19951166 Ver 1_Complete File_19951101

. ? r
of $W(q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 1. 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Joe E. Foutz, P.E., Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Hal Bain, Environmental Biologist///.
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Proposed Widening of US 64 to a multi-lane
facility from North of I-26 to East of SR
1574, Henderson County; TIP # R-2908; State
Project # 6.9510161.
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
pertinent details and descriptions of each natural resource
likely to be impacted by the proposed project, including
wetlands and federally-protected species. Please review the
information at your convenience. This report is available on
computer disc and I will be glad to transfer the file to your
disc at your convenience.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
Beth Harmon, Permits
File # R-2908
0
Proposed Widening of US 64
North of I-26 to East of SR 1574
Henderson County
TIP # R-2908
State Project # 6.951016
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2908
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Hal Bain, Biologist
June 1994
1.0 Int
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
roduction
Project Description ................................1
Purpose ............................................1
Study Area .........................................1
Methodology ........................................1
Topography and Soils ...............................2
2.0 Biotic Resources
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ............................2
2.1.1 Man-dominated Community ......................3
2.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ..............3
2.1.3 Scrub/Shrub Community ........................4
2.1.4 Hardwood Swamp Community .....................4
2.2 Aquatic Communities ................................4
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......... 5
2.3.1 Terrestrial ..................................5
2.3.2 Aquatic ......................................5
3.0 Water Resources
3.1 Water Quality ......................................6
3.2 Anticipated Impacts .............. ................6
4.0 Special Topics
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional
Issues ...................................7
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... 7
4.2 Permits........... ....... ......................8
4.3 Mitigation ............. 8
4.4 Rare and Protected Species .........................8
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species ..................9
4.4.2 Federal Candidate/State Protected
Species .....................................12
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..............14
5.0 References ............................................15
1

1.0 INPRODUCTIDN
The following report is submitted for use as a
supplement to assist in preparation of a State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (SEA/FONSI)
document.-
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of widening the existing
2-lane facility to a 5-lane shoulder section. Project length
is approximately 0.4 km (0.7 mi). Proposed Right-of-Way
(ROW) for this project is 54.9 m (180.0 ft). Existing ROW is
18.2 m (60 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. The report also attempts
to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions
and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to
conduct additional field investigations, should design
parameters and criteria change.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in Henderson County
(Figure 1) in the southwestern part of the mountain
Physiographic Province. The total area of the county is
98,202 h (242,560 ac). Henderson county's major economic
resources include agriculture, industry, and tourism.
1.4 Methodology
Information sources include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Hendersonville); CGIA Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Henderson County; NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:2400); Soil Conservation
ervice,(SCS)_soil maps; Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list
of protected and candidate species; and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior
to field investigations taking place.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
project alignment by NCDOT biologist Hal Bain on April 20,
1994. Plant Communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using ,a
variety of observation techniques: active searching and

" Jg
3
1303.

1 S j
Fletc er 6.1 t1
--? Mountal Fruitland L;
Mills Rire1• 1 f b
Home
Edneyrillr
I? 6
Ho<5•,s?3e S O N
?r tc-2 4 East
?kl ndersonvill •?1 Rock
` Mrose Fist Pack - yY
I•.•. Ed.,e. Sr. fZx rDnlt?' . `1, Iur
?tle Rire1 Toedo a n, •
HENDERSON COUNTY
'r?
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-40=1
t
- 76a
J
• .10
1006 'u
W
4V.
Iss" 1571
• 1743
G
tP
y :71"
.v
?ot• ??? END
?`' ?• PROJECT
.a?
BEGIN
PROJECT
of ,
t' Isis lo(m
1.713
f
1
.o• ,s,_a a5
??;?r 1006
:a
O ? 1q •it0, .a6
ISt :•
ISO. Is
la .. ::;<•.
.h::• .1,97
.60
1175 1,120
1521 W.,
" 00 w 137: `.;:. .•:1730 Ifs-' `? s 1-%L
• v1A Tt7 . ? O
4. M-Mm, .05 2A 1"4
X: 1893
o, : RJ T 'r;i D $ 1717
3 377
17.7
? -. ?, ..3' ti ••1710 •• .
17.7
1,?7
R
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT C
• TRANSPORTATION
= DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
NORTH OF 1-26
TO EAST OF SR 1574
HENDERSON COUNTY
R-2908
12/92 FIG.

