19930150 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, "Av
Health and Natural Resources A ?.
Division of Environmental Management -?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 5, 1994
Mr. H. C. Reed, Jr
N.C. DOT
P.O. Box 275
Marion, N.C. 28752
Dear Mr. Reed:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Temporary access fill; Bridge No. 56, US 221A
Rutherford County
DEM Project #93150
We have reviewed your request for 401 Water Quality Certification to
place fill material in 0.1 acres of wetlands or waters which are tributary to
Second Broad River for temporary access located at Bridge 56, Us 221A in
Rutherford County as described in your submittal dated 5 April 1994. Based on
this review, we have determined that the proposed fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification No. 2727. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification is necessary for coverage under Corps of
Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 33. This action completes DEM's review under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be
final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely, A. Reston Howard, Jr. P.E.
93150.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
0.1%05/94 09.35 'a704 652 1620 H.C. Reed. Jr.

RESIDENT ENGINEER
P. 0. BOX 275
MARION, N. C.
28752
IpJUU1
401 iss(jeD
FAQ{ TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING ^ Z?_ PAGE$
TO: FAX#:_6LUIZZ?I1ZZf-
zz?
---------- ------
FRO14: H_C. REED,,IR.,PE FAX# [phone]

0
z

01/05.91 09:55 $701 653 1630 H.C. Reed, Jr.

?Ib
w?
rvl
x '
? a
6
0
N
z
Z1
N
6
lrqx

wi uu?

h7 Eb LA
n A
?

R

o o
._ WIN
a io

-rft
?
r
1 q
?
N
1 ba. ?
N? ? ?

! z
4 ! m
-n cm
o ? 1 4 m
O ?
1 .
? X ?c
- -
^rn?r
?o .
141 4 ti$ A
b-. s
F} 1 a? all
'Al
? k
0 1
\ v N
b
V ? ? ? N O v nl F
`? ?; 'p I+ T Ci
`N?
N,b„ O nl 1'1 ?' ? ti?
b
p ppr ? /J?
?O O IjS
p ?
x? ! b
?i ?\
O ? ?U V _ ?h1 "I ?~1V
? w f?

