata), witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana), and flame azalea (Rhododendron calendulaceum). Early descriptions
placed the small whorled pogonia on dry sites, but it has since been found on sites with high soil
moisture.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Within the project area, habitat for small whorled pogonia is poor to marginal. The understory is
generally dense and ground cover is moderate to dense. Glady Fork does not create a break in
the canopy. The powerline and the gravel road in the northeast quadrant of the project area do
create breaks in the canopy. The area under the powerline is vegetated with dense woody shrubs.
The area adjacent to the gravel road has a moderately dense understory, however none of the
vegetation typically associated with small whorled pogonia is found here. No individuals of this
species were located during the site visit, and a search of the NHP database found no occurrence
of this plant within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this
endangered species.
Sarracenia jonesii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) Endangered
Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: 1989
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is a perennial herb with numerous tubular leaves growing in
clusters. The leaves grow from 21 to 73 inches tall (53 to 185 cm) and have a heart-shaped hood.
The waxy dull green of the leaves is criss-crossed with maroon-purple veins. The erect scape
bears one maroon flower with 5 recurved petals.
Populations of mountain sweet pitcher plant are known from 10 locations in North and South
Carolina. The four North Carolina populations occur in Henderson and Transylvania counties in
the French Broad River drainage basin. The plant is restricted to bogs and streamsides and is
usually found in level depressions on floodplains, but has also been found on granite rock faces
beside waterfalls. Soils supporting the plant are deep, poorly drained acidic soils with a high
organic matter content.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for mountain sweet pitcher plant. The small wetland just
outside the project area was thoroughly searched for state and federally listed species, however
none were found. The streamside was also searched extensively. A search of the NHP database
found no occurrence of this plant within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project
will not impact this endangered species.
24
Gymnodernm Ifneare (rock gnome lichen) Endangered
Family: Cladoniaceae
Federally Listed: 1994
The rock gnome lichen is a squamose lichen in the reindeer moss family. The lichen can be
identified by its fruiting bodies, which are bome singly or in clusters, are black in color, and are
found at the tips of the squamules. The fruiting season of the rock gnome lichen occurs from July
through September.
The rock gnome lichen is a narrow endemic, restricted to areas of high humidity. These high-
humidity environments occur on high-elevation (4000 feet/1220 meters) mountaintops and cliff
faces that are frequently bathed in fog, or lower elevation (2500 feet /762 meters) deep gorges in
the southern Appalachians. The rock gnome lichen primarily occurs on vertical rock faces where
seepage water from forest soils above flows only at very wet times. The rock gnome lichen is
almost always found growing with the moss Adreaea in these vertical intermittent seeps. The
major threat of extinction to the rock gnome lichen relates directly to habitat alteration/loss of
high elevation coniferous forests. These coniferous forests usually lie adjacent to the habitat
occupied by the rock gnome lichen. The high elevation habitat occurs in Ashe, Avery,
Buncombe, Graham, Graham, Mitchell, Swain, and Yancey counties. The lower elevation habitat
of the rock gnome lichen can be found in Jackson, Rutherford, and Transylvania counties.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No habitat exists in the project area for the rock gnome lichen. The elevation of the project area
is approximately 2250 feet (675 m). The habitats within the project area are generally dry and no
cliff faces are present. A search of the NHP database found no occurrences of rock gnome lichen
in the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the project will not impact this threatened species.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 5 includes FSC species listed for Transylvania
County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the
North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection
given to state-listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
25
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Transylvania County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status Habitat
present
Vertebrates
Green salamander neides aeneus E No
Rafinesque's big-eared bat* Corynorhinus rafinesquii Sc No
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Sc No
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra SR No
Southern Appalachian woodrat* Neotomafloridana hematoreia Sc No
Southern Appalachian black-
capped chickadee Parus atricapillus practicus SC No
Southern Appalachian yellow-
bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis # #
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus SR No
Appalachian Bewick's wren* Thryomanes bewickii altus E No
Southern Appalachian northern
saw-whet owl egolius acadicus pop 1 Sc No
Invertebrates
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus # Yes
Oconee crayfish ostracod Cymocythere clavata SR Yes
Margarita River skimmer Macromia margarita SR Yes
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana SR No
Transylvania crayfish ostracod Waltoncythere.acuta SR No
Vascular Plants
Fraser fir bies fraseri # No
Alexander's rock aster Aster avitus SR-T No
Smoky Mountain mannagrass Glyceria nubigena T No
French Broad Heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis E No
Butternut Juglans cinerea # No
Fraser's loosetrife Lysimachia fraseri SR-T No
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata SR-T No
Southern oconee-bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia E-SC No
Nonvascular Plants
Gorge moss Bryocrumia vivcolor E No
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii SR-L No
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii SR-T No
A liverwort Plagiochila virginica var.
caroliniana SR-T No
26
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 2002; LeGrand, Hall, and Finnegan, 2001
Key: T - Threatened, E - Endangered, SC - Special Concern, C = Candidate, SR = Significantly Rare
_T - fewer than 100 populations throughout the species' range, _L = species is endemic to NC
• - Historic record; the species was observed over 20 years ago, # = see explanation below in text
Discrepancies exist between the USFWS list of FSC and the NC NHP list of protected species in
Transylvania County. Several elements that appear on the USFWS list do not appear on the NC
NHP list. According to John Finnegan, data systems manager with the NC NHP, there are no
records for Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied sapsucker or oyster mussel for Transylvania
County. NC NHP no longer tracks French Broad crayfish; while it is uncommon, it is not
believed to be declining. NC NHP does not track Fraser fir or butternut. Smoky Mountain
mannagrass appears on the NC NHP list, but does not appear on the USFWS list, probably
because it occurs on the Transylvania / Haywood County line.
Although suitable habitat is present for some of the species included in Table 5, no FSC were
observed during the site visit, and none are recorded at NHP as occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km)
of the project area.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
On December 12, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
project. There are no known architectural or historic sites within the proposed project area. The
SHPO concurs that the project is not likely to affect any resources of historical significance (see
letter dated March 20, 2001).
C. Archaeology
An archaeological survey was conducted and a report was sent to the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the report and
concurred that the project is not likely to affect any resources of archaeological significance (see
letter dated June 26, 2003).
27
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments listed on the Project
Commitments Sheet (Green Sheet) of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT
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 construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect 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.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project will not impact
any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina. State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality (1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation
(CFR), Part 772 and no additional reports are required.
28
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any
significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
29
64
l