2
capture, visual observations with binoculars, and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scat, and
burrows).
1.5 Topography and Soils
The topography of the project area is rolling with lower
elevations associated with streams and seepages. Elevation
in Henderson County ranges from 424.2 m (1400.0 ft) to 1575.8
m (5200.0 ft), while project area elevation is approximately
606.1 m (2000.0 ft).
The Henderson County general soil map contains five soil
associations. Two soil associations, (Codorus-Toxaway-
Rosman) and (Hayesville-Bradson), are crossed by the proposed
project. The Codorus-Toxaway-Rosman association includes
nearly level, well drained to very poorly drained soils that
have a loamy and sandy subsoil and underlying layer; on flood
plains. The Hayesville-Bradson association includes gently
sloping to moderately steep, well drained soils that have a
loamy and clayey subsoil; on ridges and stream terraces.
Much of the area containing these associations has been
cleared for agriculture.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Living systems described in the following sections
include communities of associated plants and animals. These
descriptions refer to the dominant vegetation and fauna in
each community and how these biotic components relate to one
another. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same species will include the
common name only.
Vertebrate species which were observed during field
surveys are denoted with an (*). Complete listings of fauna
which may occur in the study area can be found in one or more
technical references in section 5.0.
2.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Man-dominated and remnant Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest,
are the two terrestrial communities found in the subject
project study area. Dominant faunal components associated
with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in each
community description, however many species are adapted to
the entire range of habitats found along the project
alignment and may not be mentioned in each community
description.
2.1.1 MAN-DOMINATED COMMUNITY
This highly disturbed community includes roadside, lawn,
and pasture habitats. Many plant species, characteristic of
the mowed roadside and pasture, are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed) areas
are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and dandelion (Taraxacum sp.) as well as
a variety of landscape ornamentals. Less well maintained
areas exhibit more scrub/shrub growth including black cherry
(Prunus serotina), tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and rose (Rosa sp.).
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources, ranging from vegetation.(flowers, leaves, seeds,
and fruits) to animal matter (living and dead). Virginia
opossum * (Didelphis virginiana), American crow * (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), and mourning dove * (Zenaida macroura) are
examples of species attracted to lawns and roadside habitats.
Also, several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.) inhabit the
less maintained margins or ecotones of road shoulders.
Mortality among animals which migrate across roadways
provides forage for opportunistic species such as turkey
vulture (Cathartes aura) and Virginia opossum which may in
turn become fatalities and subsequently forage items
themselves.
2.1.2 MIXED PINE/HARDWOOD FOREST COMMUNITY
This forested community is found primarily on the
western end of the proposed project. The canopy is composed
of short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), loblolly pine (P.
taeda.), white pine (P. strobus), scrub pine (P. virginiana),
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple (Acer
rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida) and white oak
(Quercus alba). Birds such as northern parula (Parula
americana) and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)
may be common nesters in this community layer particularly in
portions of this community dominated more by hardwoods than
pines. Subcanopy growth is spotty and is dominated by black
cherry and saplings of previously mention canopy species.
A dense shrub/vine/herb layer consisting of mountain laural
(Kalmia latifolia), blackberry (Rubus sp.), grape (Vitis
rotundifolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and
ground-cedar (Lycopodium sp.) is also present.
Animals previously mentioned may be found in this
community, as well as, two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata) and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus),
which may reside under vegetative litter. Raccoon * (Procyon
lotor) eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) and rough
green snake (opheodrys aestivus) are likely residents here.
4
2.1.3 SCRUB/SHRUB COMMUNITY
This bog like wetland community is located on the south
side of US 64 just east of Apple Valley Church of God. Woody
vegetation is 2-3 m (8-10 ft) tall and includes species such
as tag alder (Alnus serrulata), black willow, blackberry,
soft needle rush (Juncus effusus), and rose.
Carolina wren * (Thryothorus ludovicianus), rufous-sided
towhee * (Pipilo ervthrophthalmus), northern cardinal *
(Cardinalis cardinalis), and raccoon are examples of species
attracted to scrub/shrub habitats. This community is also
habitat for the federally listed (Candidate 2) bogg turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii) as well as several other federal
Candidate plant species (See table for federal Candidate
species list of Henderson County)..
2.1.4 HARDWOOD SWAMP COMMUNITY
This innundated wetland community is located on the
north side of US 64, just west of Wolfpen Creek. An unnamed
tributary of Wolfpen Creek flows from west to east into this
community. The open canopy is dominated by red maple and
black willow, while tag alder, soft needle rush, and rose
make up the majority of the vegetative component in the
shrub/vine/herb layer. Mole salamander (Ambystoma
ta.lpoideum), bullfrog (Rana Catesbeiana), painted turtle
(Chrysemys pitta), northern watersnake (Nerodia fasciata),
Wood duck * (Aix sponsa), Carolina chickadee * (Parus
carolinensis), and beaver (Castor canadensis) are a few of
the animals likely to be seen in the swamp community.
2.2 Aquatic Community
The aquatic community in the study area exists within
Wolfpen Creek and an unnamed tributary to Wolfpen Creek.
These waterbodies have been degraded by sedimentation as a
result of development.
River banks, which are steep and heavily eroded exhibit
vegetation previously mentioned in the terrestrial community
