20051495 Ver 1_Complete File_20050627

l119?
SUN ??
`'?tq,,?Fyq 27?
. ; rtiO it?lF U?S
RB?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

June 21, 2005
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Dear Sir:
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 20 over the Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard
Gap Road), Henderson County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State
Project No. 8.2951701, TIP Project No. B-3662.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory mitigation for the
project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by the
USACE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT. The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 20 over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Gap
Road). The existing bridge is a two-span structure with an overall length of 26 feet and a clear
roadway width of 19.1 feet. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The approach roadway consists of two lanes with a clear roadway width of 19 feet.
SR 1006 is classified as a Major Collector by the statewide functional classification system.
RESOURCES UNDER THE SURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401 OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described in the permit application. A copy of the permit application can be found at
http://www.ncdot.orb/plannin,g/pe/naturalunit/Applications.html. The remaining impacts to
jurisdictional resources will be compensated for by mitigation provided by the EEP program. We
estimate that 84 linear feet of a jurisdictional perennial stream will be impacted.
The project is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province in Henderson County in the
French Broad River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 06010105.
• The stream impacts, summarized in Table 1, will be to a well defined, third order, perennial
mountain stream with moderate flow over sand and gravel substrate. We propose to mitigate
for the stream impacts by using the EEP for the 84 feet of impacts.
• Feather Creek has a best usage classification of C, and is a cool water habitat.
Table 1: Summary of Jurisdictional Impacts
Section Permanent Wetlands (ac) Streams ft
Riverine Non rverme
B-3662 0 0 84
Please send the letter of confirmation to Angie Pennock (USACE Coordinator) at U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 Asheville, NC
28801-5006. Ms. Pennock's FAX number is (828) 2717950. The current let date for the project
is (November 15, 2005) for which the let review date is (September 27, 2005).
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances that mitigation will be performed; the NCDWQ requires
a formal letter from EEP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the mitigation work
requested by NCDOT. The NCDOT also requests a copy of the confirmation letter be sent to
Mr. John Hennessy of NCDWQ.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call or email Chris Manley at
[phone] or cdmanley iD_dot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
AIL Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
The "cc" list:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE
Ms. Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Mr. Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT Program Management
y,.s,Nto
N d ? Vi
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIV= OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 2, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT- Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application. Replacement of Bridge
No. 20 over the Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road),
Henderson County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State
Project No. 8.2951701, TIP Project No. B-3662.
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 20
over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road). The existing bridge is a two-span
structure with an overall length of 26 feet and a clear roadway width of 19.1 feet. The bridge is
considered functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The approach roadway consists of
two lanes with a clear roadway width of 19 feet.
The project involves replacing Bridge No. 20 on a new alignment approximately 50 feet south of
the existing bridge. The existing bridge will be replaced with a triple barrel reinforced concrete
box culvert measuring 11 feet by 9 feet and 65 feet in length. SR 1006 will be realigned
approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge. The proposed approach will be widened to
two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot shoulders, including 4-foot paved shoulders. The road
realignment will eliminate the existing reverse curves, improving sight distance and allowing
traffic to be maintained on the existing roadway and structure during construction. The project
has a Let Date of November 15, 2005 with a Review Date of September 27, 2005.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The water resource impacted for project B-3662 is a Featherstone Creek. Featherstone Creek is
located in the French Broad River Basin (HUC 06010105). The North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources classifies Dunn Creek (DWQ Index #6-55-12) as "C".
Class "C" waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life
propagation and survival, and agriculture.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
AUG 0 8 2005
tYE DENR- WATER DUALITY
nANDSAND STDRMVyATER BRANCH
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-
11 within 1 mile upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Featherstone Creek is not designated as a National Wild and Scenic River or a State Natural and
Scenic River.
Permanent Impacts: The bridge replacement project is located on Featherstone Creek (NC
Division of Water Quality Stream Index No. 6-55-12, Class C). Direct impacts to waters of the
United States include fill in the existing channel by a triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert
measuring 11 feet by 9 feet and 65 feet in length. A total of 84 linear feet or 0.017 acre of waters
of the United States are expected to be permanently impacted by fill in Featherstone Creek.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary dewatering is necessary for culvert installation. Diking materials
and methods will be determined during construction by the contractor, and will adhere to
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities. A total of
111 feet or 0.025 acre of temporary impacts is expected as a result of the temporary dewatering
to Featherstone Creek for the culvert installation.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge is a two-lane, paved facility approximately 26 feet in length and 19.1 feet in
width. The substructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on I-beam girders. The
superstructure consists of timber flooring on timber joists with an asphalt wearing surface. The
substructure and end bents are composed completely of timber and steel. Therefore, Bridge No.
20 will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. No
temporary fill is expected to result from removal of the existing bridge. This bridge is classified
as "Case 3" where there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
CULVERT CONSTRUCTION
Bridge No. 20 will be replaced on a new alignment approximately 50 feet south of the existing
bridge with a triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert measuring 11 feet by 9 feet and 65 feet
in length. The roadway approaches will be widened to two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot
shoulders, including 4-foot paved shoulders. The culvert will be buried one foot below the
streambed to allow unimpeded passage for fish and other aquatic organisms.
Guidelines followed for the construction phase of the project are in accordance with the NCDOT
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
The replacement of Bridge 20 with a box culvert will impact the same amount of jurisdictional
waters (0.015 acre) whether it is replaced in the existing location or 50 feet south as proposed.
By relocating the roadway and bridge to the south, a safer road alignment is achieved and traffic
can be maintained on-site. The proposed box culvert will have low flow sills and be buried one
foot below the streambed to allow unimpeded passage for aquatic life. The contractor will follow
contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart
B and Article 107-13 entitled " Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT,
Specifications for Roads and Structures). NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of the existing bridge. In
Page 2
compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) the use of BMP's have been incorporated into the
design of the project.
Featherstone Creek is not listed as a 303d stream, however Mud Creek, which is only
approximately 1,700 feet down stream, is listed. NCDOT will implement Design Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds due to the close proximity to a 303d stream.
MITIGATION
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest
extent possible as described above. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' interpretation of
Nationwide Permits is that all impacts to perennial streams or intermittent streams that exhibit
important aquatic function require mitigation. Therefore, the remaining unavoidable impacts to
84 linear feet of stream will be offset by compensatory mitigation.
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003.
The compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section DC, NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Transition Period, of the Agreement.
Since the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2, the necessary compensatory mitigation to offset
unavoidable impacts to waters that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act will be
provided by the EEP. The offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets already in
existence within the same 8-digit cataloguing unit.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under Endangered Species Act §§7 and 9.
As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists eight federally
protected species for Henderson County (Table 1). Searches for the eight species have been
conducted within the project area and Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for
all. Due to potential habitat, additional surveys were completed for small-whorled pogonia and
white irisette on June 29, 2004. No species were found, therefore, the Biological Conclusions of
"No Effect" remain valid.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Henderson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Clem s muhlenber ii Bo turtle T S/A) No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe E No Effect
E ioblasma ca sae ormis Oster mussel E No Effect
Helonias bullata Swam ink T No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled o onia T No Effect
Sa ittaria asciculata Bunched arrowhead E No Effect
Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii
S. jonesii Mountain sweet pitcher plant E No Effect
Sis rinchium dichotomum White irisette E No Effect
NOTE:
"E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Page 3
"T" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T(S/A)" Denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection).
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary causeways will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary. Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the causeway. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR §
771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23
(FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
We anticipate that the Corps of Engineers will request comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Comtnission (NCWRC) prior to authorization. By copy of this letter and
attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forward
their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
htte//www.nedot.orgiplanning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone] or cdmanle a dot.state.ne.us.
Sincerely,
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit
Branch
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA
Page 4
Office Use Only: Fonn Version March 05
go 0-
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23, NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within 'a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3147 Fax Number: 919-766-9794
E-mail Address: gthorpe(@dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge replacement over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3662
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Hendersonville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): from Hendersonville,
travel north on N. Main St. for approximately 1.7 miles, travel north on Clear Creek Rd for
approximately 2.2 miles travel northwest for approximately 1.1 miles.
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35° 22.462' ON 82° 28.181' °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Featherstone Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http:/ih2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: A bridge 26 feet in length crossing the stream for vehicular
traffic Land use is suburban agricultural residential industrial, comercial, and undeveloped
wooded areas
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of existing bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet south of the existing
bridge with a triple barrel reinforced concrete box culvert. Cranes, earth moving equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace Bridge No. 20
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Proposed permanent impacts to
include 84 feet (0.017 acre) to Waters of the U.S. Proposed temporary impacts include 111
feet (0.025 acre) to Waters of the U.S.
Page 3 of 8
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
se arately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wctland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multi ly length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Featherstone Cr. Perm. fill Perennial 20 84 0.017
1 Featherstone Cr. Temp. fill Perennial 111 0.025

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 84/111 0.017/0.25
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
-Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the proiect:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.017/0.25
Wetland Impact (acres):
Open Water Impact (acres):
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.017/0.25
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 84/ 111
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. The proposed Project will
create a safer road alignment and allow traffic to be maintained on-site. The proposed box
culvert will have low flow sills and be buried one foot below the streambed to allow unimpeded
passage for aquatic life. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal and the NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
adhered to during construction.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 5 of 8
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program will provide compensatory mitigation
for proposed impacts resulting from project construction.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.litm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 84
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify V Yes ? No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
( Impact lr .? I I Required
Zone* Multiplier A l:.:--.:...
3 (2 for Catawba)
1.5
Total I I I I
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed impervious surface area will
remain approximately the same as the existing site conditions. NCDOT will use Best
Management Practices for erosion control during construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A

zJ c5
VApplicant/Agent's Signature 'Ddtc
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