COMWSTEE ,
FALLS

Rosman

X85
86
RQ r
1y! 1114
NCY
TN. •
57

.•
,r

11 _ cl
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF Hia wAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
f ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYsLS BRANCH
o.?
TRANSYLVANU COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 116 oN SR 1105
OVER GLADY FORK CREEK
B-3914
Figure 1
?-- " 119
.
Ms
C or •' WNTE OAK MTK
82 233
.' ''
,
1 ME -(Carson Cr?k
• 4 ) ,
CtL ?"?7 11
I !?
04 r

•-??
'
88
t
P5
118
117 137 l 1?
116 .

Gy.
X11
B-3914
FIGURE 3A
i
Cuum rXpplunvu - rutaxig llui to
North Approach - Facing South
1 fJI

,
f

y
ors a w
?
a

i

r

West Face of Bridge
B-3914
MALGROUND
4 z,
P01W
0`06 0.04 0.04 _ 1 10.041
GRADE TO THIS LINE
ONGRWL GROUND
B-3914
TYPICAL SECTION
Approach Roadway
FIGURE 4
d?
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
March 30, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook "4Z
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105 over Glady Fork Creek,
TIP No. B-3914, Transylvania County, ER 01-7915
On Januarv 22, 2001 our office requested an evaluation of the Lambert House, in
conjunction with this project, to determine its eligibility for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. However, we have since noticed that the Lambert House is
not within the above project's area of potential effect. Please disregard our January 22,
2001 letter. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Our comments
on this project follow.
On December 12, 2000 April Montgomery of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the
above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting,
we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located
within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey
be conducted for this project.
Location Maw Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
SIIRVEV E PLANNING 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 46 18 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
Telepbone/Fau
[phone] •733-8633
[phone] •715.4801
[phone] •715-4801
Page 2 of 2
William D. Gilmore
March 30, 2001
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may
be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by
the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act 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 any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
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
June 26, 2003
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
MEMORANDUM CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
RECEIVED
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor [JUL 0 1 2003
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook
mow., ....,.?, .. .
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 116 on R 1105 over Glady Fork Creek, B-3914, Transylvania
County, ERO1-7915
Thank you for your letter of April 21, 2003, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Shane Peterson and Jesse Zinn for the above project.
During the course of the survey one archaeological site and one cemetery were identified
within the project area. For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that 31TV805/805** is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. 31TV478 was found to be located outside the current project area
and was not evaluated. The report authors recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project, if Alternate 2 is selected.
Additional evaluation of the Cassell cemetery is recommended, if Alternate 1 is selected. We
concur with these recommendations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: Shane Peterson and Jesse Zinn, NCDOT
www.hDo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Addresa Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
C
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM

ern
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality%ZN1*`''1
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele CO &4)
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 116 on SR 1105
over Glady Fork in Transylvania County, T.I.P. Project B-3914.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated October 20, 2000, in which you
requested Scoping comments for the above project. The DWQ index number for the stream is 6-
6-7 and is classified as C Trout waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters
(i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be
aware that floodplain culverts are required.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Since the impacted water is classified as trout waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications. Please be aware that trout moratoriums set by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission will apply.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
12/07/00
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing localtion with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
1. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
J. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules 115A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
i
.
,• Mark S. Davis Fax:[phone]
Jun 29 '01 18:31
P. 02
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
June 29, 2001
P.iH. Robin C. Young, Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT, Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Scoping for B-3914, Bridge Replacement
SR 1105 Glady Fork Road
Giady Fork Creek. Transylvania County
Dear Ms. Young:
Staff biologists familiar with habitat values of the project area have reviewed the scoping
notice. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of
;77 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The Division of Water Quality classifies G1ady Fork Creek as C trout. We do not have
records of endangered, threatened or other rare species from the vicinity of the project.
We request that this bridge be replaced with another spanning structure since Glady Fork
Creek is a trout stream. Bridge supports should be placed outside of the channel if possible.
Transylvania County is a trout county; therefore, the NCWRC will review any US Army
Corps of Engineers 404 permits associated with the project.
We expect to request the following conditions on the 404 permit for replacement of this
bridge structure.
1. Replace the existing structure with another spanning structure.
2. Under no circumstances should rock, sand, or other materials be dredged from the
wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the immediate
vicinity of bridge abutments. Instreum dredging has catastrophic effects on aquatic life,
and disturbance of the natural form of the stream channel will likely cause downstream
erosion problems, possibly affecting adjacent landowners.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center,, Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] exit. 281 * Fax: [phone]
Mark S. Davis Fax : [phone] Jun 29 '01 18:32 F'. U6
bridge 116, SR 1105 2 June 29, 2001
Trt:msylvaNa County, Glady Fork Creek
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags or rock berms, cofferdams. or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
4. If concrete is used during construction, adequate precautions must be taken to prevent
direct contact between wet concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water
quality and is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. Water that has contacted
uncured concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for
elevated pH.
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to any
ground disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be pi anted an all bare soil within
15 days of ground disturbing activities to provtdo long-term erosion control. Erosion
control matting in wgjunction with appropriate seeding should be used on disturbed
stmambanks and areas around bridgc crossings instead of straw rnulab.
6. Grading and baekfilling in the vicinity of the bridge should be minimized, and tree and
shrub growth should be retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline
cover for gamefish and wildlife. Rackfill materials should be obtained from upland sites.
7. Construction in the stream channel and within the 25-foot buffer is prohibited during the
trout-spawning period of October 15 to April 15 in order to protect the egg and fry
stages from sedimentation.
8. Riprap placed for bank stabilization should be limited to the streambank below the high
water mark, and vegetation should be usod for stabilization above the high water
elevation.
9. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters should be regularly inspected
and maintained to prevent contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids or other toxic materials.
10. Any overwidened areas at the bridge site should be restored; and the width/depth ratio
typical of the stream should be maintained through the bridge site.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending availability
of field staff, the NCWRC may inspect the work site during or after construction. If there are any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sine ely,
cA-
Owen - An erson
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
cc: Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, Highway Coordinator, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marelia Buncick, Highway Coordinator, USFWS

G j-

NORTH CAROLINA
PROJECT
LO ATC19
? 1114
?`? FRE
SR 1107,
oLhl )
r Vl ?t C
W
ENCH BROAD
BROAD N ?` 1
co
VICINITY
MAPS
l -
_ ?t
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2001201 (B-3914)
IRIDGEa116 ON SR1105 BETWEEN SR1107
AND SOU'T'H CAROLINA STATE LINE
OVER GLADY FORK CREEK
SHEET Of' S/ 05/ 04
?S •? `??" /4 f L4v,,l /,!T i S /I?IM/H{ GZ !//S.4?r /V"lt<7???