descriptions. Animals such as bullfrog may reside along the
waters edge along with mountain dusky salamander
(Desmognathus ochrophaeus), crayfish (Family Cambaridae) and
segmented worms (Oligocheates) which exist under stones and
other debris on the river/stream bed. Some fish species
likely to be found in this section of Wolfpen Creek include
golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), river chub (Nocomis
micropogon), flat bullhead (Ictalurus platycephalus),
largemouth bass (Micropterous salmoides), and redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus).
5
2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts, resulting from project
construction are being addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to
steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is
important to understand that construction impacts may not be
restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs. Efforts should be made to ensure no
sediment leaves the construction site.
2.3.1 Terrestrial
Few natural communities occur in the project area and
those communities have been highly fragmented and reduced as
a result of previous development. The man-dominated
community component of the project area will receive the
greatest impact from habitat reduction, resulting in the loss
and displacement of plant and animal life, regardless of
which alternative is chosen. Impacts to terrestrial
communities will result in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement, as well as, mortality of animal species
currently in residence. Anticipated impacts to terrestrial
communities are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities
Community Tvpe Area *
Man-Dominated 1.73/4.3
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.93/2.3
Scrub/Shrub 0.13/0.32
Hardwood Swamp 0.13/0.32
Total 2.92/7.24
Impacts are based on 54.9 m (180 ft) Right-of-Way
limits; values given are in hectares/acres.
2..3..2 Aquatic
As mentioned previously, the aquatic component of the
project area has already been altered by siltation from
erosion due to development along US 54. Project construction
is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to the
Wolfpen Creek and its unnamed tributary. Construction-
related sedimentation: can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food
chain. Less mobile organisms such as many of the filter
feeders may be covered and smothered by sedimentation
6
resulting from construction related erosion. Local fish
populations can also be harmed by construction-related
sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended
particulates can lead to the smothering of fish eggs.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its
relationship to major water systems. The proposed project
lies within the French Broad River basin.
3.1 Water Resource Characteristics
water resource discussions include waterbody
classification, location of high quality waters, and licensed
dischargers. Wolfpen Creek flows east to west through the
proposed project area and is approximately 3.0 m (9.8 ft)
wide and averages 0.5 m (1.6 ft) in depth. Creek substrate
is composed of silt which overlays rock, gravel, and sand.
The unnamed tributary of Wolfpen Creek flows west to east
along the north side of US 64. This creek is approximately
0.3 m (1.0 ft) wide and 0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep, with steep banks
and substrate composed of primarily sand and silt.
The Best Usage Classification of Wolfpen Creek and its
unnamed tributary in the proposed project study area is Class
C. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) lists no permitted dischargers for the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed
monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrates. Good water quality is associated with
high taxa richness (the number of different types of
organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more
sensitive species and leads to a community structure quite
different from that in an unstressed waterbody. No BMAN
information; .is available _ for the. immediate project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HOW),
CutStanding Resource Waters (GRW) or waters designated as WS-
I or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the subject
project study area. No impacts to sensitive water resources
of any kind will take place as a result of project
construction.
3.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area will
result from sedimentation and turbidity, as well as, non-
point discharge of toxic substances from increased roadway
surface area (engine fluids and particulate rubber).
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead
to reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction in the water's oxygen carrying capacity, and
changes in water temperature. Sedimentation and erosion
control measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment
control guidelines) should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of this project. Grass berms along
construction areas help decrease erosion and allow toxic
substances to be absorbed into the soil before these
substances reach waterways. Poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies will result in serious damage
to the aquatic environment.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33
CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are regulated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
4.1.1 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface waters
Project construction cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands (See
Table 2 for anticipated impacts to wetlands). Investigation
into wetland occurrence in the project impact area was
conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Anticipated impacts to "Waters of the United States"
fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). Wetlands crossed by or bordering the
project alignment are classified as Palustrine Forested
broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) and Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
deciduous (PSS1). The flooding regime for these areas ranged
from permanently flooded to seasonally flooded. Other
indicators of hydrology were present, including; oxidized
rhizospheres, stained and matted vegetation, and mottled
_soil.?. ,Locations of wetlands are indicated on Figure 2.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
S to NWI Classification Area
PF01 0.13/0.32
2 PF01 0.05/0.12
PSS1 0.1/0.32
Note: Anticipated impacts to wetlands are based on 54.9 m
(180.0 ft) of ROW.
s
•r
;
'SON i
A East
crock !
Sslur
SumrufL?