Henderson County
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
Bridge No. 20 Over Featherstone Creels
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12)
State Project No. 8.2951701
WBS 33207.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3662
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
102,10
DATE
fly Gregory J. h rpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
91610¢. Q24?/?- -
DATE 04ivision hn F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
t l . .
Henderson County
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
Bridge No. 20 Over Featherstone Creels
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12)
State Project No. 8.2951701
VMS 33207.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3662
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
April 2004
Documentation Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
? c
J. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E.
Raleigh Branch Manager
1
Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
Date
Date
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Jo Wadsworth, P.E. Date
Pr ect Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
i
e
•o3®`O d' GtS•J 1o?•••? ?I
• °• SEAL l
14842
e
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
Bridge No. 20 Over Featherstone Creels
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12)
State Project No. 8.2951701
WBS 33207.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3662
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy of the environmental planning document will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority
and United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Hydraulics Unit/ Structure Design Unit:
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The
final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood
elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to
TVA for approval.
Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
April 2004
. N
Henderson County
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
Bridge No. 20 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12)
State Project No. 8.2951701
T.I.P. No. B-3662
INTRODUCTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 20 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The bridge location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 63.7 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
Bridge No. 20 had a sufficiency rating of 48.2 in June 1999. Bridge maintenance was required to
increase the load capacity of the bridge and maintain safety. The following maintenance was
performed: reinforced beams, supplement or replace piles, re-nail loose floor and repair or
replace rails. The maintenance performed increased the sufficiency rating of the bridge to 63.7;
however, the maintenance is a temporary solution until this inadequate structure can be replaced.
U. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 20 is located on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson County. SR 1006 is
classified as a Major Collector by the statewide functional classification system. Land use in the
project area is suburban, with a mixture of agriculture, residential, industrial, commercial, and
undeveloped wooded areas. SR 1006 is parallel to Interstate 26; however, the nearest interchange
is approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers) to the south.
The existing bridge is a two-span structure with an overall length of 26 feet (7.9 meters) and a
clear roadway width of 19.1 feet (5.8 meters). It was constructed in 1950. The bridge consists of
a timber deck on steel I-beams supported by timber caps and piles. Bridge No. 20 is not
presently posted for single vehicle (SV) or truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST).
The approach roadway consists of two lanes with a clear roadway width of 19 feet (5.8 meters).
Through the project area SR 1006 consists of three curves. Approximately 250 feet (76.2
meters) north of the existing bridge, SR 1006 is on a curve with a radius of 940 feet (287
meters). Crossing the existing bridge, SR 1006 is on a curve with a radius of 1350 feet (412
meters), and approximately 260 feet (79 meters) south of the bridge SR 1006 is on a curve with a
radius of 658 feet (200 meters). The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) 155
kilometers per hour (km/h)}.
An overhead power line is located east and west of the bridge. It is anticipated that the utility
impacts will be minimal.
Page 1
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
This section of SR 1006 in Henderson County is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it
listed in the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
The 2004 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 7,400 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 13,200 vpd by the design year 2030. The percentages of truck traffic are 4%
DUALS and 2% TTST.
Henderson County Public Schools has ten buses that cross Bridge No. 20 twice per day.
Three accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 20 during the period from August 1,
2000 to July 31, 2003. There were no fatalities.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based on the preliminary 0draulics report, the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No.
20 will'be a three-barrel, 8-foot (2.4-meter) by 9-foot (2.7-meter) reinforced concrete box culvert
measuring approximately 65 feet (19.8 meters) in length. The culvert will be buried one foot
(0.3 meter) below the streambed to allow unimpeded passage for fish and other organisms. The
length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to
accommodate peak flows, as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed
during the final design phase of the project.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot (3.6-meter) travel lanes and 8-foot
(2.4-meter) shoulders, including 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders (Figure 4). The proposed
grade will be approximately the same as the existing roadway.
B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternative A replaces the bridge in place with a reinforced concrete box culvert and utilizes an
off-site detour to maintain traffic during construction (Figure 2). The off-site detour is
approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 kilometers) in length along the following routes: SR 1528 (Locust
Grove Road) and SR 1559 (Salisbury Road). The estimated road user cost associated with the
detour route is approximately $2,135,250 per year. Due to the high road user cost, Alternative A
was not selected as the preferred alternative.
Alternative B (Preferred) replaces the bridge on new alignment with a reinforced concrete box
culvert (Figure 2a). Traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structure during
construction. SR 1006 will be realigned approximately 50 feet (15.2 meters) downstream
(south) of the existing bridge. The new alignment will be on a continuous curve with a radius of
approximately 1350 feet (412 meters). The west and east approaches will extend approximately
600 feet (183 meters).
Page 2
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and
closure of SR 1006. This is not desirable due to the service provided by the bridge and SR 1006.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that further
rehabilitation is not feasible due to the age and deteriorated condition of the bridge.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative B, replacing the existing bridge on new alignment with a reinforced concrete box
culvert, is the preferred alternative. Alternative B was selected because it improves the
horizontal alignment by eliminating the. existing reverse curves and increases sight distance.
This alternative also allows traffic to be maintained on-site during construction.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative B as the preferred alternative.
IV. Estimated Costs
The estimated costs based on current prices are as follows:
Alternative A Alternative B
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 6,300 $ 6,300
Structure (proposed) 150,400 150,400
Roadway Approaches 136,700 327,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 73,600 170,200
Engineering and Contingencies 58,000 96,000
ROW/Coast. Easements/Utilities: 38,250 63,250

TOTAL $ 463,250 $ 813,250
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program is $405,000, including $50,000 for right-of-way, $80,000 in prior years, and $275,000
for construction.
V. Natural Resources
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Fruitland, NC and
Henderson, NC 7.5 minute quadrangles), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI) (Fruitland, NC and Henderson, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangles), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soils mapping (SCS 1980), and
recent aerial photography.
Page 3
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
The site was visited on January 22 and June 8, 2001. The study corridor was walked and
visually surveyed for substantial features. Special concerns evaluated in the field included:
¦ Potential protected species habitat.
¦ Wetlands and water quality protection in Featherstone Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on _a classification system utilized by N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with exceptions for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by
supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980; Potter et al. 1980; Webster et al.' 1985; Menhinick
1991; Hamel 1992; Palmer and Braswell 1995; and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality
information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2000a,
2000b). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The February 24, 2003 FWS (accessed 2/19/04 via Internet) listing of federally protected species
with ranges extending into Henderson County was utilized for this report. In addition, NHP
records documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before
commencing field investigations.
B. Physiography and Soils
Hendersonville and the surrounding area are underlain by the Chauga Belt geologic formation
located immediately east of the Brevard fault zone. Intrusive rocks underlie area soils. These
rocks consist of Gneiss and Monzonite, which generally weather to form acidic soils. The
Chauga Belt is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic province of North Carolina.
Topography is characterized by moderately to steeply sloping terrain with narrow floodplains
along drainageways. The study corridor crosses an alluvial outwash valley contained within
relatively steep (5 to 25 percent slope) valley walls. Elevations in the study corridor range from
a low of approximately 2100 feet (640 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to a
high of approximately 2140 feet (652 meters) NGVD on slopes at the southern study corridor
terminus (USGS Fruitland, NC and Hendersonville, NC 7.5 minute quadrangles).
Based on NRCS soils mapping for Henderson County (SCS 1980), the study corridor is
underlain by Comus fine sandy loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Hayesville loam (Typic
Hapludults), and Bradson gravelly loam (Typic Hapludults). The majority of the study corridor
is characterized by the Featherstone Creek floodplain, which is mapped as the Comus Series.
Slopes to the south of the floodplain which are relatively steep (15 to 25 percent) are mapped as
the Hayesville Series. Slopes to the north of the floodplain which are moderately steep (2 to 7
percent) are mapped as the Bradson series.
Page 4
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
The Comus series is characterized by well-drained and moderately permeable soils, which occur
in floodplains formed from recent alluvium containing mica. Within this mapping unit, the depth
to bedrock is approximately 72 inches (183 centimeters) and the seasonal high water table is
approximately 30 inches (76 centimeters) below the ground surface. This soil series is
considered non-hydric for Henderson County (MRCS 1997). Limitations in this soil series occur
due to a seasonal high water table and flooding.
The Hayesville series is characterized by well-drained and moderately permeable soils, which
occur on broad, smooth ridge tops consisting of residuum from granite, gneiss, and schist.
Within this mapping unit the depth to bedrock is approximately 60 inches (152 centimeters) and
the seasonal high water table is approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) below the ground surface. This
soil series is considered non-hydric for Henderson County (MRCS 1997).
The Bradson series is characterized by well-drained and moderately permeable soils, which
occur on broad, smooth, high stream terraces formed in colluvium and alluvium derived from
crystalline rocks. Within this mapping unit the depth to bedrock is approximately 60 inches (152
centimeters) and the seasonal high water table is approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) below the
ground surface. This soil series is considered non-hydric for Henderson County (MRCS 1997).
No limitations to bridge replacement occur within this soil mapping unit.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 04-03-02 of the French Broad River Basin (DWQ
2000a). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105 of the Tennessee Region (Region
06). The structure targeted for replacement spans Featherstone Creek. There is no direct
involvement of additional streams or tributaries. This section of Featherstone Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number 6-55-12 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2000b).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Featherstone Creek is a well defined, third order, mountain stream with moderate flow over sand
and gravel substrate. The upper reaches of Featherstone Creek are characterized by steep valley
slopes with narrow floodplains. These headwater streams drain to a relatively wide, flat, alluvial
floodplain near the convergence of Featherstone Creek with the larger Mud Creek. Featherstone
Creek at Bridge No. 20 is characterized by a drainage basin encompassing approximately 4
square miles (10.4 square kilometers). Within the study corridor, Featherstone Creek is a
straight, entrenched channel averaging approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) in width and 6.0 feet
(1.8 meters) in depth. During field investigations, water clarity was good, flow velocity was
moderate, and water depth was approximately 0.5 to 1.0 foot (0.2 to 0.3 meter). The stream bed
.is composed of sand and gravel with some larger stones under the bridge. The stream channel
appears to have been dredged and straightened and is currently downcutting and eroding into the
adjacent banks. This erosion appears to have resulted in a narrow floodplain (approximately 3
feet [1.0 meters] in width) adjacent to the southern edge of the channel.
Page 5
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
f
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of C has been assigned to Featherstone Creek. The designation C denotes that
appropriate uses include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an
infrequent or incidental basis. No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-1), Water Supply II (WS-II) waters or Trout (Tr)
waters occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor (DWQ 2000b). No
watershed Critical Areas (CA) are designated within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed study
corridor is summarized in the French Broad River basin wide water quality plan (DWQ 2000a).
Based on DWQ data, Featherstone Creek currently is rated as Not Supporting its designated
uses due to turbidity and high levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Featherstone Creek is not rated
for ambient water quality; however, Mud Creek, approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers)
upstream of the confluence with Featherstone Creek, has a bioclassification rating of Poor based
on macroinvertebrate community sampling (DWQ 2000a).
The study corridor sub-basin of the French Broad River (04-03-02) overall supports 83 permitted
point source dischargers. Only six of these dischargers are permitted for greater than 0.5 million
gallons per day (1.9 million liters per day). The Mud Creek portion of the sub-basin is the most
developed watershed in Henderson County. Although there are no point-source discharges
directly associated with Featherstone Creek, the Henderson Waste Water Treatment Plant is
located on Mud Creek approximately 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers) upstream of the confluence with
Featherstone Creek. Major non-point sources of pollution for the Mud Creek sub-basin include
agriculture, urban, construction, forestry, onsite wastewater disposal, and atmospheric
deposition. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with non-point
.source discharges and often result in fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking
lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface waters (DWQ 2000x).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) General Impacts
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as
outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and
Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use
of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams
by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
Page 6
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
M . I
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Featherstone Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of the waterway. Long-term impacts to
adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible.
b) Impacts related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal," "Policy: Bridge Demolition and
Removal in Waters of the United States," and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters.
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into waters of the
United States during construction. The bridge is composed completely of timber and steel;
therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from bridge removal. This project can be
classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate with the
various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: urban/disturbed land
and upland pine/mixed deciduous forest. These plant communities are described below.
a) Urban/Disturbed Land
Urban/disturbed land makes up the dominant plant community (95 percent) within the study
corridor. The majority of this plant community is characterized by maintained grassy areas
subject to regular mowing and maintenance. Grasses appear to include planted fescue (Festuca
sp.) and rye (Lolium sp.) with numerous invasive herbaceous species such as crab grass
(Digitaria sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), clover (Trifolium repens), and other grasses such as
panic-grasses (Panicum spp.). Residential structures also are characterized by landscaped
environs, which include woody ornamental species such as white pine (Pinus strobus), mountain
laurel (Kalmia latifolia), various junipers (Juniperus spp.), and azaleas (Rhododendron spp.).
Valley slopes within the southern portion of the study corridor support residential housing and
out structures. interspersed with disturbed forest characterized by an open understory. Canopy
species include white pine, shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), rock chestnut oak (Quercus
montana), white oak (Q. alba), northern red oak (Q. rubra), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), and pignut
hickory (Cary glabra). The understory has been disturbed by residential clearing, construction,
and landscaping. However, some areas are characterized by flora adapted to disturbed habitats
Page 7
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701

including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and American
holly (Ilex opaca) entangled with various vines such as common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia)
and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
A narrow margin of riparian fringe occurs adjacent to and within the banks of Featherstone
Creek. This community appears to be maintained regularly by bush hogging and vegetative
clearing; however, a dense thicket has grown on portions of the channel bank. Spoil piles
adjacent to the southwestern stream bank support a more mature community as regular
maintenance appears to be hindered by the elevated spoil material. The banks of the creek are
characterized by hydrophytic vegetation such as black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), Chinese privet, blackberry (Rubus sp.), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and river birch
(Betula nigra). Interspersed within the woody vegetation, a dense herbaceous community exists
characterized by rushes and sedges (Juncus spp. and Carex spp.), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.),
woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus), pokeweed, and goldenrod (Solidago sp.) entangled in
honey suckle (Lonicera japonica) and bittersweet (Celastrus scandens).
b) Upland Pine/Mixed Deciduous Forest
Upland pine/mixed deciduous forest makes, up a small portion (five percent) of the study
corridor. This community occurs on upland slopes located in the northern terminus of the
corridor, west of Howard Gap Road. Canopy species include tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
white pine, shortleaf pine, southern red oak (Quercus falcata), and scarlet oak. This community
has been disturbed by land clearing associated with Howard Gap Road and numerous driveways.
The understory is characterized by dense thickets of American holly, Chinese privet, blackberry,
common greenbrier, and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia). Although the dense nature of the
understory appears to have limited herbaceous ground cover, Christmas fem (Polystichum
acrostichoides) and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia) were identified within this
community.
2. Wildlife
Possibly due to the season in which field surveys were conducted, only one mammal species,
woodchuck (Marmota monax), was observed within the study corridor. Frost heave appears to
have obliterated tracks left by species, and cold temperatures during the site visit may have
rendered many species inactive. In addition, Howard Gap Road receives an abundance of traffic
and only species adapted to anthropogenic disturbances are expected to occur in the study
corridor. Mammals expected to occur within the study corridor include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and
eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglouos), and red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus). Other bird species expected to occur in the study
corridor include birds acclimated to road noise and open areas adjacent to dense thickets. These
Page 8
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701