ti ? o

t^'' G
r? n Y
u?i O nl
1 F r
r±?? A.
vl

(h :b
C
T
S?
1<w ?n e: f?
?rh<
V
IL O
? • UfV
h U
H
x
rn N -p
v > L
z ?' p Fri
? _ 1 ?' 2
f+ t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
May 6, 1993
Action ID. 199302104 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. L. J. Ward
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
W1 T1
Thank you for your inquiry of February 17, 1993, regarding your plans to
replace Bridge No. 56 over the Second Broad River on U.S. Highway 221A (State
Project 8.1890201) near Henrietta, Rutherford County, North Carolina.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6. published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for 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, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this NWP provided it is accomplished in strict
accordance with the enclosed conditions. Please be reminded that temporary
construction and access fills below the ordinary high water line of the river
by the contractor will require additional authorization under other nationwide
or regional general permits. This NWP does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain any required State or local approval. You should
contact Mr. John Dorney, N.C. Division of Environmental Management, at
telephone [phone] regarding state water quality certification for this
work.
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the NWP authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also, this
w rc +w
Mill 1111M It
-V 17 7F 77'
verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period, the NWP
authorization is reissued without modification or the activity complies with
any subsequent modification of the NWP authorization. If during the 2 years,
the NWP authorization expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such
that the activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the
NWP, activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are
under contract to commence in reliance upon the NWP will remain authorized
provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of the NWP's
expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has
been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify, suspend, or revoke the
authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mt. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
,rwu - Y s
STATE OF Nom-i I C,AI (01.1 NA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
InMI R. III NI IR DIVISION 01 11161 IWAYS SAM I IUNI
(AWI RN(?R SI.CRI IAIIY
P.O. ItiOX 25201, IiAI-f 1CIl I. N.C. )7h11-52(11
February 17, 1993
District Engineer
2 3 )93
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 WETLANDS GROUP
WATER I ITY SECTION
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch j-
Dear Sir:
Subject: Rutherford County, US 221A, Bridge No. 56 over
Second Broad River, State Project No. 8.1890201,
Federal Aid No. BRS-8206(7), T.I.P. Number B-1377.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
The Corps of Engineers authorized this project under this
nationwide permit by letter dated December 16, 1992. This
authorization was given with the concurrence of the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Gordon Cashin at 733-9770.
Sine ly,
B . Quinn ,./
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
fir': John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. W. D. Smart, Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
F
US 221A, Rutherford County
Bridge No. 56 over Second Broad River
State Project No. 8.1890201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-8206(7)
B-1377
i
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1
APPROVED:
to Z.. P. E., Manager
`'Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?3 Z G
Date Nic o Gra , E.
,Fag Division Administrator
US 221A, Rutherford County
Bridge No. 56 over Second Broad River
State Project No. 8.1890201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-8206(7)
B-1377
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
61mj Z?. on?J?
Angela H. S it
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
Urban Pro'ect Planning Engineer, Unit Head
H. ra in V1c , P. E.
Assistant Manager of Planning and Environmental
.•`??tH C
%, NNLi%
US 221A, Rutherford County
Bridge No. 56 over Second Broad River
State Project No. 8.1890201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-8206(7)
B-1377
Bridge No. 56 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement
Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No significant environmental
impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as a Federal
"categorical exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 56 should be replaced on new location approximately 40
feet north of the existing bridge as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. A
new bridge with a length of 365 feet and a width of 35 feet is
recommended. This width will accommodate a 24-foot roadway with a 3-foot
shoulder on the north side and an 8-foot shoulder on the south side to
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic served by the sidewalk on the
existing bridge.
Approximately 800 feet of approach work will be required (300 feet to
the east and 500 feet to the west of the new bridge). The approach
roadway will consist of a 24-foot pavement with 8-foot graded shoulders.
A minor detour on the west approach will be necessary to maintain traffic
on-site, since construction of the new bridge will require additional fill
material on the existing approach roadway.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period. The bridge will be removed upon completion of the
project.
Estimated cost of the project based on current prices is $ 1,499,000.
The cost contained in the 1992-1998 Transportation Improvement Program is
$ 1,367,000 ($ 20,000 is listed as prior years cost). Right o way
acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 1993 and construction for fiscal
year 1994.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. The approach roadbed to the existing
bridge will be removed and graded to the surrounding ground elevation to
promote regeneration of natural hydrologic conditions. Best management
practices will be followed to minimize erosion, siltation, and runoff.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the town limits of Caroleen (see Figure 1).
Development in the area is predominantly residential surrounding the
Burlington Industries Plant located just east of the bridge.
US 221A is classified as a rural major collector route in the
Statewide Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal-Aid
Secondary System (FAS-8206). In the studied area, US 221A is the only
facility that crosses the Second Broad River (see Figure 1). The subject
bridge is located in the suburban area of Caroleen.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 221A has a 22-foot pavement with
variable width shoulders. Horizontal alignment is fair with curves
varying from 1 to 8 degrees (the sharpest curve is located immediately
west of the existing bridge). The west approach is on a steep downgrade
toward the bridge while the east approach is slightly sloping. The
roadway is situated about 50 feet above the river bed.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3 for photographs), constructed in
1932, consists of reinforced concrete deck girders supported by a
reinforced concrete substructure.
The overall length of the existing structure is 345 feet with a clear
roadway width of 20 feet. A 5-foot sidewalk is located along the south
side of the bridge. At present the bridge is not posted but a "narrow
bridge" warning sign is posted on the bridge approaches.
Bridge #56 has a sufficiency rating of 33.9 compared to a rating of
100 for a new structure. This sufficiency rating is below the minimum
criteria of 50.0 required for replacement with Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement funds.
No utilities are attached to the existing structure. However, a
14-inch water line is located along the eastern bank of the Second Broad
River and carries water from the dam to the Burlington Plant for fire
protection. The water line has an approximate cover of 3 feet and
manholes located 200 feet apart. The only other utilities in the area
include aerial power and telephone lines located along both sides of the
road.
The current traffic volume of approximately 5500 vehicles per day
(vpd) is expected to increase to approximately 10200 vpd by the year 2015.
The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailers (TTST) and 6%
dual-tired vehicles (DTT). The existing speed limit is 35 mph increasing
to 45 mph upon crossing the bridge heading west.
Two accidents were reported in the vicinity of bridge No. 56 from May
1986 thru April 1990.
Between four and six school buses cross the studied bridge daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative alignments were studied for replacement of Bridge No.
56. Both alternates consist of a bridge 365 feet long and 35 feet wide.
The structure width will accommodate two 12-foot lanes, one 3-foot
shoulder on the north side, and one 8-foot shoulder on the south side.
The approach roadway will consist
shoulders on both sides. A typical
roadway is shown by Figure 4. The
shown in Figure 2 and are described
of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot
section of the structure and approach
