19940050 Ver 1_Complete File_19940114

a.,a5U7p°
•? 401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP,,ANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 14, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Rutherford County, Bridge No. 8 over Broad River,
State Project No. 8.1890501, Federal Aid No. BRS-
8206(8), T.I.P. No. B-1379.
R 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 Ad tration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance w.th 23 FR 771.115(b).
Therefore we do not anticipate reques g an i dividual
permit but propose to proceed under Nationw1 e Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendi A (B-23) 'ssued November
22, 1991 by the Corps of Engineers. The pr isions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) o these egulations will be
followed in the construction of the ect.
We anticipate that comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) will be required prior
to authorization by the Corps of Engineers. By copy of this
letter and attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review.
The NCDOT also requests that NCWRC forward their comments to
the Corps of Engineers.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the attached information to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their
review.
M-41
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone].
Sincerely,
fa?
qB DJO'Qui n
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, P.E., DEHNR, DEM
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCWRC
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. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Mr. R. E. Edmonds, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch

US 221A
Broad River
Rutherford County
TIP # B-1379
State Project ## 8.1890501
F.A. r# BRS-8206(8)
1Vt7L}.-u al Resources Technical Report
B-1379
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Susan Corda, Biologist
March 1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........... ..............................1 ?--
1.1 Project Description ................................1
1.2 Purpose ............................................1
1.3 Study Area .........................................1
1.4 Methodology ........................................3
2.0 Natural Resources .....................................3
2.1 Biotic Resources ...................................3
2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................4
2.1.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................7
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................7
2.2 Physical Resources .................................8
2.2.1 Soils .........................................9
2.2.2 Water Resources ...............................9
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..........10
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues ................................11
3.1 Waters of the United States .......................11
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts ...........................11
3.1.2 Permits ......................................11
3.1.3 Mitigation ...................................12
3.2 Protected Species .................................12
3.2.1 Federally Protected species ..................12
3.2.2 State Protected Species ......................16
4.0 References ...........................................18
Appendix A. Executive Summary ...........................20
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map .............................2
Table 1 Fauna Observed or Noted in the Study Area .........4
Table 2 Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts ..... 8
Table 3 Soil Summary, Rutherford County .................. .9
Table 4 Federally protected species listed for
Rutherford County ................................ 12
Table 5 Federal Candidate species listed in
Rutherford County ................................ 16
Table 6 State protected species listed in
Rutherford County ................................ 16

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The project is located in Rutherford County (Figure 1).
Proposed construction consists of bridge replacement over the
Broad River and approach construction. Three alternates are
proposed:
1) Bridge replacement along the existing alignment with a
470' bridge length. An on-site temporary detour is
proposed immediately west of the existing bridge.
2) Bridge replacement on new location approximately 60 ' west
of its current location. Approximately 2100' of approach
construction, on new location, is proposed. The bridge
length is 4701. The existing bridge will be utilized for
traffic during construction. Alternate is recommended by
Project Planning.
3) Bridge replacement is proposed on new location
approximately 60' east of the existing bridge.
Approximately 2800' of approach construction, on new
location, is proposed. The proposed bridge length is
4751. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction.
The right-of way width varies in accordance with the
area topography and is delineated on aerial photography.
1.2 Purpose
This report describes the natural resources in the
project area and anticipated impacts to these resources.
This information is submitted for inclusion into a
Categorical Exclusion Document.
1.3 Study Area
The project is located south of Cliffside in Rutherford
County, which lies in the upper Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The study area is located in a rural area that is
dominated by upland forests. Several utility corridors cross
the study area. Two residential sites are located in the
study area. Topography is gently sloping in the river
floodplain and strongly sloping in adjacent upland areas.
Elevation ranges from 200' to 240' above mean sea level
(amsl).

3
1.4 Methodology
Aerial photographs (111= 1000, US Geological Survey
quadrant map (Chesnee), Rutherford County Soil information
(Soil Conservation service) and hydric soils list were
utilized during in-house research. In addition, the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Rutherford County
(produced by the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis) was also utilized. Potential jurisdictional
wetlands were identified from soil information and hydric
soils list. A site visit was made on October 22, 1992 to
inventory natural resources and determine wetland locations
and boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
2.0 Natural Resources
The Natural Resources section is divided into two major
parts: Biotic Resources and Physical Resources. Descriptions
of the plant and wildlife communities, located in the study
area, are included under Biotic Resources. Soil and water
resource information is discussed in the Physical Resources
section. Summaries of anticipated impacts discusses plant
and wildlife community impacts, as well as water resource
impacts.
2.1 Biotic Resources
A biotic resources description, by community, is
provided below. Both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems will
be impacted by proposed construction. Limited descriptions
of flora and fauna, which are likely to occur in each
community, are presented. Complete listings of terrestrial
and aquatic organisms that may occur in the study area can be
found in specific references presented in section 4.0.
Common and scientific names are provided for each
species listed; in subsequent references to the same
organism, only the common name is given. The following is a
list of fauna observed, or evidence noted, in the study area.