species are expected to include Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor). Species that hunt over open areas and roadways, such as turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), would also be expected in the study corridor.
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial
reptiles which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), American toad (Bufo americana), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum).
3. Aquatic Communities
Limited surveys resulted in no observations of aquatic species within the study corridor. Aquatic
or semi-aquatic species expected to occur within the study corridor include beaver (Castor
canadensis), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), green
frog (Rana clamitans), and blackbelly salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus).
No sampling was undertaken in Featherstone Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual
surveys of Featherstone Creek did not reveal the presence of fish, molluscan fauna, or other
aquatic life; however, fish species which may be present in Featherstone Creek include creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), river chub (Nocomis micropogon), northern hog sucker
(Hypentelium nigricans), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), and redbreast. sunfish
(Lepomis auritus).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most permanent
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife movement
patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to be inconsequential for replacement of Bridge No.
20 over Featherstone Creek.
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present
within the projected rights-of-way and temporary easements. Permanent impacts are considered
to be those impacts that occur within the proposed right-of-way that will permanently alter the
existing plant community. Temporary impacts are those impacts that occur outside the right-of
way boundary but within the proposed temporary easement or impacts to communities that will
be reestablished following construction. A summary of potential plant community impacts is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Projected plant community impacts within the alternative corridors.
Page 9
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
T ,
Plant Community
Alternative
Corridors Impact Type Upland Pine/Mixed
Deciduous Forest Urban/
Disturbed Land Total
Temporary -- -- 0.48 (0.19) 0.48 (0.19)
A Permanent 0.02 (0.008) -- -- 0.02 (0.008)
Total 0.02 (0.008) 0.48 (0.19) 0.50 (0.20)
Temporary -- -- 0.65 (0.26) 0.65 (0.26)
B
(Preferred) Permanent 0.03 (0.012) 0.28 (0.11) 0.31 (0.12)
Total 0.03 (0.012) 0.93 (0.37) 0.96 (0.38)
Notes: Permanent impacts are considered to be those impacts that occur within the cut-fill limits. Temporary
impacts are those impacts that occur outside of cut-fill limits and inside of the proposed right-of-way. Plant
community areas, which are to be impacted but returned to pre-project composition, will be considered as
temporarily impacted. Areas are given in acres (hectares).
Very little undisturbed plant communities occur within the study corridor. Approximately 95
percent of the existing vegetation is actively maintained (urban/disturbed land). Total plant
community impacts are greatest for Alternative B (Preferred) because of the new alignment of
the project and the extended dimensions of the proposed alternative. However, impacts
associated with both Alternative A and Alternative B (Preferred) primarily affect urban disturbed
land. Proposed impacts to natural plant communities are expected to be negligible.
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally
restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. No
area of natural plant community is expected to be substantially impacted by the proposed project.
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal.
Fragmentation of natural plant communities will not be created, as the project will result
primarily in alteration of community boundaries.
b) Wetland Communities
Field investigations involved the survey for wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" within the project
corridor (33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary
criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for
a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that
floodplains of Featherstone Creek exhibit characteristics of a palustrine, broad-leaved, deciduous
forest system that is temporarily flooded (PF01A) (Cowardin et al. 1979). However, no
evidence of hydric soils was identified within the floodplain and NRCS mapping indicates that
the floodplain is underlain by well drained, non-hydric soils. Field investigations indicate that
no wetlands occur adjacent to or within the floodplain of Featherstone Creek.
Page 10
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
t
c) Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat may be substantial since both alternatives
include replacing the existing bridge with a box culvert. Stream integrity will only be retained
through proper installation of the box culvert and proper installation and removal of the
temporary corrugated metal designed to result in maintenance of regular stream flow. Short-term
impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic populations.
Temporary impacts to downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Featherstone Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR
section 328.3). NWI mapping indicates that Featherstone Creek exhibits characteristics of a
palustrine, broad-leaved deciduous, forested, wetland system (PFOIA; Cowardin et al. 1979).
Field investigations indicate that within the study corridor, Featherstone Creek exhibits
characteristics of a bank-to-bank, third-order cold water mountain stream with no adjacent
forested wetlands.
Direct impacts associated with the project alternatives will involve fill in the existing channel
consisting of a triple barrel 8-foot by 9-font (2.4-meter by 2.7-meter) reinforced concrete box
culvert. For both alternatives, the box culverts are proposed to be 65 feet (19.8 meters) in length.
Thus, both alternatives will result in permanent impacts of 65 linear feet (19.8 linear
meters) or 0.02 acre (0.01 hectare) to waters of the United States (Featherstone Creek).
Both alternative plans are designed to allow for normal stream flows, as well as flows associated
with major storm water events.
Alternatives A and B involve the same stream impacts. Both alternative construction plans
include three barrels to allow normal stream flows and conditions as well as flows associated
with major storm water events (floodplain culverts).
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has Nationwide Permit (NNW) No. 23 (61 FR
65874, 65916; December 13, 1996) available for CEs due to minimal impacts expected with
bridge construction. DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for
NWP No. 23. However, authorization for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this permit
will require written notice to DWQ. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor
impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to qualify
under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE District. Notification to the
Asheville COE office is required if this general permit is to be utilized.
Page 11
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval.
3. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. A
final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE and DWQ.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to
Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a substantial portion of its range," and the term "Threatened Species" is defined
as "any species, which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a substantial portion of its range," (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term ""Threatened due
to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is not "Endangered" or "Threatened,"
but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally
protected species listed for Henderson County (FWS list dated February 24, 2003, accessed
February 19, 2004 via Internet) are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Federally protected Species in Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis E
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E
White irisette Tsisyrinchium dichotomum E
T (S/A) Indicates a species which is "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance."
E Indicates a species, which is "Endangered."
T Indicates a species, which is 'Threatened."
Page 12
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701

Bog Turtle - The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches
(8 to 10 centimeters). This otherwise darkly colored species is readily identifiable by the
presence of a bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al.
1980). The bog turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to
over-collection and habitat alteration. As a result, the FWS officially proposed in the January 29,
1997 Federal Register (62 FR 4229) to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of
its range, and within the southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog
turtle is proposed for listing as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the northern
population. The proposed listing would allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern
population resulting from otherwise lawful activity.
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with
aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and
Braswell 1995). In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the
Mountains and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). T S/A species
are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. However,
this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle as no bogs, marshes, or wet pastures occur
within the study corridor. In addition, Featherstone Creek is characterized by moderate to fast
flow volumes, with a sand and gravel substrate, which is an unsuitable habitat for bog turtles.
NHP records indicate that bog turtles have not been documented within one mile (1.6 kilometers)
of the study corridor and no bog turtles were observed during field surveys.
Appalachian Elktoe - Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate- to kidney-shaped freshwater
mussel that grows to approximately 3.1 inches (8.0 centimeters) in length, 1.4 inches (3.5
centimeters) in height, and one inch (2.5 centimeters) in width (Clarke 1981). The shell is thin,
but not fragile, and exhibits slight inflation along the posterior ridge near the center. Beaks
project only slightly above the hinge line. Lateral teeth are absent; however, the hinge plate of
both valves is thickened. Small, pyramidal, compressed pseudocardinal teeth are present, and an
interdental projection is present in the left valve. Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the
periostracum (outer shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in adults. Individuals may be
variably marked with prominent to obscure greenish rays. The nacre (shell interior) is shiny,
blue to bluish white with salmon, pinkish, or brownish coloring in the central portion of the shell
and beak cavity.
Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of western
North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. In North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to
the Little Tennessee and Nolichucky drainages (LeGrand and Hall 1999). Recent N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission surveys have documented this species in the Little Tennessee River in
Macon and Swain Counties, Cane River in Yancey County, and Nolichucky and North Toe
Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties. A new population has recently been found in the Little
River near the Henderson-Transylvania County line. The Pigeon River once supported a
population of this mussel, but now is reported to be severely polluted and no longer likely to
support the species (TSCFTM 1990). Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe is well-oxygenated
Page 13
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
riffle areas with sand and gravel substrate among cobbles and boulders. Current is usually
moderate to swift and depth is no more than 3 feet (0.9 meter) (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NCDOT environmental specialists visited the project
site on March 5, 2002. Surveys were conducted at two locations in Mud Creek, which
Featherstone Creek drains to. No mussels were found in the creek. An examination of
Featherstone Creek revealed that suitable habitat is not present for mussel species. NO
EFFECT
Oyster Mussel - The oyster mussel is a small freshwater mussel that grows to approximately 2.1
inches (7.0 centimeters) in length. The shell is dull to sub-shiny and yellowish-to green-colored
with numerous dark green rays. The nacre is whitish to bluish in color. Shells of females are
slightly inflated and thinner toward the posterior margin.
Oyster mussels inhabit small to medium-sized rivers characterized by sand to boulder substrata
and moderate to swift currents. This species is sometimes associated with water willow (Justicia
americana) and is found in gravel pockets between bedrock and swift currents. Four species of
fish have been identified as hosts: spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), redline darter (E.
rufclineatum), dusky darter (Percina sciera), and banded sculpin (Cottus carollinae) (FWS 2000)
The oyster mussel is endemic to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in Alabama,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Within North Carolina, the species was
known to have been abundant in the early 1900s in the upper Tennessee River system of the
mountains of western North Carolina and Tennessee. Currently the oyster mussel survives in
nine tributaries of the Tennessee and Cumberland River systems in Kentucky, Tennessee, and
Virginia. This species is now considered to have been "formerly reported" from the French
Broad River (LeGrand and Hall 1999). Much of the historic range of this species has been
impounded by the Tennessee Valley Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other
populations have probably been lost due to pollution and siltation. All known populations are
small and vulnerable to disturbance.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NCDOT environmental specialists visited the project
site on March 5, 2002. Surveys were conducted at two locations in Mud Creek, which
Featherstone Creek drains to. No mussels were found in the creek. An examination of
Featherstone Creek revealed that suitable habitat is not present for mussel species. NO
EFFECT
Swamp Pink: Swamp pink is a perennial, hydrophytic herb in the lily family with simple leaves
in a basal rosette. Small scale-like leaves or bracts are found on a hollow flowering stem, which
may be 16 inches (40 centimeters) tall in flower and 24 inches (60 centimeters) tall in fruit. The
inflorescence consists of pink to lavender flowers borne on a raceme without bracts. Fruits
consist of three-lobed papery capsules. Flowering occurs in April and May, with fruits present
from May through July. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
through September (Massey et al. 1983).
Page 14
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
In North Carolina, swamp pink is found in mountain swamps and bogs. Swamp pink occurs
along small watercourses in permanently saturated, acidic, organic soils or black muck, which is
mostly sphagnous (Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Swamp pink does not tolerate prolonged
inundation, but can survive infrequent and brief flooding. In North Carolina, the current
distribution is restricted to Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania Counties (Amoroso 1999).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Swamp pink occurs in permanently saturated, acidic,
organic soils or black muck which is mostly sphagnous. Soils within the study corridor
are mineral, well drained soils; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs within the study
corridor. NHP records indicate that swamp pink has not been documented within 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and swamp pink was not observed during
field surveys. The proposed project is not expected to adversely impact swamp pink due
to the lack of potential habitat. NO EFFECT
Small-whorled Pogonia: The small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10
inches (25 centimeters) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with
pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem.
Typically a single, yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a
second flower rarely may be present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of
0.7 inch (1.7 centimeters), surrounded by three narrow sepals up to one inch (2.5 centimeters) in
length. Flower production, which occurs from May to July, is followed by the formation of an
erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches (1.7 to 3.0 centimeters) in length (Massey et al. 1983).
This species may remain dormant for up to 10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb
1977).
The small-whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia,
but is very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found in scattered locations in
the Mountains, Piedmont and Sandhills (Amoroso 1999). Small-whorled pogonia is found in
open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or along stream banks. Examples of areas
providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where
small-whorled pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windthrow areas, cutover
forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs
(Massey et al. 1983). In the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually
found in association with white pine (Pinus strobus) (Weakley 1993).
Habitat within the study corridor is largely characterized by maintained grassy areas. The banks
of Featherstone Creek are maintained by regular mowing and become overgrown with dense
scrubby vegetation when not maintained. Therefore, systematic surveys for this species were
conducted during the flowering period (on June 8, 2001) within all areas of suitable habitat,
resulting in no findings of small-whorled pogonia within the proposed alternative corridors.
NHP records indicate that small-whorled pogonia has not been documented within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor does contain suitable habitat for
this species; however, based on an NHP record search and a systematic survey conducted
Page 15
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
for this species during the flowering period, this project will not affect small-whorled
pogonia. NO EFFECT
Bunched Arrowhead: Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14
inches (35 centimeters) in height with simple, basal leaves. Two leaf forms are produced:
phyllodes (blade-less) early in the season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the
season (Kral 1983). The phyllodes are linear, distinctively flattened, spongy-tissued, and are up
to 4 inches (10 centimeters) long and 0.8 inches (2 centimeters) wide. Later leaves may be
spoon-shaped or narrowly oblanceolate and strap-like, growing.to lengths of 14 inches (35
centimeters) and widths of 1.6 inches (4.0 centimeters). Unisexual flowers are borne on an erect
flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each whorl subtended by three bracts fused at the
base. Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large, distinctively crested achenes. Flowering has
been reported as occurring in May and June (Kral 1983) to as late as July, with fruits present
from May through September (Massey et al. 1983). Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge
in April and persist through September (Massey et al. 1983).
Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish streams
flowing through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983). Typical substrate is reported to be
siliceous and micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral 1983). The current
distribution is restricted to Buncombe and Henderson Counties in the mountains of North
Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville County in the upper Piedmont of South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Bunched arrowhead occurs in shallow water in or
along shallow, sluggish streams flowing through mountain swamps or bogs. No wetlands
or bogs occur within the study corridor, and Featherstone Creek exhibits moderate to high
flow velocities; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs within the study corridor. NHP
records indicate that bunched arrowhead has not been documented within one mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor, and bunched arrowhead was not observed during the
field visit. The proposed project is not expected to adversely impact bunched arrowhead
due to the lack of potential habitat. NO EFFECT
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant: Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial,
hydrophytic herb growing to 30 inches (76 centimeters) in height with hollow, trumpet-shaped
leaves. The pitcher chamber is narrow but expands sharply along the upper quarter of the length.
An ascending, cordate-shaped hood is held high over the exposed pitcher chamber orifice.
Solitary flowers are produced on erect flowering stems. Petals are dark red to maroon on the
outside, with the inner surface often yellow-green tinged with red. Flowering has been reported
from April to June with fruits formed by August. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in
April and persist through August (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is treated
as a subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S. rubra).
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and along streams. The current
distribution is restricted to Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in the mountains
of North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South
Carolina.
Page 16
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Mountain sweet pitcher plant occurs in mountain bogs
and along streams. No wetlands or bogs occur within the study corridor and Featherstone
Creek exhibits moderate to high flow velocities; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs
within the study corridor. NHP records indicate that mountain sweet pitcher plant has not
been documented within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and mountain
sweet pitcher plant was not observed during field surveys. The proposed project is not
expected to adversely impact mountain sweet pitcher plant due to the lack of potential
habitat. NO EFFECT
White Irisette: White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows to 16 inches (40
centimeters) tall. Stem leaves are at least as wide as the winged stem and may reach 5.5 inches
(14.0 centimeters) long and 0.2 inches (0.5 centimeters) wide. Basal leaves reach one-third to
one-half the height of the plant and may be up to 7.5 inches (19.0 centimeters) long and 0.14
inches (0.36 centimeters) wide. White irisette differs from other blue-eyed grasses by having
three to five nodes with successively shorter internodes between dichotomous branches (FWS
1995). Four to six flowers with white, recurved perianth units are borne per spathe. Flowering
occurs from late May through July.
White irisette is found in dry to mesic, open oak-hickory forest on mid-elevation mountain
slopes at elevations from 1300 to 3300 feet (400 to 1000 meters) with aspects ranging primarily
from southeast to southwest (FWS 1995). White irisette grows in shallow, circumneutral foils,
especially over weathered amphibolite. White irisette is reported to grow best on regularly
disturbed sites, such as power lines, roadsides, and woodland edges, which mimic suppressed
natural disturbances and maintain open habitat (FWS 1995). The current distribution is restricted
to Forsyth, Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties in North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and
Greenville County in western South Carolina.
Within the proposed alternatives, areas of sparse, maintained vegetation do provide suitable
habitat for white irisette. Therefore, all areas of suitable habitat were systematically searched for
this species during the flowering period (on June 8, 2001), resulting in no findings of white
irisette within the proposed alternative corridors. According to NHP records, white irisette has
not documented to occur within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor does contain suitable habitat for
this species; however, based on a NHP record search and a systematic search conducted
within suitable habitat types of each proposed alternative, this project will not affect
white irisette. NO EFFECT.
Candidate Species - The FWS list (February 24, 2003) includes a category of species designated
as "Candidate Species" (Cl). A species with this designation is a taxon under consideration for
official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. The C l designation
provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. The only Cl species listed
for Henderson County is bog asphodel (Narthecium americanum). NHP files have no
documentation of this species within the study corridor or within one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the
study corridor, and no suitable habitat for it within the study corridor.
Page 17
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
2. Federal Species of Concern
The FWS list (2/24/03, accessed 2/19/04 via Internet) also includes a category of species
designated as "Federal Species of Concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that
may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC
designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed. FSC species
listed for Henderson County are presented in Table 3. NHP files have no documentation of FSC
listed species within the study corridor or within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS list).