alternative alignments studied are
as follows:
Alternate 1 involves replacement of the bridge along the existing
roadwayarnment. This alternate calls for maintaining traffic during
construction with a temporary detour bridge constructed immediately north
of the existing bridge. The detour bridge would have a width of 30 feet
and a length of approximately 365 feet.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) provides a new bridge immediately north
(approximate y 40 feet) of the existing bridge (see Figure 2) and requires
approximately 300 feet of approaches to the east and 500 feet of
approaches to the west of the new bridge. Traffic would be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction.
In addition to the studied alternative alignments, consideration was
given to the "do-nothing" and the "rehabilitation" alternatives.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually require closing the
bridge. Closure is not feasible due to the traffic service provided by
US 221A.
"Rehabilitation" of the existing bridge is not feasible. Although the
substructure appears to be in good condition, design loadings have
increased since construction of the original structure. The substructure
of the existing bridge may not provide adequate support. It would also be
difficult to maintain traffic during the rehabilitation.
The division engineer recommends that an on-site detour be provided
during the construction period since no convenient detour routes are
available. The division office also recommends that an 8-inch edge line
be used (instead of the regular 4-inch) to mark the 8-foot pedestrian/
bicycle shoulder as it will be more visible to motorists. The Rutherford
County School Bus Supervisor also indicates that maintenance of traffic
on-site during construction of the replacement bridge is desirable.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
Estimated costs of the two studied alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
ROADWAY APPROACHES
STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE REMOVAL
TEMPORARY DETOUR APPROACHES
DETOUR STRUCTURE
ENGINEERING & CONTINGENCIES
RIGHT OF WAY, UTILITIES
TOTAL
79,000
723,000
55,000
162,000
263,000
192,000
80,000
1,5, 000
(Recommended)
Alternative 2
$ 243,000
723,000
55,000
0
0
153,000
325 000
$ 1,4999000
4
V. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 56 should be replaced on new location immediately north of
its present location, as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure is a bridge having a length of 365 feet
and a width of 35 feet. This width will accommodate a 24-foot travelway
with a 3-foot shoulder on the north side and an 8-foot shoulder on the
south side to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic served by the
sidewalk on the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure during the construction period.
The recommended improvement will include approximately 300 feet of
new approach roadway to the east and 500 feet of approach roadway to the
west. A 24-foot pavement with 8-foot useable shoulders should be provided
on the approaches. A 35-foot clear roadway width is recommended on the
replacement structure.
Both of the studied alternates provide the same design speed and
level of traffic service. Alternate 2 (recommended) results in a cost
savings of approximately $ 55,000 based on preliminary costs.
The Hydrographics Unit recommends a structure with a length of
approximately 365 feet. It is anticipated the elevation of the new bridge
will be approximately equal to the floor elevation of the existing bridge
on the east side, and approximately 8 feet above the existing bridge
elevation on the west side. The length and height may be increased or
decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies. It will be necessary to acquire some additional
right-of-way on the west approach to construct the new bridge.
Additional preliminary studies indicate it may be possible to shorten
the proposed bridge by approximately 60 feet. The shortened structure
would provide a cost savings of approximately $66,000 (these estimates
were provided by the Hydraulics Unit). In order to reduce the length of
the proposed structure, the abandoned mill raceway would be backfilled.
Filling the mill raceway may adversely affect maintenance and repair
access to the 14-inch pipe that is located between the mill raceway and
the channel. The pipe presently provides fire protection to the mill
complex.
The entire mill complex was evaluated for historic significance and
determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places by the SHPO (see letter dated June 18, 1992 in the
Appendix). Although the mill building has been significantly altered, the
mill raceway component has maintained its historical /archaeological
integrity. The raceway is in excellent condition and although not
eligible for the National Register, it is a prominent historic feature in
the area. These factors should be considered before backfilling the mill
raceway.
A study has been completed on another bridge (Project B-1376) located
just west of the proposed project. It is proposed to replace the existing
bridge with a box culvert at the existing location. Construction is
5
scheduled to begin in 1995 according to the 1992-1998 Transportation
Improvement Program. Projects B-1377 and B-1376 are of sc e u e or
construction in 1995, and should be built concurrently to minimize
construction costs and traffic disruption.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed bridge replacement project is not expected to have a
significant adverse impact on the human or natural environment. Replace-
ment of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
Consequently, the project is considered to be a Federal "categorical
exclusion".
Social Environment
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No relocatees are anticipated
as a result of the proposed project.
No significant 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.
Land Use
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
Ecological Resources
The northward shift of the proposed bridge approaches will impact
segments of two highly modified forested slopes which can generically be
described as Disturbed Mixed Hardwood Communities. One of these cut-slope
communities is located immediately west of and above the river basin,
bordering the north side of the existing approachway. The proposed
western approach will result in regrading of this cut-slope. The second
community is found on the east side of the river immediately above and
below the old service road which parallels the east side of the river.
Young to mid-age specimen of water oak (Quercus nigra), scarlet oak (Q.
coccinea), white oak (Q. alba), willow oak (Q. phellos), hickory (Carya
sp.) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) comprise the canopy stratum.
Subcanopy components include sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana) and redbud (Cercis canadensis). Chickasaw plum (Prunus
angustifolia), privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) constitute the shrub layer, while cross-vine (Anisostichus
capreolata), wild grape (Vitis sp.), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia) and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are vines which are found in the
subject community. Joe-Pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), cudweed
(Gnaphilium sp.), aster (Aster sp.), mullein (Verbascum thapsus), kudzu
(Pueraria lobata), bear-grass (Yucca filamentosa), plaintan (Plantogo
lanceolata), wild onion (Allium canadense), sorrel (Oxalis sp.), bermuda
6
grass (Cynodon dactylon) and fescue (Festuca sp.) ar
groundcover/herbaceous flora
herbaceous species occur in
growing season, but only a
mid-November.
in these plant communities. Numerous other
these areas during various portions of the
relative few species are apparent in
e among the
The riparian community is comprised of the aggregate of plants which
are concentrated in zones immediately adjacent to Second Broad River.
This community is concentrated on the relatively narrow terraces above the
river and on the slopes which rise immediately from the river's edge.
These slopes are about 20 feet above the river and relatively steep (2:1).
Concentrations of river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore, box elder
(Acer negundo), ash (Fraxinus sp.), white walnut (Juglans cinerea), water
oak and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) occur on both sides of the
river. Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, elderberry, thickets of privet,
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), clematis (Clematis sp.), raspberry
(Rubus sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.) and ammomum dogwood (Cornus ammomum)
are examples of the dominant species in this riparian zone.
Anticipated impacts to plant communities are likely to be offset by
opportunities to reestablish vegetation in areas occupied by existing
approaches and abutment backfills.
Table 1. Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
PLANT COMMUNITY ESTIMATED IMPACT
Disturbed Mixed Hardwood 0.6
Disturbed Scrib-Shrub 0.4
Riparian Fringe 0.2
Total 1.2
Note: Values reported are in acres, based upon impact widths o 80 eet.
The proposed action does not pose a significant threat to terrestrial
fauna. These areas, considered highly modified and disturbed, are