4
Table 1. Fauna Observed or Noted in the Study Area
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
bluejay Cvanocitta cristata
common crow Corvus brachvrhvnchos
eastern ground skink Scincella lateralis
garden spider Argiope sp.
2.1.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four biotic communities were identified in the study
area: Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood, Scrub Pine and Hardwood
Riparian System. Each community is described below.
Disturbed
Roadsides, utility corridors and residential sites
support the Disturbed community. Small portions of
Alternates 1-3 will impact the Disturbed community. The
vegetation is maintained by mowing. Shrubs observed are
"winged sumac (Rhus copallina), smooth sumac (R. glabra),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), privet (Ligustrum sinense),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum) and black locust (Robinia
pseudo-acacia).
A number of herbaceous species such as dog fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), goldenrod (Solidaao sp.), panic
grass (Panicum sp.), erigeron (Eriaeron sp.), joe-pye weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata),
clover (Trifolium sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), sneeze weed
(Helenium sp.) and foxtail (Setaria sp.) were observed during
the field survey. Catbrier vines (Smilax sp.) are common at
ground level.
Mixed Hardwood
Located in upland areas adjacent to the Broad River is
the Mixed Hardwood community. A great portion of the study
area is dominated by this community. Currently, the Mixed
Hardwood community is broken only by the existing roadway and
utility corridors. The canopy is mature and well-developed
but not crowded (based on tree size and spacing). Several
oak species -including black oak (Ouercus velutina), willow
oak (Ouercus Phellos).and southern red oak (Ouercus falcata)
dominate the canopy. Mockernut hickory (Carva tomentosa)
also occurs in association with these oaks. The Mixed
Hardwood community also contains stands dominated with tulip
poplar, white oak (Ouercus alba) and willow oak (Ouercus
phellos). Widely scattered sycamore trees (Platanus

5
occidentalis) are present.
The Mixed Hardwood community is open at eye-level. The
understory is sparse, only sourwood (Oxvdendrum arboreum) and
scattered dogwood (Cornus florida) specimens were observed.
The shrub layer is sparse to absent - black haw (Viburnum
prunifolium), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and
sassafras (sassafras albidum) were common. Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), catbrier, cow itch (Campsis
radicans) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are
sparsely scattered at ground level and on tree trunks. The
herbaceous layer was largely absent due to seasonality and
fail leaf litter. Pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platynureon) and crane-fly orchid (Tipularia
discolor) were observed at the time of the field survey. The
prickly pear cactus (Opuntia compressa) was noted
infrequently in dry, exposed upland sites.
Scrub Pine
A small, dense stand of scrub pine (Pinus virginiana),
is present in the corridor of Alternate 3 at the north
,terminus of the project. Spotty occurrences of several other
species were noted including black oak (Ouercus Phellos),
willow oak, beech (Tagus arandifolia) and American holly
(Ilex opaca) and dogwood. Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia) and
Japanese honeysuckle vines are common along the ground and on
tree trunks. Pipsissewa was observed.
The Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood Forest and the Scrub Pine
communities are open and lack dense vegetation that may serve
as cover for certain organisms. All the upland plant
communities support similar wildlife species. The American
toad ($ufo americanus) and the spring peeper (Hula crucifer)
are insectivorous amphibians likely to be found in these
upland communities foraging on small arthropods. Reptiles
such as the broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps) and the
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) are also found in
upland areas and feed on insects such as grasshoppers,
beetles and spiders. Redbelly snakes (Storeria
occipitomaculata) and brown snakes (Storeria dekavi) are
common inhabitants whose primary diet consists of earthworms
and slugs. The copperhead snake (Agkistrodon contortrix) may
also be found in the study area and is an organism that feeds
on insects, amphibians, other reptiles and small mammals.
Several mammalian species may be found in the study
area. The eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) inhabits open
forests with abundant crevices for cover. They feed
primarily on seeds, nut and berries, but may also consume
insects, small amphibians and birds. Eastern cottontail
(Svly it agus fl or idanus ) is most likely to occur in the
Disturbed community where there is adequate cover and
6
abundant foraging material. The white-footed mouse
(Peromvscus leucopus) may be found in upland communities
located in the study area foraging on berries, seeds, nuts,
insects and animal material. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes)
inhabits open woodlands and edges adjacent to different types
of cover such as old fields and woodlots. The red fox
consumes mice as a major portion of its diet but may also eat
small mammals, insects, plants and birds. The white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virainianus) is likely to forage in the
project vicinity. Its diet consists primarily of plant
material.
Several avian species fauna may inhabits the study area.
The blue-jay is found in most forested stands but prefers
open pine-oak forests. The blue-jay is an omnivore that
consumes primarily plant matter. The common crow is an avian
species that inhabits open habitats in the study area. Its
diet also consists primarily of plant material. Other common
avian fauna includes the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) and
the red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaicensis). Both consume animal
matter but in different manners - the turkey vulture
scavenges along the roadway for food and the red-tailed hawk
soars and captures their prey.
Hardwood Riparian System
The Hardwood Riparian System community occurs as a
narrow band of vegetation associated with the Broad River.
This community floods periodically and fluvial sediments,
deposited by previous high water periods, were observed
during the field investigation. The vegetation is dominated
by a hardwood canopy - predominantly sycamore, tulip poplar
and river birch (Betula niara). Understory species include
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and box elder (Acer negundo).
Dense stands of cane (Arundinaria gigantea), over 7' high,
occur north of the river. Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
is sparsely distributed. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans)
and Japanese honeysuckle grow at ground level. The
herbaceous layer contains species such as Chasmanthium
(Chasmanthium latifolia), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) and
verbesina (Verbesina sp.).
The southeast portion of the study area is disturbed due
to maintenance of a utility corridor. The vegetation is very
dense and devoid of a canopy except for several sycamore
trees. Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), privet and
Japanese honeysuckle are the most prevalent species.
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) vines are common,
and form dense entanglements, in disturbed sites along
utility corridors. In addition, sericea (Lespedeza cuneata)
was observed.