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status
Green salamander Aneides aeneus No E
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Yes SC
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii Yes Sc
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia Yes T
French Broad crayfish** Cambarus reburrus Yes W2
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia Yes E
Diana fritillary butterfly** Speyeria diana No SR
Schweinitz's sedge Carex schweinitzii No E
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta No E
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis No C
Butternut Juglans cinerea No W5
Rough rush Juncus caesariensis No E
Gray's lily*** Lilium grayi No T-SC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri Yes E
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons** Marshallia grandiflora No C
Sweet pinesap** Monotropsis odorata Yes C
Divided-leaf ragwort** Senecio millefolium No T
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata Yes C
White fringeless orchid Plantanthera integrilabia No E
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; W2 = NC
Plant Watch List: rare, but taxonomically questionable; W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline
(Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Hall 1999).
** Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
*** Obscure record -the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
Page 18
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
VI. Cultural Resources
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted on September 28, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic
Preservation Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated December 6, 2000 the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy
of the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated January 29, 2003 stated, "We recommend that a
comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist..." An archaeological
survey was conducted on September 2 and 3, 2003. Two archaeological sites (31HN183 and
31HN184) were recorded during the survey; however, neither was deemed eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places. The survey report concluded that the proposed project will
not impact any archaeological sites within the APE that are on or are eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. In a memorandum dated March 12, 2004, the SHPO
concurred with the recommendation that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. Copies of the SHPO memorandums are included in the Appendix.
VII. Environmental Effects
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
substantial change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
Page 19
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine
whether minority or low-income populations were receiving. disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined
the project would not disproportionately impact any minority.or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). A completed form for this project is included in the Appendix.
According to the NRCS, the proposed project will impact 0.68 acres of soils defined as prime
and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 82,824 acres
of prime or important soils found in the county. The impact rating determined through
completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating, indicates that the site's
assessment and relative value score is 152 out of a possible 260. A score higher than 160 would
indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Henderson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors
located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be
substantial.
Noise.levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation. is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department
Page 20
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the
project area
Henderson County is not currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. The
project site on Featherstone Creek is not located in a designated flood hazard zone. A copy of
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Figure 5) shows the approximate limits of the 100-year flood
plain in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
VIII. Public Involvement
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters. Scoping letters were sent to various agencies
including the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
on December 6, 2000. A Citizens Informational Workshop was not held on this project.
IX. Agency Comments
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: This project "occurs in the general vicinity of Mud Creek, an area with several
occurrences of bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) and mountain sweet pitcher plant
(Sarracenia jonesii).... In the areas affected ...we recommend conducting habitat assessments
and surveying any suitable habitat for these species. "
Response: A field survey was conducted for bunch arrowhead and mountain sweet pitcher plant.
No occurrences of these species were observed. Biological conclusion "NO EFFECT."
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
Comment: "...if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. "
Response: The culvert will be buried one-foot below the surface of the stream bed
Page 21
Henderson County, Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 Over Featherstone Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1006(12), State Project No. 8.2951701

25
.1
-0'7 got
152 ,
164
V
' 15
1 5 1006 t 5?o?e 15
l•--. f? e0? -' 1560
1 7
B-3662 16
006 15
167 1 8 1584
l 0 6
26
i
tteoe u LEGEND
O N
<! Studied Detour Route
twet? , 4 t flat
?llldltl011Y1
q: fttrem 1 y
North Carolina Department Of
roils ati n
e eve opme &
atr
' nvironmentaf l
Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 20 ON SR 1006
OVER FEATHERSTONE CREEK
"662
0 kilometers 014 kilometers 0.8
miles 0.25 miles 1.0
FIGURE 1
f ?
I

B-3662
1
Looking south along SR 1006
across Bridge No. 20.
Looking north along SR 1006
across Bridge No. 20.
Side view of Bridge No. 20.
Figure 3
CV
O
`O
Q
E
N a
? ? CO
u' - O
co
c.
* E C
T
E

N -O E? O
cn C

A w,

C4 %0
o
CV)
gi E
Go ? Go
N
5
N C
-

$
E LL.
.c
N ?p
r M

a

??c u
w dl 'y
O W
?? w va ?NQ V
A o ?d oOe
. O Z
z
10
a b?? u o o
o
O
k
w
ve
V AA Z
O
oe
O N p W O
a.?o OZ
.4
E+ W Z
i? CL
p 3
w
p 01 LL F
W
W
Z O P. W C9
= OC
_
O
m
O

E
w N

E U
O x
E

o
Z v

G
,a

H o
q
eUWe v
0.
V z x
U) 0 0o m
O
CL Ckd
d
J
I Q
V U
3

Z
Q
Z
N C9k
M

O U
CL J N
z

3
LU
Oe m
>
^
V W
Z
W J
:3
O U
C6 U
x
r N W m 0
Z
O
N
W
0
c W
W) Lo)
OO
J J
O O
O O
`C N
I?l C)
Q
O N
? .a N
Z Z
J
h Q y
0W
J
O
V
w
O
D
oe
Z
O
Q
U
LL
N
g
u
J
O
G
Z
D
W

oWe
C7
Z
FEMA Flood Map
Henderson County
B-3662
n
it
II
ll' It
,t„
nn ar B-3882 T
MUD ma, PROJECT SITE
RM 6
"am nNa MUM MMO
FIRM
RM37 FUN MINIM SATE YAP
e
[Ul10OM DOUNTT.
NOM CAROL114A
Hil 'rt
0
1 M \il I M
dt?l MAP INDEX
i Grimes
ii
pYYINIR1?A11E1 I?YIEIS
Mtn Not.oteo
MAWN 1, 162
N
RM38 r.W t?w?s r..??.r Nor
q
Figure 5
APPENDIX
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action D: 200230314 County: Henderson
Waters of the U.S. Survey/DelineationVerification
Property owner/Authorized Agent: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: Attn: William D. Gilmore, Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone Number: [phone]
Size and Location of Property/Project (waterbody, highway name/number, town, etc.):
Bridge #20 (B-3662), SR 1006, Featherstone Creek, Henderson County, North Carolina.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There are waters of the U.S. on the above described property which have been accurately
delineated. We recommend that the delineated lines be surveyed. The surveyed lines
must be verified by our staff before the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
X The submitted GPS survey dated January 2001 for the above referenced project
accurately reflects the limits of waters of the U.S. on the property. Unless there is a
change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed 5 years from the date of this survey.
Placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. on this property without a Department
of the Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1311). A permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high
ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please
contact: John W. Hendrix at (828) 2.71-7980. Ext. 7.
Project Manager Signature Date: February 26, 2002
CF: Mr. Alexander P. Smith, Ecoscience Corporation, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
r