lot 41 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANTNING AND ];NvnzONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
NORTH OF 1-26
TO EAST OF SR 1574
HENDERSON COUNTY
R-2908
FIG. A
HENDERSON COUNTY
` Milli River'
..•12 .
s
/ Bat Care
aIEdney
7
;nroae
Flat Fbck
Zir bni:
le Eder. Sl. For?rr
'tle River Tu;edo('.
Jk/ : 'JSG
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404
8
4.2 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of
General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 and/or 26.
Nationwide permit # 14 is applicable (Site # 1) in cases
where fills for roads crossing waters of the United States
provided: a) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing; b) the fill placed in
waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.13 h (1/3 ac). Furthermore, no more than a total
of 60.6 linear meters (200.0 linear ft) of the fill for the
roadway can occur in special aquatic sites, including
wetlands; c) and the crossing is culverted, bridged or
otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of and
withstand, expected high flows, and to prevent the
restriction of low flows and the movement of aquatic
organisms.
Nationwide permit Y 26 is applicable (Site T's 2 and 3)
in cases where discharges of dredged or fill material into
headwaters and isolated waters provided: a) the discharge
does not cause the loss of more than 4.0 h (10.0. ac) of
waters of the United States; and b) the permittee notifies
the district engineer if the discharge would cause the loss
of waters of the United States greater than 0.4 h (1 ac), in
accordance with the "Notification" general condition. For
discharges in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, the
notification must also include a delineation of affected
special aquatic sites, including wetlands.
Henderson County is one of 25 counties designated as
having trout waters. Projects in these counties must be
reviewed and approved by the North Carolina wildlife
Resources commission prior to issuance of the COE Permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that
the state issue or deny water quality certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to
issuance of COE permits.
4.3 Mitigation.-
Since this project will likely be authorized under one
or more Nationwide permits, mitigation for impacts to surface
waters is generally not required by the COE. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with
the COE
4.4 Rare and Protected Species
some populations of plants and animals have been in or
are in the process of decline either due to natural forces or
due to their inability to coexist with man. Rare and
9
protected species listed for Henderson County and any likely
impacts to these species, as a result of the proposed project
construction are discussed in the following sections.
4.4.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 5 federally
protected species for Henderson County as of May 12, 1994.
These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species
for Henderson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Helonias bullata swamp pink T
Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia E
Sagitaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. jonesii pitcher-plant E
Sisyrinchium dichotomum white irisette E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) T
Plant Family: Liliaceae
Federally Listed: September 9, 1988
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Jackson, Transylvania.
Swamp pink is a perennial plant that grows from tuberous
rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth, evergreen leaves that
grow in basal rosette. Swamp pink has a hollow stem that is
topped with a short, dense, spike-like raceme of pink or
purplish flowers.
The North Carolina populations of swamp pink are limited
to bogs in the southern Appalachians in Transylvania,
Jackson, and Henderson counties. Swamp pink is found in
freshwater wetland areas including spring seepages, swamps,
bogs, meadows, and along the margins of meandering streams.
10
Soils that it occurs in are described as being slightly
acidic (pH:4.2-4.9), having a thin layer of decomposed
organic matter, underlain by a black to dark gray silt loam
that is slightly sticky, with many small roots and fine mica
chips. Populations are found in areas with varying amounts
of shade but populations in open areas are less vigorous due
to increased competition from other species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Plant by plant surveys for this species were conducted
in bog like habitat on the south side of US 64 approximately
0.06/0.1 (km/m) east of SR 1574. No swamp pink exists in the
project study area. It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Threatened species.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Haywood, Henderson,
Jackson, Macon, Surry.
Small-whorled pogonia is a perennial
pubescent roots and a hollow stem. Stems
whorl of five or six light green, ellipti
somewhat pointed. One or two light green