7
The Hardwood Riparian system is closely associated with
the Broad River. In addition to the animal species mentioned
previously, the Hardwood Riparian system is likely to be
inhabited with animal species that depend on water. The
opossum (Didelphis virainiana) is one animal that may be
found anywhere in the study area from dry uplands to wetter
habitats but prefers forested bottomlands near water. The
opossum forages on animal and plant material. The raccoon
(Procyon lotor) typically inhabits forested areas near
streams. Its main diet includes crayfish and crabs but may
also consume fruits, berries and seeds. The mink (Mustela
vison) is found near water and feeds on both aquatic and
terrestrial organisms - whichever is most prevalent.
Reptiles such as the northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon) lives in or near water. They consume primarily fish
and amphibians. The rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) inhabits a
variety of communities from upland hardwood forests to river
bottomlands. Their diet consists of small mammals and birds.
One avian species, the belted kingfisher (Meaacervle
alcvon), is likely to be found along the river banks feeding
upon fish and small insects.
M2.1.2 Aquatic Communities
The subject project crosses the Broad River. Aquatic
communities associated with the Broad River are described
below.
The Broad River may support a variety of organisms.
Fish species recorded in the river include: rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), thicklip chub (Hybopsis labrosa),
Santee chub (Hvbopsis zanema), bluehead chub (NOCOmis
leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Notropis chloristius),
fieryblack shiner (Notropis pvrrhomelas), shiners (Notropis
sp.), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), striped jumprock
(Moxostoma rupiscartes), snail bullhead (Ictalurus brunneus),
margined madtom (Noturus insignia), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis punctatus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare) and tessellated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi).
2.1.3 summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction will impact the Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood,
Scrub Pine and Hardwood Riparian System communities. Plant
community impacts are presented in Table 2. These estimates
are preliminary and may change.
r r
8
Table 2. Summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY Alt. 1* Alt.2 Alt.3
Disturbed 1.4 1.0 2.1
Mixed Hardwood 0.4 2.8 4.5
Scrub Pine - - 1.6
Hardwood Riparian System 0.1 0.5 0.9
TOTALS 1.9 4.3 9.1
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on varying construction
widths. Values shown are in acres.
* Alternate 1 acreage values are totals of both temporary and
permanent impacts.
Direct result of project construction will be the loss
of wildlife habitat. The study area supports a large
undeveloped tract of land. Alternates 2-3 will impact
greater amounts of wildlife habitat than Alternate 1. The
construction limits of Alternates 2-3 are wide at the
,northern terminus. This area contains steep topography. The
impact area of Alternated is confined to the immediate
vicinity of the existing roadway.
Construction may create a barrier to certain organisms
that would normally cross the existing roadway. Also,
increased roadway noise from construction may inhibit certain
species from normal movements adjacent to the roadway. These
impacts may lead to changes in species diversity and
community dynamics. As a result, sensitive organisms may be
displaced.
The Riparian Hardwood System may serve as a corridor for
certain species that normally migrate adjacent to the river.
Impacts to this community may disrupt normal animal
movements. Efforts should be made to minimize impacts to
this community.
Efforts should be made to minimize erosion at
construction sites adjacent to the Broad River. Increased
sedimentation may impact aquatic organisms such as fish,
filter feeders and non-mobile species. Sedimentation
settling on the substrate may bury non-mobile bottom dwellers
such as invertebrates and mussels.
2.2 Physical Resources
Soil and water resource information in the study area is
described below.

9
2.2.1 Soils
The Soil Conservation Service is currently mapping soils - -
in Rutherford County. Soil information is available for the
study area and obtained from Scott Keenan, the Soil Survey
Project Leader for the county. The project area supports 6
soil manning units. These soil units are stated in Table 3.
Table 3
SYMBOL
7B
724c2
724d2
60C2
60B2
624e
Soil Summary, Rutherford County
NAME
Buncombe loamy sand
Pacolet-Bethlehem complex
Pacolet-Bethlehem complex
Pacolet-Saw complex
Pacolet-Saw complex
Rion-Hibriten complex:
SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
- Non-Hydric
8-15 Non-Hydric
15-25 Non-Hydric
8-15 Non-Hydric
2- 8 Non-Hydric
25-60 Non-Hydric
The most prevalent soil map units in the study area
include Buncombe loamy sand, Pacolet-Bethlehem complex and
Rion-Hibriton complex. Buncombe loamy sand is located on
piedmont floodplains in irregular bands that may be long and
narrow. The permeability is rapid, with occasional flooding
for very brief periods. This unit is excessively drained.
Pacolet-Bethlehem complex is commonly found on ridgetops
and side slopes. The permeability of this soil is moderate
and the soil is well drained.
Rion-Hibriton complex is found on very stony side slopes
in and may be found at rock outcrops that support little
vegetation. Permeability is moderate and the soil is well
drained.
2.2.2 Water Resources
The project is located in the Broad River Basin. The
Broad River is approximately 200' wide in the study area.
The Broad River is several feet deep and the bottom is
presumed to be composed of sand, silt and gravel. Cobbles
and boulders are not present along the river banks. The
Broad River originates in the Henderson/Buncombe/West
Rutherford County area and flows to the southeast. The Green
River drains into the Broad River upstream of the study area.
The First Broad River and Second Broad River drain into the
Broad River downstream of the study area. The Broad River
flows into South Carolina.
The best usage classification of the Broad River in the
study area is C (DEM, 1993). Best usage recommendations for
Class C waters include aquatic propagation and survival,
10
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
An unnamed tributary drains from the north into the
Broad River. This tributary is 2' wide and up to 3" deep.
The bottom is composed of sand and silt. A slow flow was
observed at the time of the field survey. The best usage
classification of this tributary is the same as river it
drains into. In this case, the best usage classification is
C.
Neither High Quality Waters, outstanding Resource Waters
nor waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area, or within l mile downstream.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program.
This network addresses long term trends in water quality by
measuring the taxa richness and the presence of organisms
intolerable to water quality changes. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. BMAN
surveys have been conducted in the Broad River at US 221
approximately 4 miles upstream of the study area. The
bioclassification of these samples was rated as fair to
,,.good from 1983 to 1989.
Rutherford County is located within a "Trout" county.
The Broad River is not classified as a Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water in the study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharge,
no matter how small, is required to register for a permit.
Several NPDES dischargers are located downstream of the study
area within two miles of the project.
2.2.2.1 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to
water resources such as:
- Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction.
- Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to
increased sedimentation and vegetation removal.
- Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions
and/or additions to surface and ground water flow from
construction.
- Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
- Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway
runoff, construction and toxic spills.
II
Recommendations:
- Non-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts
made to control runoff.
- Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and
sedimentation Control guidelines should be advocated during
the construction phase of the project.
- Vegetated berms/swales to minimize toxic discharge into
streams.
3.0 Jurisdictional Issues
3.1 Waters of the United States
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating
activities in "Waters of the US" in regards to highway
projects based on the following laws: Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899:(33 USC 403) and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Any action that
proposes to impact "Waters of the US" falls under the
jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers and a federal permit
is required. Generally, "Waters of the US" is defined as
;navigable waters, their tributaries and associated wetlands
and subdivided into "wetlands" and "surface waters".
3.1.1 Summary of Impacts
Impacts to surface waters of the Broad River and an
unnamed tributary are anticipated from proposed construction.
No jurisdictional wetland plant communities are located in
the study area.
3.1.2 Permits
The project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion. A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be
applicable for proposed construction. This permit authorizes
any 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 Council on Environmental Quality
regulation for 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 CE and concurs
with that determination. All permit decision rests with the
Corps of Engineers.