attractive to a range of opportunistic wildlife which experience increased
fitness in these areas. Their adaptive behavior has enabled them to enjoy
a relatively safe existence at the fringes of man's domain, often
cohabiting the same structures (rodents, owls, barn swallows, lizards,
etc.). Impacts to these habitat zones are not likely to be severe in
terms of diminishing populations, etc. Some temporary fluctuation in
populations of animal groups which utilize these areas is anticipated
during the course of construction, but post-project levels are expected to
return to normal after the existing bridge is removed and habitat zones
are restored to normal.
Slow-moving, burrowing and/or subterranean organisms will be directly
impacted by construction activities, while mobile organisms will be
displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in these adoptive
communities will result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
The proposed action is likely to have substantial effects on the
aquatic ecosystem unless strict enforcement of sedimentation control
measures are observed. Demolition activities are likely to place sediment
into the water column, as will pier/end bent installation activities.
Sediment-loading of the stream channels by such activities can be harmful
to local populations of aquatic organisms, trout and bream (or sunfish),
as well as invertebrates such as molluscs, crustacea and insect larvae,
important parts of the aquatic food chain.
Wetlands
No wetlands are expected to be affected by this project. Potential
impacts to Second Broad River include: increased sedimentation from
construction-related erosion; changes in ambient water temperature and
incidence of light due to elimination of adjacent vegetation. Although
these are viewed as temporary impacts, poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies can result in serious consequences to the
aquatic environment. Best management practices and stringent
sedimentation controls will be applied during construction of this
facility.
Surface Water and Water Quality
The Second Broad River is characterized as having Class "C" suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture, and uses requiring waters of lower
classification.
Neither direct nor indirect impacts to Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply Classifications
WS-I/WS-II will occur as a result of the proposed action.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has primary
responsibility for reviewing actions which propose to place fill into
"waters of the United States". Jurisdictional ly, surface waters and
wetlands are subsets of "waters of the United States".
The Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR) also has a
jurisdictional role under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401
Permits, when required, must be issued prior to authorization of any
Section 404 Permit by the COE.
In keeping with the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act of
1977, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/COE Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), effective February 1990, and aspects of Executive Order
11990, projects should be designed to avoid wetland encroachment wherever
possible; to minimize wetland impacts when avoidance is not possible; and
to mitigate wetland losses when necessary.
Since the river within the study area lies in one of the 25 "trout"
counties, the NCWRC has reviewed the proposed action and concurs under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
8
The COE's Discretionary Authority in Designated Trout Waters in NC
was established on March 27, 1989 and amended on January 22, 1992. This
policy has resulted in overriding certain Nationwide General Permits,
including 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23), the Categorical Exclusion Nationwide. It
requires instead authorization under an Individual Permit or by a Regional
General Permit. Either permit provides for the review of the proposal and
for the identification of appropriate measures to preclude or minimize
adverse impacts on trout waters. Although, as mentioned, the COE can
require an Individual Permit for such actions, it is more likely that they
will authorize the proposed action under Bridge Replacement General Permit
SAWC082-N-000-0031. DOT has coordinated with the NCWRC and received
approval. (See letter dated July 29, 1992 in Appendix).
The only jurisdictional surface waters in the study area are the
"waters of the U.S." represented by the bank-to-bank channel of Second
Broad River. The area of involvement, a distance of approximately 100
feet, is subject to impacts, including placement of fill. No channel
realignment is anticipated and no fill will be purposely placed in the
stream during proposed construction and demolition activities. This
surface water system is designated as Riverine-Upper Perennial-
Unconsolidated Bottom-Cobble/Gravel- Permanently Flooded (R3UB1H) in
"Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States"
(Cowardin et al, 1979).
Since the proposed action is a bridge replacement, a water-dependent
activity, and since no wetlands are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action, the action is in keeping with the policies cited above.
Since no reduction in wetlands will result from the proposed action,
no compensatory mitigation will be required.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Federally Protected Species
Under federal law, any action, which has the potential to result in a
negative impact to federally-protected plants or animals, is subject to
review by the USFWS (and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service), under
one or more provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also exercise
jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act of 1979 (50 CFR 410). North Carolina laws are
also designed to protect certain plants and animals, which are endemic to
North Carolina and/or whose populations are in severe decline.
As of January 30, 1992, four federally protected species are listed
by the USFWS for Rutherford County (Table 2).
Table 2. Federally Protected Species in Rutherford County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
*M otis sodalis Indiana bat E
Falco ere nus peregrine falcon E
S s rinc ium ichotomum white irisette E
Hexasty is nani ora dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
"E" and "T" denote Endangered (a taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range) and Threatened (a
taxon that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future). *
denotes that no specimens have been reported from Rutherford County for
more than 20 years.
Indiana Bat Federally Endangered E
The Indiana bat is a member of the family Vespertilionidae, a
taxonomic group which includes two other Endangered bats known to occur in
North Carolina, the gray bat, M. griscecens, and the Virginiana big-eared
bat, Plecotus townsendii virginianus.
This rare species is confined to mountain habitat. Only a handful of
verified records of this species occurring in N.C. are known. Its
presence on the Tennessee side of the Great Smoky Mountains is well-known.
Although this bat prefers caves for roosting, only one of the confirmed
sightings of roosting bats in N.C. was in a cave.
Based upon an absence of suitable habitat in the project area and
based upon an absence of compelling evidence that this species is a
permanent resident of North Carolina, the proposed action will not impact
this organism.
Peregrine Falcon Federally Endangered E
The peregrine is a medium-sized hawk, slightly larger than a crow.
The species is found throughout the U.S., whereas the Arctic anatum and
ep alei subspecies are more restricted in their ranges. Two key a itat
requirements of this bird are cliffs for nesting and open county for
hunting. In North Carolina a small breeding population of this subspecies
was known to nest in the mountains prior to the DDT era. The last known
nest in the state was abandoned in 1957. However, birds of the anatum
subspecies and peeal?ei and their interbred offspring that were later
introduced are nk own to occur in North Carolina Nest sites located in
Surry County, near Pilot Mountain. The NCWRC has begun a falcon release
program in the state, which has released over 63 birds since 1984. Based
upon what is known about suitable habitat for the bird, it is unlikely
that the falcon will occupy or utilize any portion of the study area. No
impacts to this species will result from project construction.
10
White Irisette Federally Endangered E
The white irisette is a perennial herb and a member of the iris
family (Iridaceae). Its dichotomously branching stems grow approximately
11 to 20 centimeters tall. The basal leaves, usually pale to bluish
green, are from one - third to one-half the height of the plant. The tiny
(7.5 millimeters long) white flowers appear from late May through July in
clusters of four to six at the ends of winged stems. The fruit of this
species is a round, pale to medium brown capsule containing three to six
round or elliptical black seeds.
Si s rinchi uumm di chotomum is endemic to the upper piedmont of North
Carolina, where it is currently known from three locations in Polk,
Rutherford, and Henderson Counties. It occurs on rich, basic soils
probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges
of upland woods, where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope
runoff has removed most of the deep litter layer ordinarily found on these
sites.
Disturbance of some type is required to maintain the open quality of
this species habitat. Artificial disturbances such as utility and highway
right of way maintenance, are maintaining some of the openings that may
have been provided historically by grazing animals and naturally
occurring, periodic fires.
Suitable habitat of this type exists in the study area. A field visit
and survey for white irisette along the roadsides and exposed areas in the
project site was conducted on July 1, 1992. No white irisette plants were
found. It can be concluded that the project will not impact the white
irisette.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Federally Threatened T
A rare, low-growing herbaceous member of the birthwort family with
heart-shaped, evergreen leaves. The plant flowers from March-June,
producing small, jug-shaped, brownish flowers at the base of the petioles.
The inflorescence usually is not seen until the overlying leaf litter
layer is removed. Only 24 populations of this plant had been confirmed by
1988. In North Carolina, eleven populations are known in Cleveland,
Catawba, Burke, Rutherford, and Lincoln Counties. This plant is best
suited to acidic bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads and along the slopes of nearby hills.
Although suitable habitat for this species does occur in the study
area of the project, methodical, plant-by-plant surveys in the study area
and adjacent areas confirmed that no Hexastylis species occur there. No
impacts to this species will occur.
In addition to these protected species, the USFWS lists 8 other
Candidate species (Table 3), which, although not currently protected by
law, may be listed as protected in the near future. It is possible that
one or more species may become listed as Endangered, Threatened or
Proposed prior to the completion of the project. In this event, NCDOT
11
would be responsible for determining whether the proposed action has the
potential for impacting the newly listed species. Table 3 lists these
species and indicates whether suitable habitat for these species occurs in
the study area.
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species for Rutherford County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
M otis subulatus leibii eastern small-foot bat C2 No
Den roica ceru ea cerulean warbler C2 No
*Ane-ides aeneus green salamander C2 Yes
Gymnodeerma lineare
- rock gnome lichen C2 Yes
*Nestronia umbeTTu
Ta nestronia C2 Yes
Sari raga carom ana Gray's saxafrage C2 Yes
Se ud m usi um Puck's orpine C2 No
Senicio mi a olium Gray's saxifrage C2 Yes
C2 denotes a taxon for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there are not enough data to support listing as Endangered or
threatened at this time. Listing is warranted but precluded by other
pending proposals of higher priority; * denotes that no specimens have
been reported from Rutherford County for more than 20 years.
State Protected Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern (SC) are granted protection by the State Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to 113-337) and the State of NC Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979 (G.S. 196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19),
administered and enforced by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the
NC Department of Agriculture, respectively.
Records at the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were inspected but
no recorded sightings of protected species have been made for the study
area or vicinity.
Of the species listed in Tables 2 and 3, the following are designated
as protected by the state of North Carolina.
12
Table 4. State Protected Species in Rutherford County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Myot s sodalis
_M o?tiss_ s?us leibii
Falco pereq us
*Anei es aeneus
Gvmno erm neare
Hexast is naniflora
Sedum usi l uUm
Sen cioo molium
Sis? yrinchium i3 c' hotomum
COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Indiana bat E No
eastern small-foot bat SC No
peregrine falcon E No
green salamander E No
rock gnome lichen T No
dwarf-flowered heartleaf E Yes
Puck's orpine E No
Gray's saxifrage T No
white irisette E Yes
"E", "T" and "SC" denote Endangered (any native or once-native species of
plant or animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's fauna or flora is in jeopardy), Threatened (any native or
once-native species of plant or animal which is likely to become an
Endangered species in the foreseeable future) and Special Concern (any
species of plant or animal which require population monitoring, but which
may be collected and/or sold under specific regulations). * denotes that
no specimens have been reported from Rutherford County for more than 20
years.
Based upon the investigations conducted, only one species, among
those listed by the USFWS, has any potential for occurring in the study
area of the proposed action. Field surveys were conducted during the
May-July flowering period, and it was determined that the project would
not impact the white irisette.
According to the Natural Heritage Program, the Santee chub H bo sis
zanema has been found downstream from the proposed project near
C i side. It can also be expected to occur closer to the project given
the presence of suitable habitat in this vicinity. Although this species
is not protected by any state or federal law, best management practices
should be followed for the control of erosion, siltation, and runoff to
minimize any adverse impacts resulting from earth moving and construction
associated with the project.
Cultural Resources
The project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties. There are
no publicly owned parks, historic sites, recreational facilities, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance
in the vicinity of the project.
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 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that
13
if a federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect
(APE) were provided by DOT and reviewed with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO requested more information and photos
from DOT. After reviewing the additional information and photos, SHPO
concurred with DOT that the mill complex in question is not eligible for
the National Register and that there are no National Register listed or
eligible properties located within the APE. (See correspondence dated
June 18, 1992, included in the Appendix).
There are no anticipated impacts to archaeological resources as a
result of constructing this project.
Since there are no properties either listed in or eligible for the
National Register in the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is
required.
Air Quality and Traffic Noise Analysis
The project is located within the Eastern Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Rutherford County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this
project.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes along the
facility and no additional through travel lanes will be added. The 67 dBA
contour is located inside of the right-of-way of the proposed project.
Due to these factors, the proposed traffic characteristics and the
location of the receptors, the project's impact on noise and air quality
will be insignificant.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements in Title 23 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 772 (highway traffic noise) and Part 770 (air
quality) and no additional reports are required.
Floodplain Involvement
Rutherford County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
emergency program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project
area is shown in Figure 5. The amount of floodplain area to be affected
is not considered to be significant.
14
There are no practical alternatives t
Any shift in alignment would result in a
magnitude. The alignment of the project
floodplain area. All reasonable measures
possible harm.
Farmland
o crossing the floodplain area.
crossing of about the same
is perpendicular to the
will be taken to minimize any
This project has been coordinated with the U. S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). The Farmland Protection Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of construction and land
acquisition projects on prime and important farmland soils as defined by
the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. Information regarding the location
of prime or important farmland soils was requested from the SCS for the
project area. Since the modern soil survey for Rutherford County is
currently underway, no soils information for the project area is currently
available. Since the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD 1006)
cannot be completed, further consideration of the potential impact to
prime farmland soils is not required under the Act.
Contaminated Properties
No sites were identified with the potential for hazardous materials
involvement along the proposed alignment.
On the basis of the above environmental evaluation, it is concluded
that no serious adverse environmental effects will result from
implementation of the subject project.
AHS/plr
1988
1901
0 ?
b
1998
2 w