produced at the end of the stem. Flowers
pogonia have short sepals.
orchid having long
terminate in a
cal leaves that are
flowers are
of small-whorled
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth
deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open
canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers
acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is
relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for small-
whorled pogonia. It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
Sagittaria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead) E
Plant Family: Alismataceae
Federally Listed: July 25, 1979
Flowers Present: April - June
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson.
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb.
It has spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant.
The erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on
it, the male being above the female. Flowers of bunched
arrowhead are present from April to June.
11
The bunched arrowhead can be found in gently sloping
bogs with a slow, continuous flow of cool, clean water,
underlain by a clay layer. In these bogs water temperatures
are variable, soil and water pHs are between 4.8 and 6.6, and
water depths are constant. These plants occur naturally in
shaded sites, but populations do occur in unshaded areas
these populations have smaller, less vigorous plants. Soils
are characterized as sandy loams below a muck layer ranging
in depth from 25-60 cm.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Plant by plant surveys for this species were conducted
in bogg habitat on the south side of US 64 approximately
0.06/0.1 (km/m) east of SR 1574. No bunched arrowhead exists
in the project study area. It can be concluded that the
subject project will not impact this Endangered species.
Sarracenia rubra var. jonsii
(mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Plant Family: Sarraceniaceae
Federally Listed: March 10, 1988
Flowers Present: May (late)
Distribution in N.C.: Buncombe, Henderson, Transylvania.
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect
and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet
shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood.
Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and reticulately veined
with maroon-purple. The inside of the pitchers is retrorsely
haired and usually partially filled with liquid and decaying
insect parts. The maroon colored flowers are borne singly on
erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present
during late May and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in bogs and
streams in southwestern North Carolina and northwestern South
Carolina. The mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in
mountain bogs and along streamsides. This habitat is
characterized by deep, poorly drained wetlands with soils
that are combinations of loam, sand, and silt, with a high
organic content and medium to highly acidic pH. Sites are
intermittently exposed to flooding. This plant is an early
successional plant that relies on drought, water fluctuation,
periodic fire, and ice damage to maintain its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Plant by plant surveys for this species were conducted
in bogg habitat on the south side of US 64 approximately
0.06/0.1 (km/m) east of SR 1574. No mountain sweet pitcher
12
plant exists in the project study area. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact this Endangered
species.
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) E
Plant Family: Iridaceae
Federally Listed: October 28, 1991
Flowers Present: June
Distribution in N.C.: Henderson, Polk, Rutherford.
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously
branching stems. The basal leaves are bluish green in color
and are 1/3 to 1/2 the overall height of the plant. White
flowers are borne at the ends of winged stems and the fruit
is a round, pale to medium brown capsule containing three to
six round or elliptical black seeds.
White irisette is endemic to the upper piedmont of North
Carolina. This herb is limited to an area bounded by White
Oak Mountain, Sugar Loaf Mountain, and Chimney Rock. White
irisette is found in sunny clearings and along the edges of
upland woods where a thin canopy is present. These open
areas often are where runoff has removed the deep litter
layer that is usually present. This herb occurs on rich,
basic soils that are probably weathered from amphibolite.
White irisette depends on a form of disturbance to maintain
the open quality of its habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Plant by plant surveys for this species were conducted
along the roadsides of US 64. No white irisette exists in
the project study area. It can be concluded that the subject
project will not impact this Endangered species.
4.4.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
The following table includes federal candidate species listed