12
In addition, the project is located in a designated
"trout" county where NCDOT is required to seek concurrence of
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
3.1.3 Mitigation
Anticipated placement of fill into a jurisdictional
area is likely to be authorized under a Nationwide Permit.
Generally, no mitigation is required based on an
understanding of the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final
decision rests with the Corps;of Engineers.
3.2 Protected Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were consulted to
determine if any protected species are located in the study
area.
3.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Four federally protected species are listed by the USFWS
for Rutherford County as of March 4, 1993. These species are
listed in Table 4. A discussion of each species follows.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species Listed for
Rutherford County
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
MAMMAL
Indiana bat Mvotis sodalis* E
BIRD
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus E
PLANTS
White irisette Sisvrinchium dichotum E
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora T
Status Definitions
E (Endangered): A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T (Threatened): A taxon that is likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future.
* Indicates no specimen from that county in at least 20 years
13
Mvotis sodalis (Indiana bat) E
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae <-y
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.': Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain.
The Mvotis sodalis range is centered around cavernous
limestone regions in the eastern United States. They range from
the western edge of the Ozark Mountains in Oklahoma north to
southern Wisconsin, east to Vermont, and south down the
Appalachian Mountains to northern Alabama.
Adult Indiana bats are the smallest bats found in western
North Carolina. They measure 7.5 cm in length and weigh 1/8 -1/4
ounce. Several characteristics can be used to distinguish them
from other bats; the hair on the feet is short and does not extend
past the tips of the claws, the tail membrane is attached to the
base of the keel, and the calcar .(cartilaginous spur from the bats
heel which helps support tail or interfemoral membrane) is keeled.
The Indiana bats dorsal fur is brown in color and the ventral fur
is lighter with a cinnamon hue.
The Indiana bat has different summer and winter habitat
requirements. Winter habitat is in caves and abandoned mines that
usually has standing water on the floor, called hibernacula. They
go into their hibernacula in September or November and stay there
with occasional periods of activity until they emerge in mid-March
and early may. Hibernation only occurs in regions where winter
temperatures are stable and range from 4-8 degrees Celcius.
Little is known of the summer habitat of the Indiana bat, it is
thought that they disperse throughout their range and spend the
summer foraging alone over streams or along forest margins.
Females spend the summer in maternity colonies that contain from
50 to 100 individuals. They have been found under loose bark on
dead and living trees along small to medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian
vegetation overhanging the water by more than 3 meters. Streams
that have been stripped of their riparian vegetation do not appear
to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as foraging areas and
as migration routes are extremely important to this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
According to David Webster (Biology Professor,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington) the study area
does not support suitable habitat for the Indiana bat because
it is low in elevation and the topography is relatively flat.
No impacts to the Indiana bat will occur from proposed
construction.
t
14
Falco perearinus anatum (American peregrine falcon) E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70; 6/2/70; 3/20/70
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Burke, Jackson, Madison, Surry,
Transylvania, Wilkes.
The anatum subspecies of the peregrine falcon is intermediate
in coloring. The back is dark gray and the underside is off-white
to tannish with dark barring. This subspecies appears slightly
larger than the tundrius subspecies and has a wider black wedge
forming the side of the helmet. Males of this species grow to an
average length of 40 cm and females average 47.5 cm in length.
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the United
States in areas with high cliffs and open land for foraging.
Nesting for the falcons is generally on high cliff ledges but they
may also nest in broken off tree tops in the eastern deciduous
forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and
birds. They occupy a range from .25 to 120 square miles depending
on the availability of food. The hunting range usually extends 10
miles from the nest. Nesting occurs from mid-March to May.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The study area supports a large, undeveloped area that
may be utilized as foraging habitat by the peregrine falcon.
The study area does not support suitable nesting habitat for
the peregrine falcon such as high cliffs or urban dwellings.
Since the study area does not support suitable nesting
habitat and the peregrine falcon is a mobile species, no
impacts to the peregrine falcon will occur from proposed
construction.
Sisvrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) PE
Plant Family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: October 28, 1991
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Polk, Rutherford.
The white irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North
Carolina. It is limited to an area bounded by white Oak Mountain,
Sugar Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock.
The white irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously
branching stems that grow from 11 to 20 centimeters tall. The