0
m
_N
z
N
m
rn
m
d
r?
C)
rn
C)
i.
I
m
C
Fn
v
T 2
r O
r?
m
t z ?'
m C ?
O
n?
m l`
n
O
O
w
N
0
n
z
0
m
m
m
v ?
O
>m
= X
H
-1 co
O -1
H
z z
D?
C m
D:D
H
rv
0
G1 m
oD
cm
zc
v -i
m
z
cn
Q
?yy
tan

INNUalili
> £a

UD C) C)
Z Z
Z
c?
A
pk
b

a?
? f' r rl
n Co.
y pT
j
}

Z
Q
Gf?
w
QTAn
g ry
?r
rm
Ca
A T

rt
U 4
y
r?.
i
j
U \ ?? I I
CL /
E I
E? LL
CL
H
U
m
00
O o0
O
= I
U
u. S
ocn m u: UQ
?0In, ?Q
W f"
\ 14 v w
U C i? II
O
wm \
r Q o"Lo
LL, +
c (/? O Cl)
\ ,A V)oz; A

_ Z O
ss
F-

LU w F.._.
OaQ
m m to
I

/
o W o
\? v, ?^ zHw o
r I m U z o
WN ©x c ?oaw
-?
? ? W o
?1 o -0
?aa w
r 0:)
\ tf' U-) °x°
x??w
I Wm a H Q. W°o
H
w
I m? ?
_r '01u
1 -
? i
U O
0
_-8 '-
" SO/4 a
' r
/ v V,
C
0
c VY II
C

O=
V r
<w

C:?
Q U
Q
o
LL

? V?
?v'
a
V) ? }
w
J
0
O J
Z W
W
O

\ V,
°
co
\
\ N

\ O LCl
LL O ?l
0
\ 0

I

h
a•
0
G
+
0
0
O
O
v
O
0
M
0 0
O
N M
11 N
I
i
to co

O C

O
O O
N cq
N
`"
A N II II
+
??
~?
? II
h
?
? o
o ?

A N ti
H? C3

U
I
t, jl' i I 1
rll?

00
0
o
N
? II

/ d

1
r
/
i

` CJNN
NNcna>

` b tl:
M

? ^?
+
c') "i II
1
II
1 II
II
Cj
O O
N N
N
^!
N ?
b o
? >y
0
W o
0
ti
o --?
N .?
W W \?

'r
i?
F or,

'r W W

c
O
U a F
`A
z o

(n A
z a Zu °
o
z X
O E" G:
ca H 0>
a
w
o F
A W
.. W

/.
ti
a„
H q
O
U
N
N
3
w
J_
U-
0
ce
CL
O
0
w
N
PROPERTY OWNERS
SITE NO.
NAME
ADDRESS
CHAMPION CATTLE & TREE FARMS
A NORTH CAROLINA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
P.O. BOX 7587
ASHEVILLE, N.C.
28802-7587
1V CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2001201 (B-3914)
SRIDGEa116 ON SR1105 BETWEEN SR1107
AND SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LINE
OVER (;I,AD)' FORK CREEK
"' 111:1;1- OF 05 / US U?

-F, E
V
II
I
?.?? o

z cn 0

z Z "'
to
r, _
-z- c
o

O
U u'SU Ev Uo
$
0
0 >

2
U7 J co
2
Q LL In z
E c-` 9 C O ¢ -
~ o o > ~
a a
Q
LL .. W
ai c o v °o Q

n
o w
ii z =
C/)I
I ?
p.
c o
z o

LL

Q .N ? v

m m = O
O
v U o
.2
-
F
V
a
co c
°
F- m T O
U > a, o

t:
? CL
?
w c

w 0

Z

v
CL g =
LL N
o
LLJ
E a) cu o
w

a I

-
? I I I I °a
LL > v
> ',III O ,

v

w I
I

?? o II ? I
2 I
a, m
N

III ; i
;
? i
?
O ollll li II I ? II I

g E co
I
+
I ?.
S
I F

I I I
I 0
1