Co
h
1p
3
Oy
O 1935
1943
O
r
14 OQ 12 bh
1937
2144
37
?,3 OS
?>
•O?
2003 1943
O
j
1989 .
1942
S
2212
1942 1944
09 1944 1981

?
2143 ?3 GU' 2004 939 1938
v' '1O '
12
06 5
09
o
05 .
.
23
2 .02 23 1981

.40 2027
9 1945
14 2005
2143
b?2026
OJECT °? °'

`r
1940
O O •09
2141 1946
.03 3 1948
Caroleen 1941 .07 •13 1947
.09
.20 1949
1958 .55 1947 Nl -
2142 ?°

a 1958
t 1920
o ® 02 1997
• 1954
1950
1954 -
gvondale •35

,=y I ry

?
0 b0 1960 19'
00
2138
? 1920
_
-
`- ? 07
HENRIETTA .
2138
•f (UNINC
)
; . 1960
- POP. 1,412
;_
-- 1961 /
Henrietta ,29 -•02 r p7
cv
•04+
q
O
21
35
> 1
.11 931
-
M • 10 '2

' 2134
0S 2131
' _
cv ^ { n
1
2142
.30 2126
2129 .46 r
c
2129 to -_
2127
J 2128
4
.80 0 ?•
c O
ne - i
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION 9s
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BR I DGE NO. 56
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT B- 1377
9/90 FIG. 1
In o 00
Z o U
v , 4 po w 0
r i y x "r / dOZC7 0 Cr
7
Er w
Go im
N f
8?
w
a'
41
„?' S rf ?' ` . ?` C' 3 • l Cat'
.
•
[c3 ? ' iew,.,,
: h
- ?: - ac-
*VL
/
r ,
p
1t{{ ,
??? app
r j 9,.L.
Ilk
R i f p,,{/ 1 sn, r' ? ? ;gin... rr"1• ? ? \ 1? ??
?•' ? ''!?.Fy 1??d ???^-R ? ? ? , 1 ? - ?`? `. "?ti. ? ? .. ?,, sue, - •:.?:'
1