basal leaves are bluish green in color and are 1/3 to 1/2 the
overall height of the plant. White flowers are borne at the ends
of winged stems and the fruit is a round, pale to medium brown
capsule containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds.
This plant is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of
e
15
upland woods where a thin canopy is present. These open areas
often are where runoff has removed the deep litter layer that is
usually present. It occurs on rich, basic soils that are probably
weathered from amphibolite. It is dependent on a form of -'
disturbance to maintain the open quality of its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The study area supports suitable habitat for the white
irisette. Disturbed, open areas such as utility corridors
and roadsides are found in the project study area. Plant
surveys are necessary, during the flowering period from June
to July, to determine if the white irisette is present in the
study area.
Hexastvlis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: midMarch - midMay
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln,
Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern
piedmont counties in North Carolina and the adjacent portions of
'South Carolina.
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin
petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds
15cm in height. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen,
and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles.
Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs
and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and
creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest
and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
The subject project supports suitable habitat for the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the upland forest areas both
north and south of the Broad River. Plant surveys for the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf are necessary during the flowering
period from March through May to determine if this species is
located within the study area.
Federal Candidate Species
A number of species are listed by the USFWS as candidate
species in Rutherford County (Table 5). These species are
not afforded federal protection at this time but their status
1 G
may be upgraded in the future. The habitat column indicates
the potential for their occurrence (based on availability of
suitable habitat) in the study area.
Table 5. Federal Candidate species listed in
Rutherford County
Common Name
MAMMAL
Eastern small-footed bat
BIRD
Cerulean warbler
AMPHIBIAN
Green salamander
PLANTS
Rock gnome lichen
Gray's saxifrage
Divided-leaf ragwort
Sweet pinesap
Nestronia
16
Scientific Name Status Habitat]
Mvotis subulatus leibii C2
Dendroica cerulea C2
N
N
Aneides aeneus* C2 Y
Gvmnoderma lineare C2 N
Saxifraga caroliniana C2 N
Senecio millefolium C2 Y
Monotropsis odorata* C2 Y
Nestronia umbellula* C2 Y
* Indicates no specimen in that county in at least 20 years.
3.2.2 State Protected Species
Species identified as Threatened, Endangered or Special
Concern are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern
(1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
No occurrence records of state protected species in the
study area are found in the NCNHP files. Federal Candidate
species in Rutherford County that are state protected and may
occur in the study area are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. State Protected species listed in
Rutherford County
Common Name
MAMMAL
Eastern small-footed bat
AMPHIBIAN
Green salamander
PLANTS
Rock gnome lichen
Divided-leaf ragwort
Scientific Name Status
Mvotis subulatus leibii SC
Aneides aeneus* E
Gvmnoderma lineare T
Senecio millefolium T
'C2: Candidate 2. 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.
T 4
17
Fauna Status Definitions
SC - Special Concern: Any species of wild animal native or
once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the
NCWRC to require monitoring.
E - Endangered: Any native or once-native species of wild
animal whose continued existence as a viable component of the
state's fauna is determined by the NCWRC to be jeopardy.
Flora Status Definitions
T - Threatened: Any species of plant likely to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable future.
Though all or some of these species may be present in
the study area, no surveys were conducted.
I c
18
4.0 REFERENCES
Division of Environmental Management. 1993. "Classifica-
tions and Water Quality Standards Assigned to The Waters
of the Broad River Basin". North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in
North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Lee, D.S. et al. 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater
Fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., Clark, M.K. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh,
N.C. North Carolina Biological Survey and North Carolina
State Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, H.E. Jr. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of
The Rare Animal Species Of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; NC Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1975. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. Press of the University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, North Carolina. 177 pp.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. The Delmar Company, Charlotte, North Carolina.
227 pp.
Menhenick, E.F., T.M. Burton and J.R. Bailey. 1974. An
annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of North
Carolina. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc. 90(1):24-50.
Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Second Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
(contains insect information)
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United
States. Third Edition. New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Potter, E.F., Parnell, J.F. and Teulings, R.P. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press. 408 pp.