for Henderson County and their state classifications (Table
3). Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
13
Table 3. Federal Candidate Species
(and their State Status) listed
for Henderson County
COMMON NAME STATUS
(Scientific name) Fed eral/State HABITAT
eastern small-footed bat
Myotis subulatus leibii C2 Sc NO
eastern woodrat
Neotoma floridana magister C2 Sc NO
bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii C2 T YES
green slamander
Aneides aeneus C2 E NO
hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis C2 SC NO
French Broad stream crayfish
Cambarus reburrus C2 W3 NO
Tennessee heelsplitter
Lasmigona holstonia C2 E NO
Diana fritillary butterfly
Speyeria diana C2 SR NO
bog asphodel
Narthecium americanum * Cl E YES
mountain heartleaf
Hexastylis contracts C2 E NO
French Broad heartleaf
Hexastylis rhombiformis C2 C NO
butternut
Juglans cinerea C2 WS NO
Gray's lily
Lilium grayi C2 T-SC YES
sweet pinesap
Monotropsis odorata * C2 C NO
large-flowered Barbara's
buttons
Marshallia grandiflora * C2 C YES
white fringeless orchid
Platanthera integrilabia * C2 E YES
Gray's saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana C2 C NO
divided-leaf ragwort
Senecio millefolium C2 T NO
mountain catchfly
Si l ene ova to C2 C NO
Schweinitz's sedge
Carex schweinitzii C2 E YES
New Jersey rush
Juncus ceasaiensis C2 C YES
14
NOTE: Species presented in bold are affored state
protection.
*" No specimen from Henderson County found in at least 20
years.
4.4.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat for four of the five protected species listed in
Henderson County occurs in the proposed project study area.
Surveys for these species revealed no specimens in the
project study area. No impacts to protected species will
result from proposed project construction. Also, North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data base was reviewed and
no records exist for rare species or habitats in the study
area.
15
5.0 REFERENCES
1
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Foster, M.L. and S.R. Humphrey. 1992. Effectiveness of
Wildlife Crossings in Reducing Animal/Auto.Collisions on
Interstate 75, Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Prepared for
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee,.Florida.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H. E., and Stephan P. Hall. 1993. "Natural
Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C.WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of The French Broad
River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
16
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1980. Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
o
The University of North Carlina Press.
I
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Nann B. Guthrie, Regional Manager
Asheville Regional Office
A74J 0
F)A
C) E_= F1
WATER QUALITY SECTION
August 15, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Dorney
Ecological Group
THROUGH: Forrest R. Westa 1
Regional Water Q upervisor RF?,F? 0
FROM: Michael R. Parker &0?? ?F
"b'
Environmental Chemist
??Tq?S S
SUBJECT: Project
6408 ^4 c/F??FS
Henderson County
A preliminary field inspection of this project was held on
August 8, 1995, to look over the project and comment on items
which might need looking at further. Paul White and I attended
this meeting. It was discovered that DOT is proposing to
relocate and channel approximately 2000 meters of an unnamed
tributary to Wolfpen Creek, Class C waters.
Also, I have talked with Steve Chapin, U. S. Army COE and
they have not issued a permit for this project.
It appears from our discussions with DOT officials on site
that the DOT Planning Unit had indicated to them that they did
not need a permit or WQ certification for this project.
If you have further questions, please call me at 704/251-
6208.
xc: Paul White
Interchange Building, 59 Woodfin Place, Asheville, N.C. 28801 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
SUBJECT: Project 6.951016 (R-2908) Henderson County
US 64 From Multi-Lanes North of I-26 To East of SR 1574
Preliminary Field Inspection
We have completed the preliminary plans for the above project and
would like to review them in the field with all personnel
involved.
As a reminder, the field inspection will be held August 8th at
9AM on site at the intersection of US 64 and Fruitland Road.
Two sets of Roadway plans will be sent to the Division Engineer.
who will contact the proper city and/or school officials and
furnish them a set of plans for their use in the field
inspection.
JGN/ads
cc: Whit Webb, III, PE Tom Shearin, PE
Danny Burwell, Jr., PE Chris-Stafford
Bill Moore, III John.Ledbetter, Jr., PE
John Williamson, Jr. Sandy Nance
-Larry Wright Kelly Barger, PE
Terry Hopkins, -PE Glenn Grigg, Jr., PE
Johnny Hoyle Greg Punske, PE, FHWA
Paul -Macon Mike :Parker, VEHNR
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
U ?7
TO: `../
?r /V Ja'„^-?f /GET REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG..
F REF. NO. OR ROOM; SLOG.'