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 7, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements - Avery County (B-3808); Henderson County (B-3475, B-3662,
B-3663, B-3664, B-3665, B-3666, and B-3857); McDowell County (B-3673); and
Watauga County (B-3709 and B-3710)
We have'reviewed the subject projects and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, and it does not include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of the projects. Therefore, our comments are limited primarily to the known
locations of listed species and species of Federal concern. When the categorical exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we can then offer
more substantive comments.
Enclosed is a list of species from the four counties involved. This list provides the names of
species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as.
species of Federal concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found
in the vicinity of these projects. Our records indicate the following:
Henderson County
Project B-3475. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and the federally threatened small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) occur near
this project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or orr-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further
consultation will be required.
Project B-3665. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii) occur in the vicinity of this
project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further planning
or on-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further consultation will be
required.
Projects B-3662 and-B-3664. These projects occur in the general vicinity of Mud Creek; an area
with several occurrences of bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) and mountain sweet
pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii). Currently there are no known locations of these species in the
immediate project area. However, a lack of any systematic surveys throughout the Mud Creek
drainage may account for the apparent absence of these species. In the areas affected by these
projects, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable habitat for
these species.
Projects B-3666. B-3663. and B-3857. Our records for Henderson County indicate no known
locations of listed species in the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
McDowell County
PrQiect B-3673. Our records indicate known locations for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
near this project. Habitat assessments and surveys of suitable habitat should be conducted in the
project area for this species. If the bog turtle occurs in the project area, it should be protected
from impacts.
Watauga and Avery Counties
Proiects B-3709. B-3710. and B-3808. Although our records for Watauga and Avery Counties
indicate no known locations of listed species in the project areas, we recommend conducting
habitat assessments in the affected area of each project. Any suitable habitat should be surveyed
for these species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no
adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-01-278.
Sincer?' ?-?
Brian Pole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
.cc:
Ms. Stacy Harris, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Mr. Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division-of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621

ZDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
'OIL CONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
SCS-CPA-106
I (To be Completed by Federal Agency). 3. Date of [.and Evaluation Request
12/17/01 4. Sheet I of 1
Names of Project
B-3662 5. Federal Agency Involved
NCDOT, FHWA
Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
Henderson, NC
tT II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date Request eceiv d by SCS.
/611 } 2. Person Completing Form
Coy McKenzie
Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes
(If no the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form No 4. Acres irrigated Average Farm Size
lajor Crop(s) 6. Fannable Land in Government Jurisdiction: 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
ame of Land Evaluation System Used
LfS 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by SCS
l OY
LT III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor for Segment
Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
Total Acres to be Converted Directly 0.22 0.68
Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
Total Acres in Corridor 0.22 0.68
LT IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland r 7,2, - 6e
Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland a D
Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted , bag a a Ooop 3f 3.
Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value
?2T V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
mland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points)
ELT VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
essment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
krea in Nonurban Use 15
Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 'fQ
Percent of Corridor Being Farmed 20 Q
Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20 o`er
Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10 0 O
:reation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
Availability of Farm Support Services 5
Dn-Farm Investments 20
Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 a 5 a
Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
RT VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) ?---
ative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100
:al-Corridor Assessment -(Forin--Part VI above or a local site
.ssment) 160
115

r-}
I
TAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 160 50-
:orridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to
be Converted by Project: 3. Date of Selection: 4-Was a Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No
reason for Selection:
nature of Person Completing. this Part:
Date
ITE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternative Corridor
,y r +.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 12, 2004
NIE'NIORANDUNI
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ILJCQ.,?,t?l Qlay-1
V
SUBJECT: Bridge 20 on SR 1006 over Featherstone Creek, Howard Gap Road,
Henderson County, EROI -8265
Thank you for your letter of December 18, 2003, transmitting the archaeological survey report
by Megan O'Connell for the above project.
During the course of the survey, two sites were located within the project area. Ms: O'Connell
has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection
with this project. We concur with. this recommendation since the project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above continent, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
www.hpoAcrstate.ne.us
Location Malting Address
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.4617
SURVEY do PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 276994617
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] •715-4801
(919) 7334763 •715-4801

r
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 29, 2003
MEMORANDUM
1?o3
W?LOPt?? g?
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
FEB 0 5 2003
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager ------------------------
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook
1
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bri ge No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) over
Featherstone Creek, B-3662, Henderson County, ER01-8265 .
Thank you for your letter of December 19, 2002, concerning the above project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to
identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by
the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
forms; should be forwarded to us for review and comment as. soon as they are available and well in
advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults: The archaeologists listed, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
www.huo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount SL, Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
&'Jmpmry ZY, /.VU.)
Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Matt Wilkerson

s ? STATE °?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
'David L. S. Brook; Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
December .19, 2002
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
Mr. John Wadsworth, P.E.
NC DOT Project Development and Eavrronmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 - - - - - -- - __ .. _.?--- -
Re: Bridge Replacement Project B-3662, Replace Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Rd.) over
Featherstone Creek, Henderson County, ER01-8265
Dear Mr. Wadsworth:
We have received notification of anationwide permit application for the above project and would.like to comment.

tere are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the replacement is;.to:be locatedr??.:;,;-•; w .Y
along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources. will be affected 'and no
investigations recommended. If, however, the replacement is to be in a new location, please forward'a map to thin
office indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effects of the replacement upon
archaeological resources.
In addition, there are no known historic structures in the project area that might be affected by the replacement.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106-of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning
this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
avid Brook 1
"DB:doc
( cc: Gilmore, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fix
Administration ' 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 [phone] •733-8653
°--•-_-.___ r.r w. o,_.._. ?. o-L:.L ,? ??? nT a e-...: ------ °..I-:-L.'rrrnn 441 7 'InIM'711 4CA'T _7I: A 0 A I

Federal Aid #BRSTP-1006(12)

TIP #B-3662 County: Henderson .
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No.20 on SR 1006 over creek
On December 8, 2000, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
F-1 , Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[3 North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
Q a scoping meeting
Q? photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
Q " there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Qrr M * S ri are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no fuhher evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed: r
a_u t P61nx
2 co op
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representa ive, SHPO
v
?iab
State Historic Preservation Officer
/z/o/au
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of. Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary .
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM
NCDENk
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E.,•Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006
over Featherstone Creek in Henderson County, T.I.P. Project B-3662.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated December 6, 2000, in which you
requested scoping comments for the above project. The DWQ index number for the stream is 6-
55-12 and is classified as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a
culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms
passage through the-crossing. Please be aware that floodplain culverts are required under
Nationwide 14.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
E. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent.
practicable.
F. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
i
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
12/11/00
Page 2
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
G. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules (15A NCAC 211.0506 (h)(3)}, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control. measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
a"•z
.'j
'.E
tr
.•1 ?M
F
® North CaroUaWAdlife Resources Commission 9
Charles R Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and E onmer1tal-Analysis Branch, NCDOT
'on Coordinator
w n F. Anderson?ounRegy
FROM: O e r
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Scoping for Bridge Replacements B347500", B-3663, B-3664, B-3665, B-
3666, B-3673, and B-3857, Henderson and McDowell Counties
i
Th4 memorandum responds-to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves nine bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina.
Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance
in the streambed and surrounding riparian areas. We prefer bridge designs that do-not alter the
natural stream morphology or impede fish passage and provide for wildlife passage under the
bridge. We prefer that existing bridges be replaced with another spanning structure. Bridge
designs should also include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland
buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. In some cases, we are specifically concerned
about impacts to trout waters. Environmental documentation for these projects should include
description of any streams or wetlands on the project site and surveys for any threatened or
endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-3475 - Bridge No..356 on SRI 127 (Caswell Street) over Wash Creek, Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3662 - Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) over Featherstone Creek in
Henderson County.
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality. and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
ld_-r_._ A J.1 _..__. n:..:..: .._ _t T-I_-,1 C:..L ..-:... - 1 7'11 AA-:I C.. _..:.... ('o.,?..r . FAA mh T\T(' 774QQ_ 1711
IF ,
NCDOT Bridge Scoping
Henderson and McDowell Counties
January 10, 2001
B-3663- Bridge No 320 on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaws Creek in
Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3664 -Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road) over Mud Creek in Henderson
County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3665 - Bridge No. 265 on SR 1791 (Ballenger Road) over North Branch Bat Fork Creek
in Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3666 - Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road) over Hungry River in Henderson
County.
This bridge appears to be located at the edge of the Pisgah Game Lands. This reach is
classified as trout water by the Division of Water Quality and is designated by the NCWRC as
j Hatchery Supported Waters. The new bridge should span the adjacent floodplain and provide
sufficient space for wildlife to move under the bridge. An inwater work moratorium from
October 15=April 15 is requested for this project.
B-3673 - Bridge-No. 17 on US 221 over Second Broad River in McDowell County
This stream is Classified WS-IV. No specific fish and wildlife concerns other than
minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The new bridge should
span the adjacent floodplain and/or provide a wildlife movement corridor under the bridge. ..
Because the Corps of Engineers (COE) recognizes all of the above counties as "trout
water counties", the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed
prgjects. The fdIlowing conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Structures should be inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events. -
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used to minimize
impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Spoil materials and wastewater captured in
the cofferdam should be pumped out and disposed of on upland sites.
;s
NCDOT Bridge Scoping 3 January 10, 2001
Henderson and McDowell Counties
4. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area must be maintained to prevent
direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects
water quality and is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and
wildlife.
6. In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout-spawning
period of October 15 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated, from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
8. If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts are utilized, they should be designed so
that all water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow
conditions. This could be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end
of the other cells that will divert water to a single cell during below bankfull events.
This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
9. Notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15-foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities,
and to provide resting areas for fish moving through the structure.
10. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
i should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural river bottom when
-? .construction is completed. Temporary causeways should not block more than 30%0 of
the stream width to prevent an impediment to fish movement.
11. Equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
12. Stormwater should be directed.to upland buffer areas or retention basins and should
not be discharged directly into streams.
.. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these
projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-
2546.
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
.Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, Biologist, USFWS Asheville

January 10, 2001
HENDERSON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
100 NORTH KING STREET
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. 28792-5097
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
www.henderson.lib.nc.us/county
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NC Department.of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
David E. Nicholson
County Manager
Avalina Merrill
Administrative Assistant
I am writing in response to your December 6, 2000 letter concerning the bridge
replacement projects for Henderson County that are contained within the NCDOT's
1 2002-2008 Draft Transportation Improvement Program. Attached is a report that
contains our comments on these projects.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
i r
David E. Nicholson
County Manager .
DEN/abm
Attachment
Cc: Board of Commissioners
Transportation Advisory Committee Members

?- r
Henderson County, Government Report on
NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
B-3475, B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666 and B-3857
January 10, 2001
Henderson County appreciates the opportunity to study and comment on the proposed bridge
replacement projects identified by NCDOT as B-3475, B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666 and
B-3857. The following report contains the County's comments regarding the projects.
B-3475 - Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127 (Caswell Street) over Wash Creek
Bridge No. 356 is located in the City of Hendersonville on Caswell Street, between Washington
Street and Lily Pond Road, in an area known as "Busy Bend." According to the Flood Insurance
Rate map for that area, the area around and including the bridge is in the flood zone for Wash
Creek.
The area around the bridge is commercial in character. Dal-Kawa Cycle Center is located
adjacent to the bridge on the south and an automobile detailing business is located next to the
bridge to the north. There are a number of other small businesses and a couple of churches in the
area as well as the Whitmire Activity Building/ToW s Park owned by the City of Hendersonville.
There is a considerable amount of traffic that enters/exits Hendersonville via Kanuga Road.
Residents and businesses around the bridge area as well as those that use Kanuga Road to access
i Hendersonville will be impacted. The detour that is shown on the NCDOT map (using Lily.
Pond Drive, West Allen Street and Washington Street), is approximately 0.5 mile in length.
Erica Thompson, Program Coordinator for the Start with Your Heart program with the
Henderson County Partnership for Health, Inc., has been working on a Bicycle/Pedestrian
Assessment Project in the Henderson County. At her request, Henderson County has agreed to
ask NCDOT to consider widening the sidewalk on Bridge No. 356 when the bridge itself is
widened. According to Ms. Thompson, the current sidewalk is too narrow.
Henderson County understands that the City of Hendersonville is submitting its own comments
regarding the subject bridge project as well.
6 (Howard Gan Road) over F
The su ct bridge is located on Howard Gap Road in an area that is mainly residential in
character but which also contains several churches, small businesses and an industry. The
intersection of Howard Gap Road and Brookside Camp Road is located to the northwest. Vulcan
Materials (including the APAC asphalt plant) is located at the intersection of Howard Gap Road
and Clear Creek Road, to the southeast. The Mountain Home Volunteer Fire and Rescue
department has a substation located to the southeast of the intersection of Salisbury Road and
Howard Gap Road. The bridge is located in the Mountain Home Fire District.
The "studied detour route" shown on the map provided by NCDOT requires that one travel
approximately 2.5 miles using Brookside Camp Road and Salisbury Road, both of which are
paved. The route passes through a residential area once it leaves Howard Gap Road and it is
somewhat hilly and curvy. Heavy truck traffic and others that make regular use of Howard Gap