19
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press. -?-'
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List Of The
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program; Division of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
by
Susan Corda
Biologist
US 221A
Broad River
Rutherford County
TIP # B-1379
State Project # 8.1890501
F.A. # BRS-8206(8)
METHODOLOGY
Aerial photographs (111= 1001), US Geological Survey
quadrant map (Chesnee), Rutherford County Soil information
(Soil Conservation Service) and hydric soils list were
utilized during in-house research of the subject project. A
site visit was made on October 22, 1992 to inventory natural
resources and determine wetland boundaries.
Information on the occurrence of federal and state
protected species was obtained from the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Four biotic communities were identified in the study
area:-Disturbed, Mixed Hardwood, Scrub Pine and Hardwood
Riparian System dominated communities. The following is a
list of fauna observed, or evidence noted, in the study area.
Table 1. Fauna Observed or Noted in the Study Area
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
bluejay Cvanocitta cristata
common crow Corvus brachvrhvnchos
eastern ground skink Scincella lateralis
garden spider ArQione sp.

Disturbed
The vegetation of the Disturbed community is maintained
by mowing. A variety of tree saplings and shrubs such as
winged sumac, smooth sumac, blackberry, black cherry, tulip
poplar and privet were observed during field investigations.
Herbaceous species such as dog fennel, catbrier,
sassafras, goldenrod, panic grass, erigeron, black locust,
joe-pye weed, partridge pea, clover, plantain, sneeze weed
and foxtail were observed during the field survey.
Mixed Hardwood
The canopy is dominated by several oak species such as
black oak, willow oak and southern red oak. Mockernut
hickory is present in association with the oak trees. Stands
dominated with tulip poplar, white oak and willow oak are
often encountered. Widely scattered sycamore trees are
present.
The understory is sparse - only sourwood and scattered
-,dogwood trees were observed. The shrub layer is sparse to
absent, species such as black haw, mountain laurel and
sassafras are typical. Several species of vines - Japanese
honeysuckle, catbrier, cow itch and poison ivy are scattered
at ground level and on tree trunks. Although the herbaceous
layer was largely absent during site investigations
pipsissewa, Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort and crane-fly
orchid were observed. Prickly pear cactus was noted
infrequently in dry, exposed upland sites.
Scrub Pine
one small, dense stand of scrub pine is present in the
corridor of Alternate 3 at the north terminus of the project.
Spotty occurrences of several other canopy species such as
black oak, willow oak, beech, American holly and dogwood were
noted. Muscadine and Japanese honeysuckle vines are common
along the ground and on tree trunks. Pipsissewa, an
evergreen perennial, was observed at ground level.
All the upland plant communities support similar
wildlife species. The species most likely to be found are
very common and occur in a wide range across the state.
Typical amphibian and reptilian species include American
toad; broadhead skink and the eastern fence lizard. Several
common snakes may also occur in the study area.
Small mammalian species common to the study area include
chipmunk, cottontail and the white-footed mouse. Larger
species such as the red fox and white-tailed deer are also
likely to forage in the project vicinity. Several avian

species blue-jay, common crow, turkey vulture and the red-
tailed hawk may inhabit the study area.
Hardwood Riparian System
The Hardwood Riparian System is associated with the
Broad River. The vegetation is dominated by a mixed hardwood
canopy. Understory species include ironwood and box elder.
Dense stands of cane over 7' high, occur north of the river.
The herbaceous layer contains species grasses and asters.
Disturbed areas along a utility corridor support
honeysuckle vines which form dense entanglements-.
The Hardwood Riparian system is inhabited by animal
species that depend on water. Mammals such as the opossum,
raccoon and mink may be found in or near the river feeding on
both animal and plant matter. The northern water snake and
rat snake are also likely in this area. They consume
primarily small animals. The belted kingfisher commonly
occurs along river banks feeding upon fish and small insects.
Aquatic Communities
Some of the fish species recorded in the river include:
rosyside dace, thicklip chub, Santee chub, bluehead chub,
greenfin shiner, fieryblack shiner, shiners, creek chub,
striped jumprock, snail bullhead, margined madtom, redbreast
sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, fantail darter and
tessellated darter.
Plant community impacts are presented in Table 1. These
estimates are preliminary and may change.
Table 1. summary of Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
PLANT COMMUNITY Alt. l* Alt.2 Alt.3
Disturbed 1.4 1.0 2.1
Mixed Hardwood 0.4 2.8 4.5
Scrub Pine - - 1.6
Hardwood Riparian System 0.1 0.5 0.9
TOTALS 1.9 4.3 9.1
Note: Estimated Impacts are based on varying construction
widths. Values shown are in acres.
Alternate 1 acreage values are totals of both temporary and
permanent impacts.
Direct result of project construction is the loss of
wildlife habitat. The side slopes support surrounding the
Broad River support steep topography. Impacts to the
Riparian Hardwood System may disrupt normal animal movements.

T , ? r
Efforts should be made to minimize erosion adjacent to the
river and along steep gradients. Increased sedimentation
from construction may impact aquatic organisms such as fish,
filter feeders and non-mobile species.
SOILS
Soil information is available from Soil Survey mapping
currently in progress. The project area supports 6 soil
mapping units. These soil units are stated in Table 2.
Table 2 Soil Summary, Rutherford County
SYMBOL NAME SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
7B Buncombe loamy sand - Non-Hydric.
724c2 Pacolet-Bethlehem complex 8-15 Non-Hydric
724d2 Pacolet-Bethlehem complex 15-25 Non-Hydric
60C2 Pacolet-Saw complex 8-15 Non-Hydric
60B2 Pacolet-Saw complex 2- 8 Non-Hydric
624e Rion-Hibriten complex 25-60 Non-Hydric
WATER RESOURCES
The project is located in the Broad River Basin. The
project will impact the Broad River (200' wide) and an
unnamed tributary (2' wide). The best usage classification
of the Broad River and the unnamed tributary is C (DEM,
1993).
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters and
waters classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study
area, or within 1 mile downstream.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network surveys have
been conducted in the Broad River at US 221 approximately 4
miles upstream of the study area. The bioclassification of
these samples was rated as fair to good.
Rutherford County is located within a "Trout" county.
The Broad River is not classified as a Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water in the study area.
Several NPDES dischargers are located downstream of the
study area within two miles of the project.
Project construction may result in a number of impacts
to water resources such as increased sedimentation and
siltation from construction and changes in water clarity due
to increased sedimentation. Adherence to Best Management
Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines during the
construction phase of the project is recommended.