94
WEST APPROACH

SKETCH OF TYPICAL SECTIONS
SR IDGc
s' 1 12 , 1 2' 1 e'
ROADWAY APPROACH
FIGURE 4
s .
` Y f J" C.
? Y 1 C I
LLJ
J { .
uj F:
' ? ,/p i ,? , ?- ? ,? a ? ? 1, I ,'. •. ./ '?.
? ?' ` '? = '? [ -__ - ? , ```?` •' ? HIV„
p •? ?.
C-r
LL.
)
t Fl GURE 5
NORTH CAROLINA SiATL CLEARINGHUUSE
A208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611.,..,.,,
11-04-91
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV IEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO
N.Z.. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
L.J. WARD
PLANNING & ENV. BRANCH
HIGHWAY BLDG. 1INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FROM
MRS . CHRYS BAGGE t: ;y?
DIRECTOR
N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
SCOP ING FOR. COMMENTS FOR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE 56
ON US 221A C VER SECOND B RCAD RIVER, RUTHERFORD COUNTY
(TIP B-1377)
SAI NC 92E42200162 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABCVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NCRTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FCLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED I ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE (919) 733-J499.
C.C. REGION C

a $TA r(
1? f
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
l
t,
Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
92-0162 - Bridge Replacement over Second Broad River
October 3, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's scoping notice
regarding the replacement of bridge #56 on US 221A.
The attached comments reflect specific concerns of our
divisions that should be addressed and recognized in the
environmental document. The Department of Transporation is
encouraged to notify our reviewing divisions with any problems or
questions they may have in addressing these concerns.
t
attachments
PC) Rnr 17r?.,?7 P duwh North Carolina 27,11 7087 Telwhone 919.733-o376
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
September 25, 1991
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
c7_
THROUGH: Carol Tingley
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program V'
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Improve Bridge over Second Broad River,
Caroleen, Rutherford County
REFERENCE: 92-0162
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for a rare
species of fish from the Second Broad River. The Santee chub
(Hybopsis zanema), considered significantly rare in North
Carolina, has been found downstream from the proposed project near
Cliffside. It can also be expected to occur closer to the
project, given the presence of suitable habitat in this vicinity.
This species, and other aquatic organisms, could be adversely
affected by any siltation or runoff of pollutants resulting from
earth-moving and construction associated with the project. Best
management practices should be followed for the control of
erosion, siltation, and runoff.
3196

J;
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9.-
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 25, 1991
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge #56 on US 221A over Second Broad
River, Rutherford County, TIP B-1377, State Project
8.1890201, Federal Aid Project BRS-8206(7).
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. Ward of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our concerns
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
above referenced project. The NCDOT plans to build a bridge similar
to, and just north of, the existing bridge.
Biological field staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the project proposal and made a site
visit on September 24, 1991. Wildlife and fisheries habitat in the
area are generally of poor quality. Upland and riparian habitat
consists almost exclusively of kudzu. Stream habitat is poor because
of water quality degradation from dye wastes and sedimentation. No
threatened, endangered or rare animals are known to exist at this
site.
The NCWRC has no objection to this project provided that measures
are taken to prevent the introduction of wet concrete into the water
if concrete pier footings are to be placed in the river, thus avoiding
the possibility of a fish kill.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25). Thank you for the
opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we can provide
further assistance, please call on us.
DLS/lp
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mountain Region Habitat Biologist
State of North Carolina Revie' O ice:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources w?,t
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: i) Duebate:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. T,Te
r-
L
f-
L_
C
C

L_
C
?

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit NIA
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner. 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and-Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources (90 days)

Any open burning associated with subject proposal o
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. ?
- ?, ?,? .:•; ;,' .? =?
l .? .J?1
?, f v7
\
Demolition or renovations of structures containing ?.,
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA yl
prior to demolition. O
(90 days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation control plan
ill be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 days before begin activity.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
*-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.
AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres $ 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (N/A)
404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
Ps 105
Continued on reverse