Henderson County Government Report
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
January 10, 2001
Page 2
Road as north-south route may find US 25 to be a better alternative. Access to/from US 25 may
be made via the new road to Park Ridge Hospital, Brookside Camp Road, Clear Creek Road,
and, possibly, Balfour Road.
Residents and business owners in the area of the proposed bridge project will probably be
impacted the most. However, there may be impacts on alternative routes due to the need to
detour trucks, including those from Vulcan, around the bridge construction project.
While it is probably unlikely that NCDOT would undertake the subject project and project
B-3664 on Brookside Camp Road simultaneously, the County would .like to specifically request
that the projects be scheduled at different times. If they were to. occur together, the impacts on
the area would be intensified, particularly because the bridge to be replaced on Howard Gap
Road is on the detour route for the Brookside Camp Road bridge project (described below).
B-3663 - Bridge No. 320 on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaws Creek
Old Homestead Road, located off of US 64 West, has a paved surface. The subject bridge
crosses Shaws Creek, adjacent to a Southern Railway track. One must cross th e bridge, then the
track. There is no railroad crossing signal on the road.
There are a number of residences that are served by Old Homestead Road once it crosses Shaws
Creek. The area is zoned R-30 by the County and is within a WS-IV Water Supply Watershed.
The land immediately adjacent to the bridge is undeveloped. According to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map of the area, Shaws Creek is shown to have a narrow area of flood zone which includes
the area around the bridge.
As one approaches the bridge from US 64, there is a gravel area adjacent to, but at a lower
elevation than, the left side of the bridge. 'Rocky Hyder, Henderson County Fire
Marshal/Emergency Management Director, identified this as a fire department draft point. The
draft point would allow water to be drawn from Shaws Creek if needed to fight a fire in the
vicinity.
Because there is no outlet from Old Homestead Road, the NCDOT map does not show a detour
route. Homes on the southwestern end of Old Homestead Road as well as those on Summer
Rain Drive, Kilpatrick Road and Abbey Lane will be impacted during replacement of the bridge.
Henderson County expects that NCDOT will maintain some sort of bridge so residents may
continue to use Old Homestead Road while the bridge is upgraded. Also, the fire department
draft point should be taken.into consideration during the project.
B-3664 - Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 Brookside Camn Road) over Mud Creek
Bridge No. 21 on Brookside Camp Road is located south of the I-26 overpass. Double Tee Golf
Center is located to the northwest and Wolverine Paintball is located to the northeast. Vacant
fields are located immediately adjacent to the bridge, along Mud Creek. The bridge is in a low
area that has been subject to flooding in the past. The area is within a flood zone, according to
the Flood Insurance Rate Map. It is also in the Mountain Home Fire District.
Brookside Camp Road provides access from US 25 to Grimesdale, Hickory Hills and several
smaller subdivisions. It also serves to connect US 25 to Howard Gap Road and the residences
and businesses in that area.
Henderson County Government Report January 10, 2001
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects Page 3
The detour shown on the map provided by NCDOT is comprised of a loop, approximately 6.7
miles in length, which uses Brookside Camp Road, US 25, Berkeley Road, Balfour Road, Clear
Creek Road and Howard Gap Road. The detour passes over another bridge proposed for
replacement, bridge No. 20 over Featherstone Creek (see B-3663, above). It is possible that to
avoid some of the curves on Balfour Road, some detoured truck traffic may take US 25 to either
the new road over I-26 (to Park Ridge Hospital) or to Clear Creek Road to get to Howard Gap
Road.
The replacement of the bridge may cause some inconvenience to area residents and to business
owners. According to Rocky Hyder, Henderson County Fire Marshal/Emergency Management
Director, emergency services personnel and local property owners are probably accustomed to
using alternate routes because of the flooding history of the road.
B-3665 - Bridee_No. 265 on SR 1791 BBallenger Road) over North Branch, Bat Fort Creek
Ballenger Road is located to the east of I-26, between Tracy Grove Road and Upward Road.
Land Uses in the area around the bridge include Lakewood RV Park and some single-family
dwellings. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area shows the land in the vicinity of the
bridge as being in a flood zone. .'
The detour shown on the NCDOT map makes use of Tracy Grove Road and McMurray Road,
both of which are paved. Much of the northern end of Mc Murray Road consists of orchards and
some single-family dwellings. As one approaches Upward Road, there are some commercial
uses, including an antique shop, a quilt shop, a produce stand, an RV supply store and the Dish
-=? Bam.. A commercial project is currently underway near the intersection of Upward Road and
McMurray Road. Since Ballenger Road is not a major thoroughfare, the bridge project is more
likely to affect local traffic. The detour will probably increase the number of vehicles
entering/exiting Upward Road near the I-26 ramps.
B-3666 = Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799
•The subject bridge on Deep Gap Road is the'third bridge as one travels east along the road.
While the majority of Deep Gap Road is paved, the road has a gravel surface beginning at a point
just before the subject bridge.
The eastern end of Deep Gap Road has a few single family dwellings, however much of the land,
particularly that near the bridge, is undeveloped. Deep Gap Road has a number of curves as one
descends into the river valley. Because there is only "one way in,".the NCDOT map does not
show a detour route.
Since Deep Gap road is not a "through" road, people would need to have a reason to travel its
full length. That property (or properties) accessed by Deep Gap Road beyond Bridge.No. 53 will
be impacted primarily. Hungry River LLC is listed as the owner of approximately 2073 acres at
and beyond the subject bridge.
B-3857 - Bridge No. 8 on SR 1314 (Ladson Road) over Boylston Creek
The subject bridge is located on Ladson Road approximately 0.2 mile from its intersection with
NC 191. Land use in the area surrounding the bridge is agricultural, except that there is one
dwelling just to the southwest of the bridge. Other residences are located further along Ladson
Road. The bridge is located in a flood zone, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the
Henderson County Government Report
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
January 10, 2001
Page 4
area. The area around the bridge is in the County's R-30 zoning district and it is also within the
WS-IV Water Supply Watershed.
The detour route shown on the*map provided by NCDOT requires one to travel along Banner
Farm Road and Schoolhouse Road, which will add several miles to the trip for those who
normally use Ladson Road. The detour route also passes by Mills River Elementary School.
There is a change in fire districts as one travels along Ladson Road. Mills River Fire and Rescue
services the portion of Ladson Road near the subject bridge while the area further south of the
bridge is serviced by Etowah-Horse Shoe Fire and Rescue. According to Rocky Hyder,
Henderson County Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Director, both departments typically
respond to all calls in the area. However, for the Mills River department to respond to the area in
its district that is south of the bridge, it will have to use the proposed detour along Schoolhouse
Road, which will probably increase its response time slightly.
Other General Comments
County staff did not have a chance to fully investigate the environmental conditions in the areas
around the bridges other than to note areas that may be subject to flooding. However, as with
any projects undertaken near waterways, the County expects that NCDOT will use erosion and
sedimentation controls and other measures to minimize negative impacts on water quality.
Also, because of ongoing projects in the County to establish safe pedestrian walkways and bike
routes adjacent to roadways, the County suggests that, when reasonable and feasible, NCDOT
j consider ways to improve the bridges for these purposes as well as for vehicle travel.
Finally, if it is not already a customary practice, Henderson County suggests that some time prior
to initiation of each bridge replacement project, it would be helpful if NCDOT forwarded
information regarding the actual detours to the Superintendent of Henderson County Public
Schools in order for County bus routes to be adjusted accordingly. In addition, such &tour
information would be helpful to other County departments and agencies. Therefore, NCDOT
should also consider sending such information to the County Manager's office for distribution.
Note: Henderson County does not participate in the federal,Jlood insurance program. Flood Insurance Rate
Maps referenced in comments for Projects in the County's jurisdiction (B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666
and B-3857) are dated March 1, 1982. The City of Hendersonville does participate in the federalflood
insurance program. The Federal Insurance Rate Map referenced in the comments for the project in the
City's jurisdiction (B-3475) is dated January 20, 1982.
W
11 Iii I 1111,
biz
AU ro 3 U .2002 - 5 .
..t3 Q7 L'J U
- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR -
August 29, 2002
Memorandum To: John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Manager
Consultant Unit
Attention: Rachelle Beauregard, Permit Specialist
From.: Sharon Snider, Section 7 Strike Team
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Freshwater mussel survey report of unnamed creek for proposed
replacement of bridge #. 20 on SR 1006, Henderson County; TIP #
B-3662.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. #20 over an unnamed
creek in Henderson County. Two federally Endangered freshwater mussel species, the
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana)'and the oyster mussel (Epioblasma
capsaeformis) are listed by the 'US Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in Henderson
County.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burleson and Sharon
Snider visited the project site on March 05, 2002. The creek, a tributary to Mud Creek,
exists in a residential setting. Mud Creek was surveyed at two sites near this project (B-
3662) and no mussels were observed. The project creek habitat was examined and
deemed to be unsuitable to support mussel life.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Given the unsuitable habitat of unnamed creek at SR 1006 and the Mud Creek
mussel survey results, it is apparent that the Appalachian elktoe and the oyster mussel do
not occur in the project stream. Additionally, there are no known extant populations of
these two'species in the French Broad River downstream of the project stream. It can be
concluded that project construction will not impact these two species.
cc: Stacy Harris P.E., Consultant Engineering Unit Head
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC' 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
NORTH CAROLINA
a
s
+ {{J? 4 1- it
[:l? 1 ?i4S4?j
Fri i. t .16
hl ?.
t
WLF
Duu nfifi .7 LawS
I
x 51"--r u rte y.? F?st F iYt
a?
u1.k.
t44u ?ifMJ a t?t?ir¢
t r wP: rn r.a's
wr ?? y 5 ?i
'?. pox
NCI OT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY HENDERSON COUNTY
j? PROJECT: 8.2951701 (B-3662)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 20 ON SR 1006
OVER FEATHERSTONE CREEK
SHEET 1 OF lit S / 16 / 2003
i
? P LI. ?' .. • r

a
f: {

Uf

L
L 'J f+4:fi iIF
4?