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Permits
Impacts to "Waters of the US" are anticipated from
proposed construction. Surface waters impacts are
anticipated at the Broad River and an unnamed tributary of
the river. No jurisdictional wetland plant communities are
located in the study area. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for proposed
construction.
In addition, the project is located in a designated
"trout" county where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of
approval from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge and
for which a federal permit is required.
Mitigation
Generally, no mitigation is required based on an
understanding of the MOA between the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency (1989). The final
decision rests with the Corps of Engineers.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Four federally protected species are listed by the USFWS
for Rutherford County as of January 7, 1993. These species
are listed in Table 3. A discussion of each species follows.
Table 3.
Federally Protected Species Listed for
Rutherford County
Common Name
MAMMAL
Indiana bat
BIRD
Peregrine falcon
PLANTS
White irisette
(Dwarf-flowered heartleaf
Scientific Name Status
Mvotis sodalis* E
Falco Peregrinus E
Sisvrinchium dichotum E
Hexastylis naniflora T
Status Definitions
E (Endangered): A taxon that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T (Threatened): A taxon that is likely to become endangered
in the foreseeable future.
_Y

The study area supports suitable habitat for 2 species -
the white irisette and the dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Both ?.
species are discussed below.
White irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotum) E
The study area supports suitable habitat for the white
irisette. Disturbed, open areas such as utility corridors
and roadsides are found in the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: Plant surveys are necessary, during
the flowering period from June to July, to determine if the
white irisette is present in the study area.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) T
The subject project supports. suitable habitat for the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the upland forest areas both
north and south of the Broad River.
Biological Conclusion: Plant surveys for the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf are necessary during the flowering period from
March through May to determine if this species is located
within the study area.
, r e
o'SG1TFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JP, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 17, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Schenck Cline, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report and
Executive Summary for the proposed bridge
replacement on US 221A over Broad River,
Rutherford County, TIP # B-1379, State
Project # 8.1890501, F.A. # BRS-8206(8).
ATTENTION: Joe Foutz, Project Engineer
Attached is the Natural Resources Technical report and
Executive Summary for the proposed bridge replacement on US
221A over the Broad River in Rutherford County. The project
is a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This report is
available on computer disc. Our staff would be interested in
reviewing the draft Categorical Exclusion document.
Two protected species issues were not resolved during
document preparation: white irisette (Sisyrinchium
dichotomum) and dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
nanifiora). Plant surveys are necessary for the white
irisette during the flowering period from June to July, to
determine if the white irisette is present in the study area.
In addition, plant surveys
heartleaf are necessary during
March through May to determine
within the study area.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
M. Randall Turner
for the dwarf-flowered
the flowering period from
if this species is located

4
A *. , ? r
Lry .wsWEo
a4N d ???
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 28, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Schenck Cline, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Susan Corda, Biologist
Environmental Unit
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federally Protected Species survey at the
proposed bridge replacement on US 1-21A over
Broad River, Rutherford County, TIP :i B-1379,
State Project # 8.1890501, F.A. # BRS-
8206(8).
ATTENTION: Joe Foutz, Project Engineer
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical report dated
March 17, 1993.
Two federally protected species issues were not resolved
when the referenced document was completed: the occurrence of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) and white
irisette (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) in the study area. A site
visit was made on May 18, 1993 to conduct surveys for both
plants to determine presence or absence.
Plant surveys for dwarf-flowered heartleaf were
conducted for Alternate 2 only (proposed west of the existing
road) in the Mixed Hardwood community, by walking transects
approximately 50 feet apart, parallel to the existing road.
No dwarf-flowered heartleaf plants were observed in the study
area or in the project vicinity. No impacts to dwarf-
flowered heartleaf will occur from proposed construction.
Plant surveys for white irisette were conducted in the
Mixed Hardwood community and the Disturbed community by the
same method stated above. No white irisette plants were
observed in the study area or in the project vicinity. No
impacts to white irisette will occur from proposed
construction.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Janet Shipley
M. Randall Turner
7*
a
Date: 1/93
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. - B-1379
State Project No. _8.1890501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRS-8206(8)
A. Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Bridge No. 8 on US 21-A over Broad River in Ruther ord
County is to be replaced on new location approximately
60 feet west of its existing location Approximately
2000 feet of new approaches will be needed
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: This project will increase safety for
traffic along th' section of US 221-A by replacing an
j_nadeauate structure-
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type I Improvements
1. Non-construction activities (program activities)
2. Approval of utility installations along or across a
transportation facility
3. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes,
paths, and facilities
4. Activities included in the State's "highway safety
plan" under 23 USC 402 (programs administered by
the Division of Motor Vehicles)
5. Transfer, of Federal lands pursuant to 23 USC 317
when the subsequent action is not an FHWA action
6. The installation of noise barriers or alterations
to existing publicly owned buildings to provide for
noise reduction
7. Landscaping
8. Installation of fencing,. signs, pavement markings,
small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and
railroad warning devices
9. Emergency repairs under 23 USC 125 (Governor
Declared Emergency)
10. Acquisition of scenic easements
11. Determination of payback under 23 CFR Part 480 for
property previously acquired with Federal-aid
participation
12. Improvements to existing rest areas and truck weigh
stations
4L
J Date: 1/93
13. Ridesharing activities
14. Bus and rail car rehabilitation
15. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to
make them accessible for elderly and handicapped
persons
16. Program administration, technical assistance
activities, and operating assistance to transit
authorities to continue existing service or
increase service to meet changes in routine demand
17. The purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the
use of these vehicles can be accommodated by
existing facilities or by new facilities which
themselves are within a CE
18. Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when
carried out within the existing right of way
19. Purchase and installation of operating or
maintenance equipment to be located within the
transit facility and with no significant impacts
off the site
20. Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.
Type U Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
2