?
Ell
u
?
?
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application
- (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $10.00 fee must accompany application
7 (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary,, being certain to cite comment authority):
i
I
i
reviewer signature agency date
REGIONAL OFFICES
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone]
? Moorseville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
t -_y I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources .,'
Division of Land Resources j
James G. Marian, Govemor PROTECT REVIEW COl44ENTS Charles H. Gard her
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: r _ QlC'? a County: ????{-ht ? rC}rc?
Project Name: Inf.!n(nrflPA-j-Gf ?C dcV, an u 1A SCCr?,'?„?&cX E"'
S-4,v- PrC*t NO. g? 18'1CaU1 -,I P F? • l? 2'I `-ecier?l I? c? c5rcr ?25. L,(a??J
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
. / geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
V This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For or i ation ntact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
'DZ
viewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
?thha one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
?If any portion of the 13roject is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more formation con ct the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer / Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
.i'..? SfArt,.
c ?. -?71
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc r
James G. Martin, Governor Division of rchives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
October 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of High S
Department of rans 7rtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Histo 1c Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge #56 on US 221 A over
Second Broad River, Rutherford County,
B-1377, 8.1890201, CH 92-E-4220-0162
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our survey site files which do not identify
any structures of historic or architectural importance within the general area
of the project. However, at an early scoping meeting for this project, we
discovered three structures--a house, a mill, and the bridge itself--over fifty
years of age in the project vicinity.
Please note that because the bridge is over fifty years of age and meets
Criterion A (as a property associated with the transportation history of North
Carolina), and Criterion C (as a good example of particular type), we feel that
the bridge may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. We have requested that the Federal Highway Administration and the
North Carolina Department of Transportation conduct a comprehensive study
of North Carolina concrete bridges so that we may better understand these
resources.
Overall, we recommend that the architectural historian on staff for the
Department of Transportation examine these structures and report her
findings to us. For each structure, please submit photographs, keyed to a
map, along with a location description. Also include a brief statement about
each structure's history and explain which National Register criteria it does
or doe snot meet. Without this information, we are unable to determine if
any National Register-eligible structures are located in the project area.
109 East Jones Screet • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
L. J. Ward
October 9, 199 1, Page 2
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any
archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. We,
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Mate Clearinghouse
B. Church
?g 1011 j???,
991
R

,???°"*?, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _
S, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION FOUR
`t,?? ?yT 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
o??v??u? Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
April 2, 1992
In Reply Refer To:
HB-NC
Dr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Dr. Brook:
Subject: Section 106 Consultation,
US 221A Over Second Broad
8206(7), B-1377
Replacement of Bridge No. 56 on
River, Rutherford County, BRS-
In your October 9, 1991 letter to Mr. Jack Ward, P.E., of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), you requested
additional information on three structures in the vicinity of the
subject project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) has responded to your request with a letter and attached
photographs concerning the three properties which we are
transmitting to you with this correspondence.
The NCDOT has concluded that the mill, the house, and the subject
bridge do not meet the requirements for eligibility for inclusion
to the National Register. Also, the house and the mill lie outside
of the area of potential effect. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is in agreement with the findings made by the
NCDOT and ask that you concur in them.
If you have any questions,
contact Mr. Brad Hibbs in
your consideration in this
or need additional information, please
our office at 856-4350. Thank you for
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Enclosures
c. ?? -
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., NCDOH
' a SIA7[ ;"
i?
Ilk qw..?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 56 on US 221-A over
Second Broad River, Rutherford County,
B-1377, BRS-8206(7), ER 92-8161
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Ai
William S.
V?
APR 201992
OIVI ICI OF
sand HistoNl`` I
Thank you for your letter of April 2, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the documentation submitted for the three structures over
fifty years of age within the area of potential effect. We concur with the
North Carolina Department of Transportation that the house is outside the
area of potential effect and the bridge is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places since many other representatives of its type exist
throughout the state.
However, we cannot concur at this time that Caroleen Mill is located outside
the area of potential effect. The mill raceway, which is an integral part of
the historic mill, is still visible and runs north paralleling the river and
crossing under Bridge No. 56. Moreover, we feel that the mill may be
eligible for listing in the National Register. From the photographs submitted,
the new structures do not appear to be attached or to compromise the
integrity of the historic structure. New mechanical systems and bricked-in
doors and windows do not necessarily preclude National Register-eligibility.
Additional photographs which completely show the exterior of the historic
structure and the new buildings, keyed to a map, and a brief history of the
mill, are needed to determine if the mill retains its integrity.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 16, 1992, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
IDavrd-Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ,)-L. J. Ward
K. Houston
V
STATE

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 18, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 56 on US 221 A over
Second Broad River, Rutherford County,
B-1377, BRS-8206(7), 8.1890201, ER 92-8441
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr,, Director
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the additional photographs and historical background for
Caroleen Mill. We concur with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's determination that the mill complex is not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places due to the numerous character-
altering changes that have taken place. Thus, no National Register-listed or
eligible properties are located in the area of potential effect for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Da rok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: J. Ward
K. Houston
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
July 29, 1992
Mr. Robert Johnson, Office Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
SUBJECT: Review of an application by NCDOT to replace Bridge #56 on US
221A over Second Broad River, Rutherford County, TIP B-1377,
State Project 8.1890201, Federal Aid Project BRS-8206(7)
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is requesting a
letter of concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) to obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
NCWRC has reviewed information provided by the applicant, and a site visit was
conducted on September 24, 1991. These comments are provided in accordance
with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (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).
Based on the information provided by the applicant and our information on
the range of trout in the project area, we do not believe this project will cause
significant effects to waters supporting trout. Therefore, we do not object to the
project as proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please advise.
Since ely,
4at? /44??
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
,Ms. Angela Smith, NCDOT
la ......
??`„+ STAif
l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
June 18, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 56 on US 221 A over
Second Broad River, Rutherford County,
B-1377, BRS-8206(7), 8.1890201, ER 92-8441
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1992, concerning the above project
We have reviewed the additional photographs and historical background for
Caroleen Mill. We concur with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's determination that the mill complex is not eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places due to the numerous character-
altering changes that have taken place. Thus, no National Register-listed or
eligible properties are located in the area of potential effect for this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
§i.ncerely,
Da r ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
K. Houston
you have questions
Gledhill-Earley,
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807