7
1
dq+. - t
SfTE
?jj
f 1?EQ?L ? L'I
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2951701 (B-3662)
MAP BRIDGE NO. 20 ON SR 1006
OVER FEATHERSTONE CREEK
SHEET 2 OF 18 S / 16 / 2003
i
fit' tl/1//YY
/Q
2? A ?0O
$ : 00
a °
IX7p0 ?
/
0
y --? '_unoz?
' / - Oogo
1 ?
77
1 / o
A
- ap - a
? I
:I I
1
m °m '
DZ OZ ol
n-4 ?m
NN UJ V)
' I
Mm mX I ' I
:).; zN 1
zZ v? D I E
N I
r r.
ZO :0 -<M I
H 3Ud Z z
m m a rn ?'
11 : "'p0
l? it /0 O Q
00
p,
?I /0 0 p0 m •u°'i r' z
' 3Np1sti7111+3/ 3OJ I?I /1 0 p Q y DIN
i73d I 11 I O p J? -i
m
x I I i :I$I
?? I I ,I I
- - - - - - - - - - - -
T_ _
\0 1? \
vo - \
A/17/99
I a
00
N
F ?
F ,, ? I
? ?1 1
N ? ? M VI
?' t Op
` I
0
Sm 3 ?m I
?Z r3>) Z
r) ?
--1m "1m l
N" -"r rlm I
m 1
N 3 m^ 1
M-
N
zZ
v 0
Z vZ a? 7 E
z (A
z
m m L? T V
1' r-rtl
J.
m,
0 0
3 ? • I I ;..?p Oy as Nti
I II a Y,.-,
Y3
otr ?((
Cl)
I ?? ? j'ipll ?j
20
'rl
t?
1
t
01-AUG-2005 10:34
r:\road. y ?ro?^b3662s 04.psh
9
A Z
ti
n Z 3.6t,6gz
z _? P 2 ./g z\
°
a ? Z Z V
-1 fn m
} 7-. -_-+ °
1??1 7 m •" m a s a 3 N° ® ? Q
l? 1 ? r N C ? q?/ T Z
i rp "0
T.w S ^ a „1 In?crn i
4 ? ? ? u0 r : p
P+ i yn o s - 1 ? )Irn u??
In N / 9tlf? p3y0
?Iwil omo.o u lb ??
VI Ny/1? E 3l1nWd /
r n
? arm y •, ? N I
8 JI an u > ° °=O S
OIP = ' mmjj y n a '
o N m
r :' Z on /
O - 0
S A I
n T T T ? ?a;? N
^YI?N Z -

q + + +
mS?a m
° o i
n
w ?mA
??ww
+ + + o ? S
a _

N 1 O

i

i M.1 • LYS
3 =i_??-r tl0
~ li
°a
mO
?r
yr
v a ??
O
y n
1
r?
c? tip c
n aae?
ag
M.IC.ZV•OLf ? `
?' ,50'65 ?33d73Np15y3H1d3?.
Y
rn
I
1
I Y
I C1:
1
I

?. Z O
°zz
Zz
1

7.96.

r?i 9 1
A? n61317?2 T'C
- _ - -
_ _ _ __- -- - -

m '
?
O O ? 2?i
T l ?
?
K w
C m ?
? m a 1\? ?? _
Z ° a ° Q
?? ?H ??tiy5 T?z 1 \ fl ? ^I

O
??4
y ? ?
+Z$ ?
?Fl
..
i

rn? ? ?
ms's ,i
i
fl \
?`Q
m m? i \

??
?
C') ,, SF F
^ \
C`

aa
m

MMONS
8/17/99

? I C ? ti V
? Q 1
/o g Q \zp ?=z ?o
` a
°mn \
` 9LN ? N
© N
1 v $
4°"
?,. N r? ? NIA
q ml.
Ala -
" ,el z. 5N
n
?Vn7??-
-Ism n
4-Q a
1
y
4
O
A
o a r? ° Z °z a
4 0 ?? A
Zz
? ~ NN N
nF
S ? .lo'LZf ' S?_ 3.9Y.fLOSN
1'a ? ? ?95'l61 3.09.0>'f= /5
L w
9 m TO?t•{ ???pQQp££ NTm VI
na ? ?m SS
R ` m No H y o
n
C ? Iv a? °? ?-Ai
?? NN
ZZ r2
- N°
t m
I ? Km
K
.CZ'SL
_E 6p 131A.C2.6_-4/?.6f ZL/S?M.CI,lS6/5
f
t;
2
°
rO,3??
O
Q

20
Nn
,C_I A
°
z
_Ty
ll P
P O1
y
' Oti ?u6LS N
A
°fn o f w
??5? Z Y l
`? ? ? O OJT
La /

WD-fl-O>
ti
i r
y .a?
V
O j`QT[
y m
ha RRRK

y0
N
m d P?
s
t? .t
F
.. N
O
O rccc l)) N
Ov
O O kc O O'

-44 4
I Tf

^#
?- T - 4- 4 11 11 + H +
-
- __ - • -
- 1 'TI
'
_ _
_

T .
-
I- + 1 T

i
I
I
N
I
M if t :

_-
-
- •, ,
I 1 1!t
, I 11
:
T _
h1v

141 4-
i i
t
o
o • '' ALT
_;. r,
- .L. -, - r -
a r f l 14-9 1
1
l r i O R 1
-
i
. 4 ?z
r '{ r - -

M a- l n-rq-
nr?1 g
? _

T + 4-
-
-
- 14
11'II. 11
?t1
11
--?-,
T
_ _ W NNW
r
' _
?

T . m o 1u?•
f( ••
r

-il- -
r 11 -

4
4
1t L T I T
- ,4 T il l .1 R R I
- +L
,

1 -- H

M
T: H U I * 4 4 -

-4 44 4- 1

4 4-

MO I R

,
T
- - t -

11
I
T r
1
l
Y'
T`

-
? ..t.?.
-T
h H ,- t tt T1
7
-
?*t m Pn o ?i n ,n
T

O

Il l I I f i ll
-
- Tm
J
A

_r' --r : 1 m n 'i to C2l rN ?•'1

a=^ mot
,
; , , ,

,
Ir
i1
ri
T
T
T #i t

..
- rr r
r r r - T - 1 II:I:
l II 1 II q
,!
r 1t?
? .
1
,
.
^
l
r
?
? ?
r1 1
r ]
? / (?
7
x
,
.i
[
?
,`

l ?
T ' V
1 N 1(A 17 Ll N 1
.
- 44 +1 11 11 H

r_
7
?
777
-
_
-
_
-
- ?
? C G
+
1 1 4 i
k -ti I - - - 44 - -- - - 44+
?„
• ,- -r- ,, :
.
.
. 10
,; 1f 't " t _ _ _ _ _ M .

4 ++ H

a fr'r? -I-
l _

M I 2
i t . _
- 41

i,-! 1 I ? 1 4:
7
5?
mv
?m
ti.
r? r ._.
Ir _

4 4
AN
'
T

•
, i
rt
e
r
1(
.
7
?-
l
_
_
_
_
_ O
O?t
O x
.i_}[
i??
1 -
+ _ .
.
Q rVl r rr

.
,

,
,

1 P

H O. r

n t?

•/

: ?
:a 42
•
li s m 0
:: o0 ,?i+T- r,-
= Z
1 N

r
'
-
H
I
-

IT

#

ff r

Y rr

,i-rI
1 ,
t
• a _ P T
rFf

:
= ?,
om '
liTT
?-• ,-, - :.
Qp _
.w
• -:- ?-r r. - - Ti r •.
.
+ ff
y?.

IY?
1
_
N
f il l r
.r

i-
-- N I ::
t
_ -

;?
„•, m,o
n:m
s
•71 l - ,T -
II'r a
f n Ir.
. i ?s
w?
rn
• , -T#r ?i

li

e
W
S - OQ M
1
1 -H i I
T
fi
t
: H E H +

- R HI ± L

1;I! T T
j ??
N f€
`Il t 't' N N

N
Ln
0

.
N
0
0
O

1
N
.
14
0 0,

W -4

O
0
N
O 0

O

p

N
O
O
m
x_
N
-i
N
--i Z
0

m
D = Z
O o0
:L7

..
mm I r I

rri

I
N
/

N
O
-J
O
cn o
00
N N
m m
r r
N N
00
-4 ?
0
0

m m
d N
Z cl
N
•? C U CL
1- in c6 (D E r
.-
U xt E?
Q wU -
a
? c
rncw ?
of a c: C:
:a
co
F-- -9 m cL E
L O
LLl U a
w
U
<
C:L -0 Z'
E?m?
LO
o
LO
0
),- CLS
U
O
O
? F-
•E
Q
N N
C U
cu
r
?_

O
U) U) d O
O O
H
U E
a
IL cm

? U

a a m?

0 N C C
C 'C C U
Z
g
? = M d (9
)
U
? a o
> c
-c° m
o _
8
Z
g x
w
F-
LU N
i5c
?
c
E - c-°
a) u a?
c cn
c ? c
ca
= co
E
N
CL
U
m
N a
:3

?U

co
N

O +
-co
65 O a

65 ?-
v J

J
a) O
Z 0
F-
N • ?
00-6PR-9005 15:31
A
09/08/99
r:\r 0ad.a \Pro \b.iab e,tsh
a
:
CONTIMCT C20DO1253 T. YP PR Q JE tf-V P77-To -3662
I
ul a o
A
O in O
T
2
•
n v . Z I V1

O
o nn
o O
C,l ? s o
?

O ° < I J O
In ? 1

< --I o < v w
n u n u n n?

?
Z _
? Ln

?S?
? H y
O
v G N
C: n
e
°°
o
?o o .
A ao =

m
z ? AO
...j
C D
1
p
o
000 ? ? 4 ?

oo o
? yy
°. P 1
N N N
II II
-bi
?
°? V
3
3 ~
-
-
?i
'n N N i
d
?' ?j/
^Y O v ? 1•??
® ? "'
O
I OD `J
O u

IV)

N b N i°' '? $
N
0o yay
UI l?J '?
A ? e h
0 ?
4 d
? ?Hoil
r77? N I
yy 1 r

m o:.
P ?4?
s ?
Q?
N

?a
k ti

w ,.
iu 03 ti w?•?CA ?

N

?C O
'4Q

R1 ti a

? w V3 w v-
N

?
?o
?
xx
O
O

?' ('
? S
a
N °o
a
N $
a
N 1
7t
P
? H ?
r4

ON

ox

I 1
fififtitttfOGNtttttttttttttttt
ICE R NAM i<t • • t..,...-_.........-,??..
:3
0 x
°
° U3
CL © ° fl
n 7
a. 10 0
Q 3
1
3 L.
aL A
: to 0
0

°' CO)
°
$ x C $ 3 :U
a c o. h

as a a 9'o aa9'?? 9?9c a =aaa a aac,a
p p v? p ?= p p? ?; ? t3 0 'p ?} v v v p p p?
e-j
0 3 ' a to ° to CO © 3 CA a a ? a. a ° p zi -a
2 Q°
v v 3° 3 3 rA 0 a 2. '
p v to I
° ° r c ?o C1 3 €i a 3'
© rn ° _ _ _ ° S M?
m © C O O
1 ? 1 I 1 ?
,?. 11 j I 1 1
9i T m o 0 0 9 ° o 's° to 0 c-ir c N to '$= cS Q C? [??51 LQ? -a (i?S1
to
F _ 0 = 2 o fA V1 U. 2 S ?. O s W •+ Y 7 sc fr J q ?, ,•? O
Q fff333 d (-1 •.
? On 0 a 0 g.ca 0 '' Z oO -4 n?o 3 ° -iT?- --1--?0 vo_
° o -° to '-1 ° ? 9 m o 0 0, ccp? o Q{
S p 93 n ° W v ' n .p Q -_? 'O a ?J °
- U3 = 7=i' N = no
N = n
.°, tn? ^toy a -1 ° 0 IA ='= N• o -o S.yC CS?'? -,
5F 2.,o 0 cr 0 a. 2L 0 'A
o Q C ?• :' q OS p T p W © Q n :i 0 .9 C
r) 0. 0 0
a a.
o_
-• °'. C6
T M = ?
-

} _a

to
g
x S

a
° Q
'
c q
°
tt? Z
O
?O

• ? I ? if
®oe Qeomoooo®Ioo eom®csa®®©®oo• t f o «. I ? II
I ? it
1 91 -o
91 v -n -omm-ommwn-i nN gv ; v M C v v F v g N v W v ? v 91
to to to v Z 3 0 al Q a 9. d. FL n. 5L a a N a ?. Q Et
?.
EL EL
o. CL ° c o 0 > > >• ; c o Q Q ?' o ' ?? a. C a. mod. 2. M to
a CA
a IA
:03 :3, 5, 0 CA n
v
c _9' 7 a in R' Q = 0 r" S° n° N CA °
H
-:1 2L :3. :03 0 a
C M. C O O Q A lT i C T p C
C OW to O n a ° In . S q !T1
Q. O H Vf O t1 t/1 .: .?
r? m
•
IIII,X I 111??? o?zll?l ?' ?? I
(F@D3 zo r-a
I I I? I I 1 1? j
t I ? ? I I I I I I 11 ? I' ? I I
1111 I
?, o= Vf t/f C -1 o n a W ao G1 n A 5-
0 0 :3 S' (a a o 14 m© 4 = :n a 4 c o a o N
:3 0 CL p a a a ? CA g co a oG
:3 R,
t; T -°i A O ° Q
I O Q C a
I g °
a

i' I 1 1
j }..l
i (
I O c
444??""??VVV l 1
1
I 1 I
f I
1 1 I O
1 ?
I
0
Vf
c
T
u
to
C
PA
A
m
Z
Z
m
A
W
Nf
3' t/f N v c
° 1A ? 3 A `^ 0
in O'n ca
'
?, ° ? T C O q to W

o < Q

G1 o ?

m
24 :o
110 L1
J J

06-APR-2005 15:31
duv 1 rd}r? w??\ ro,j\b3662.typ
z
0
m
z am 14
r
9
v <
m
m >
[2 ?t?
Pon- 3c.
s ?? ?r o
0 5:M 0 "Z
m
?•
to IF
1 0 ca 94
tsE N° m??-Z O
R
W m
rn w
Q O C O Zm0 a
1
Q p
• ?7 i
/ - C
CL r
N I m
(O
Z? N
z
o
-+
M
v
w
z / o
/ N m
N
m
0
Z!
p ?J+ c
c b
0
r ?Y
M •.
H
Z
r ?? ?J '*1 -I ? N
;d A
NCO N 6
-1 P
N Opp Pe
'n y = p N R
ix io6 D
r -?1C a ? v ?
v + r+pr
-' o on C Is
n s A m
C, II
a p
r N N N? N ?? 3 N
cv N
m z v+ N m II ?m
o I I
z 29
M (n
0 t? Z I I is 8
N Z
0 is N s I I
Nw O Z
N +± m
w u,w
o
p °t
°
I?
o
N
m O??Q
0
q ?^ ? 1. kj ••"„ 666 I
Q ?**.• s V fti- ? ? ? ? Gl
b

? c w

i C_ m

N m

-+
o
N
v
-+
n
N n

-?