Date: 1/93
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way,-where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
3

Date: 1/93
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS)
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be
applicable for the proposed construction. All permit
decisions rest with the Corps of Engineers.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is
required for any activity which may result in a discharge
and for which a federal permit is required. State permits
are administered through the Department of Environmental,
Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
This project is located in a designated "trout" county
where NCDOT is required to obtain a letter of coordination
from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). Preliminary coordination was conducted with the
NCWRC during the preparation of the planning document (see
Appendix A-1)_ Further coordination will be done with the
NCWRC during the permitting stage.
The study area supports suitable habitat for two federally
endangered species: white irisette and dwarf-flowered
heartleaf. Plant surveys will be conducted for each of
these plants during their flowering season of June to July.
and March to May, respectively.

I
Date: 1/93
The existing bridge was constructed in 1936 and has an
overall length of 459 feet. Bridge No. 8 has a
sufficiency rating of 49.9 compared to a rating of 100
for a new structure.
Preliminary hydrographic studies indicate that a bridge
470 feet in length should be provided as the replacement
structure. The elevation of the new structure should be
approximately the same as the floor elevation of the
existing bridge.
US 221-A in the project area has a current traffic volume
of 2500 VPD and is expected to increase to approximately
5100 VPD by the year 2013. The projected volume includes
2 % truck-trailer semi-trailer (TTST) and 8 % dual-tired
vehicles (DT).
F,
0
Date: 1/93
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NQ
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened a
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x a
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U_ S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated I-XI
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or x
hazardous materials sites? F

J
Date: 1/93
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YF.? ]Q
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? N/A
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(I1) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream -1 X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of X
any family or business? 17
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
7

Date: 1/93
?E.? Lt4
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase in traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours? - F I
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds F
-1 X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal,
State, and local laws relating to the
environmental aspects of the action?
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S_ Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
X F-1
?x
?x
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
P
Date: 1/93
F. Additional Documentation Required far Unfavorable
Responses jM Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
species may occur?
Two protected species issues were not resolved
during the natural resources investigation: white
irisette and dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Plant surveys are necessary during the flowering
period (June to July) to determine the presence of
the white irisette. In addition, plant surveys for
the dwarf-flowered heartleaf are necessary during
the flowering period (March to May) to determine if
this species is located in the study area.
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
Rutherford County is located within a "Trout
county. The Broad River is not classified as a
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the study
area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission has been contacted concerning this
project (see Appendix A-1). A letter of
coordination from the NCWRC will be obtained during
the permitting stage.
0
Date: 1/93
G. SE Approval
TIP Project No. B-1379
State Project No. 8.1890501
Federal-Aid Project No. SRS-8206(8)
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.)
Bridee No. 8 on US 221 A over Broad Rive in Rutherford
County is to be replaced on new location approximately
60 feet west of its existing location Approximately
2000 feet of new approaches will be needed
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification= (Check one)
TYPE I
TYPE II(A)
_x TYPE II(B)
4A 0_?- -3
Date ????- Divi on Administrator
re'/';ederal Highway Administration
¢.-`t 3
Date s-? Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
LIF-3 A %y s, Q? in; if
Date Proje t Planning Unit Head
411 Z9 £.
44-
Date P ject Planning E ineer
10

O u?uu?UU?U POP. 1,412
lift
N
b 2114
1
2112 2111
O .9 ^ .
BRI
M.0
2107
b
to
u??? As
ffside
r
IU? v
OJ?J?
C?' /VO
1
r?i IER
v
Q
)GE NO. 8- / 99 197/-Ix
0
LL Z
2102 4 •3 ?'cq t
Q
s J
.3 N O-CL J Lu
2102 D 1993 1? a?
.5 J
?4 2103 2100
?o LLI
2101
? ewe U >•
/I?''' HENRIETTA Iq "I, (UNINC.j
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BR I DGE NO. 8
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
B-1379
12/91 0 mile I FIG. I
A

ss i -?c ?. f r I ?'
1319
'OAV
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commiss O?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: Dennis Stewart,-Manager '
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: January 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for replacing Bridge No. 8 on US 221-A
over Broad River, Rutherford County, B-1379.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments of scoping sheets for replacing Bridge No. 8
on US 221-A over Broad River in Rutherford County. 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. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The Broad River in this area has a width of approximately
200 feet and substrate of sand. The river provides good habitat
for catfish and sunfish, and fishing pressure in this area has
been described as heavy. Wide (100-foot) riparian zones on
either side of the river are vegetated with mixed hardwoods,
shrubs, and grasses. These areas provide habitat for wildlife,
shade to the river, and woody debris for gamefish habitat. In
addition, this vegetation stabilizes the banks and minimizes
sedimentation into the river.
Due to the size of the existing bridge (459 feet long, 24
feet wide), we assume that the bridge will be replaced with
another bridge. We have the following general comments:
1) Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a
minimum during bridge replacement. Native trees, shrubs,
and grasses should be planted in disturbed areas to replace
those removed by construction.
2) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact water entering or flowing in Broad River. This
A-1
f
will reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated with
bridge construction.
3) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
4) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
including spoil piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
A-2