> T r m-?r r A ? 7s O t?•p
y
_
-i
7
7
'?-y
m.?
•
Zrm7
?7
mN?7
?7

O

?

' yy

wO>a
4 w

o?
r

n
?
o
S
??rr

O'v
0o r

m
?,

r10

T
O Z ?C ` y
r?i
m A Z?m?
p ?;
N
?• M1 ?
A?>
Z a
?• O
m it ? D
r
rn ?> ' ?
?^ • ?
?N ??
• Or m
A Oy rOi?A
? m'i
O
•?n
'
?'O
rn
? N?Z ? N(??Z }
??
> ?ZNZ

?
?
Z

0?n

?

Z n

O

;?p?
pmp
A
Z
v
?

_

n
?
Z ?
? ZZ7 m NO Z?
(
i
n?
mmC
N
m on
v ? m0 y
y Nm
-? O
?
j•: i
rn

- C
? O.m v
°°? P °° Ao
^
s?

m
c,? :
° C

?

7?70?? r

rn
???eee N ? m ? NN
m
? c?
8/17/99 "I I N : .g
r O r a ?g
Z I Cl 1 ? q !x? ? 3.61.6 Z.95N
aza,
?mZ z ?? - gl°© ?? ??
/TIN
N 4 a Z<. /© q©???p, \z?(S o .?2m no
n} ??z yz boN
Zko
Q
Ztl x rN m W r [9 m ? J_ ??? _ ,{S'bll n
Q ? ? ? r??Na n m ? i N C -? - > 3.Yf,CZ.9SN
7 V M = ? im a O A> _ 1+ n 3?v tld h .x '
JSGZ2
N N • /``" ? ll?n?tld ? ? ? ? Z
v02 fio
yI l _ _ I ` n O
cc)
Y /
?_? n Fi I I 1B'6 .0?. SN } t I a a, ti N
z 1,' ? t3 A N A
> W r?1 O _O a ?^
_ ZG vo m
Nr o pl m ~ ?' t. b Dpi" '9 B2 tC
too m ' • ^I `O r 'n` ? ,6'96
Z; ¦ o N N m 3.0,9£•IsN v
i n
o y? o? v Z N MI I ?`9? y ? ZL'Eb?,9f.i5N n
n ?
t7 ? ? c ? Z ? N x?
omo ?
ern
b
• Ya `fro z ' t P f? v zZ mo
?= f '? q, m. I o I m mp
0
o N
` N
11-115. 4.
:3 5 5 5 [a rR '/r--b94? ti O a Q?j
Q _ O
•c ?Cm . a m `^ m L. 55 7.9bL005N v\
++y++ m c oyn AO Lg,Lzi
I 0 fk' ,95'L61 3.Ob ?5
p 0 0 is
R, > r m
+ 10 8?o' b bm S
t^r8
G.0
Q i 7 QF >m
r `X,.? a a n Z a ?-
p;<dti`` o m ° H
?mO :SCI v,. .}`?i mNC1O > nm
W <cC?r p v, ", ? m
Zt ?. Z u 2
?`?'Y {y? Ot q2
1 < Km
12G^
n K ? ? <O ? ? I bY5 .t5'ZB M.£LL5.6Y5
° 1 O a 30d
~ ! To f'
M.It.2b.OS5 Sb3N1 ?' / 3? '
'I" .50'65 q31
N33ti0 3N01
}xr I?
n)n ? I
n ? I
?a<
z
nnn
Z?
13
N6B?9'gz.E _ _ T
6 q v -- - - - `
O Ay N61x9?? 7'? - _
Itl z< `?'.? .LB'L91
1111 ? ? w=r, ?_ \\`>?\O_
r
pp rq m ,
1?\I t
aC?j fit (n 4yt ?T<' r z
y)n ? ~ q?'4V a y ??nq \ Yr
r
tFt,n1 RBI ((j O
TC ?,
y 2 2 +
O p ;n ?
n A
? 1
1

O © O Nr
D
t? 1
g O ;n-
Purp k O m 0
SLl? O p a +
N W
zQ
?`x
7 I
1\r
O <o

©
20
?V
O
S
v
zr

'nG? O
N y
-2v
Z
N
rn ? tir` O?
uupullY
\ ? O
y
N
a
!o O \}
cP .
N GqA Y?
O
O
s
`$ rl
'o
s
ptl ?L6LS / N
a49
L _L
m ?, T
o t ?.
" z
n n
.? z
y
ca
p• aJ l?N ? q2 (?'
7
la A

fl
r
O

W
A
Ul
0%
V
co
0
N
O
-+ C
R
T
r
N c
N
R
2
U
R
R
i
W 1
D
?A
N
A N
?t,Z? p-0
11 u 11 N
A??U

pp?pp??Rlt*tm?
"bZ1:b?????a?tn. C-
t, .

Il..r' It.Y.:I[ Ilir II 1
............................................. ii
........:

" tic

w

riiii ?? I?I'llllllllll ?
?h?
a?

ffff +F++
N N N
O

O ?
O
p ?
-,
O z
o
5/m28/99
I I 1

iL*r

?
4 - -- -- - -- -
ae,Y,
! u 11 - -- - -

SK!7r::

.`S
U
III'.
06-APR-2005 15:34
mduvel AT R0214496
na-App-inns
ndu?oldNO4\'96\f4T96
06-APR-2005 15:37 rn
8/23/99
ul 'I
11 FF-
TI I 1 4:4# It
I IT TI 11 11
TI Ill
lit -
UM 4-?
44-
I lit
1 114+
lit
rr-
V
Fill
------ ----- --
HHH
--- --- ---- --
ITIl ''I Ill,
--------- ---------
T. l. I
0
0
06-APR-2005 15:37 .a . • +? ' • "
8/23/99
mdu0a0d F?T\%F?2?4 16

7-1 e0 Stem r .
PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter.
RECEIVED
JUL 21 2005
011651 OF HIGHWAYS
P0EA-0FFiGE Gf NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
B-3662, Bridge 20 over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road),
Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated June 21, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 06010105 of the French Broad River Basin in the
Northern Mountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts:
84 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
C
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3662 NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program,1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net
- ..E,cosjlstem .
PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
.1
B-3662, Replace Bridge 20 over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Cap
Road); French Broad River Basin (Cataloging Unit 06010105); Southern
Mountains (SM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 84 feet of stream impacts
associated with the subject project in the following manner.
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Needmore Site, Swain County 840 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
I&
ham D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3662
fi-
-n
NCDENII
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 17699-1651 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

COSYStem
PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
"V
?yoo v?
9':A
v?Y
B-3662, Replace Bridge 20 over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Cap
Road); French Broad River Basin (Cataloging Unit 06010105); Southern
Mountains (SM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 84 feet of stream impacts
associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Needmore Site, Swain County 840 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
(& < ?w k?'
Liam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3662
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, (651 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
-lEcosv_ stem
PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3662, Bridge 20 over Featherstone Creek on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road),
Burke County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated June 21, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 06010105 of the French Broad River Basin in the
Northern Ivlountains (NM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 84 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3662
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
.o??F w H r?gQG
r I [(? r

mwnaei rRos. ?aaiey, ?avveu iv.
William G. s Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
September 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
FROM: Brian L. Wrenn, NC DWQ?J
SUBJECT: DWQ Comments on Improvements to SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from SR 1539 to US
64, Henderson County, Moving Ahead Project, State Clearinghouse No. 05-0053
In reply to the request for comments on the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project
indicates that the following water resources in Hydrologic Unit 04-03-02 would be impacted:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification Stream Index Number
Cane Creek French Broad C 6-57-(9)
Byers Creek French Broad C 6-55-13
Featherstone Creek French Broad C 6-55-12
Clear Creek French Broad C 6-55-11-(5)
Any impacts to these streams, unnamed tributaries to these streams, wetlands, or open water bodies
associated with the referenced project would require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). DWQ has the following comments regarding the development of the
environmental assessment for the referenced project:
Project Specific Comments
• The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
General Comments
When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification No. 3366/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical.
Noce iCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit ?timally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] /Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncvvetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

-ST R .y,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 13, 2004
617 i819???f
Ms.C s Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator _ti At?G 2004,
NC Department of Administration o N
GLE>\IED ?
NC Clearinghouse s? ?soT a
1301 Mail Service Center CC) DON
Raleigh, NC 7,699-1301
Dear i:Ts. Bag?zett:
Subject: INC Moving Ahead Projeci, SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from SR 1539 (Jackson
Road) south of Fletcher to US 64, Henderson County, NCDOT Moving Ahead Project
No. MA14ISIR
The North Carolina Department of'T'ransportation (NCDOT) is currently planning
improvements to Howard Gan Road in Henderson County as part of the Moving Ahead Program.
CDO-t' has retained th. private engineering firm TGS Engineers to plan and prepare a State
N
Environmental Assessment for this proposed project.
NCDOT proposes to improve Howard Gap Road (SR 1006) from US 64 to Jackson Road
(SR 1539) just south of Fletcher, a total project length of 7.15 miles. Existing Howard Gap Road
is a 20-foot paved travelway with narrow turf shoulders. The proposed typical section will be
two, 12-foot lanes with 2-foot full de th paved shoulders. The roadway is to be generally
symmetrically widened about the existing centerline of pavement. Minor relocations to improve
curvature and intersection safety may also be considered at several locations along the project.
The section of Howard Gap Road between eastbound US 64 and westbound US 64 will be
studied to see if a third lane will fit through the area to allow for left-turns out of Howard Gap
onto both directions of US 64 (back-to-back left-turn lanes).
There are four bridges located within the project limits (Henderson County Bridges 20,
22, 222, & 40). These bridges are also planned to be replaced as part of this project. Bridge 420
is currently scheduled for replacement as a TIP project (B-3662).
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this project. This
letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments related to the preparation of the proper SEPA
documentation for this project. Please provide any input concerning the potential impacts of the
proposed project upon social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions
near the project. A vicinity map of the project is attached.
Fourteenth Division Office, 253 Webster Road, SYM4 North Carolina 28779
Telephone: [phone] www.doh.dot.state.nc.us Fax: [phone]
SR 1006 Scoping Page 2 August 11, 2004
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts along the proposed project corridor, it is
requested that you respond in writing concerning any additional beneficial or adverse impacts of
the project relating to the interest of your agency. For our consultants to stay on schedule and for
your input to be included in their draft report, it will be appreciated if you can respond by
October 30,2004.
Please return all correspondence to Mr. Ken Burleson, PE, TGS Engineers, Suite
141, 975 Walnut Street, Cary, NC 27511. If you have any questions or comments concerning
this project, please contact Mr. Ken Burleson, P.E., TGS Engineers at [phone], ext. 109.
Sincerely
Mark Davis
NODOT Division 14
Environmental Supervisor
f<
4-,
. -C
_ C
-L
-L