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE - PER OUR CONVERSATION.
NOTE AND. RETURN. TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS " ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE ANDSEE -ME ABOUT THIS ?. FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?' PREPARE' REPLY.FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRI ATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATES AND REPORT,
/COMMENTS:
A C
v 4,
j("?W ICJ "_ ' ?

I ¦ f • A

3?us /rdy9 2908%x1ey/layl.xPl
nornsi
?,M?P,2%99-1 w 1"i-o
3?.".°y ?9? z?as.??,??i..,?
2%8'9.) Y/ IN I.. p I
e
&A,U?
3'?;9Y.??y9? ?4., ey/leyl..pl
nor.?sl
y4/.2908?xlag/ IayI..pI

Cr)
,.. .....

:. £...

...... I

1 t
) .,._

cr,

o,
??
r?

fa-

c ?.
(v1
coo C)
GS
o 0 i
C €
rv cn

rn
C?
a, Ch
A
o m Cn
W:
rn
u?,
a
A
4 O>
?
ru. C5

Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County:

? Project located in 7th floor library
IOK3
Date Response Due (firm deadline):

This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Are In-House Review
Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
((( "` Air ? Coastal management ? Water Planning
? Fayetteville
Water
? Water Resources nvironmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal management Consultant Parks and Recreation El Other (specify)
? Wilmington ?Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Date:
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
M104

US 64
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from North of I-26 to SR 1574 (Fruitland Road)
Henderson County
State. Project No. 6.951016
T. I. P. Project No. R-2908
% 1
?r
w
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

r
APPROVED:
12-30-94--w?-,?
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
-. In
US 64
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from North of I-26 to SR 1574 (Fruitland Road)
Henderson County
State Project No. 6.951016
T. I. P. Project No. R-2908
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:

everly J ate
Project P g
a ing Engineer
SQ0lC37lte!?°°
?FESaIp`? .,
-
`
?,..
. .
7,1
SEAL
Robert P. Hanson, P. E. 17162,
6

Project P
lanning Unit Head 3
p ?.G;4Ytt'
P S? e a i
?°''°iituetN`? Z 9

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

SUMMARY
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
C. Accident History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A. Existing Typical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 2
B. Right of Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. Intersecting Roads and Type ofControl . . . . . . . . 2
D. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
E. Speed Limit 2
F. Functional Classification 2
G. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
H. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I. School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Typical Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. SR 1574 Realignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
F. Speed Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
G. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
H. Bicycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Design Alternatives 4
B. Public Transportation Alternative 4
C. "No-Build" Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Social Effect. 5
2. Relocation Impacts 5
:,
TABLE OF CONTENTS

B. Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Status of Local Planning Activities . . . . . .
2. Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Terrestrial Communities . . . . . . . . . .
b. Aquatic Community . . .
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .
2. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Water Resources Characteristics . . . . . .
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources. . .
3. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. Waters of the US: Jurisdictional Issues . .
b. Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. Rare and Protected Species . . . . . . . . .
4. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis . . . . . . . . . . .
G. Air Quality Analysis
H. Hazardous Material Involvement
I. Geodetic Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . . . .
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - US 64 Existing Lane Configuration
Figure 4 - ADT Volumes
Figure 4A- ADT Summary Sheet
Figure 5 - Wetland Sites
Figure 6 - APE Map
APPENDIX
Page
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
16
17
20
22
23
23
24
US 64
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from North of I-26 to SR 1574 (Fruitland Road)
Henderson County
State Project No. 6.951016
T. I. P. Project No. R-2908
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen US 64 from North of I-26 to SR 1574 in
Henderson County. The 0.48 km (0.3 mile) project will widen the existing
two lanes to five lanes. The project will also realign SR 1574 94.5 m
(310 feet) east of its existing location. The total estimated cost of the
proposed project is $3,593,000 including $1,293,000 for right-of-way
acquisition and $2,300,000 for construction. The TIP cost estimate
includes $900,000 for right of way acquisition and $1,200,000 for
construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for FY
1996 and construction FY 1997.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the
Hendersonville area by increasing the safety and handling capacity of this
section of US 64. Six residences and one business will require
relocation. Project construction is likely to temporarily increase
sediment loads to Wolfpen Creek and its unnamed tributary; however, no
significant effects to plant or animal life are expected. It is
anticipated that Nationwide 404 permits will apply to the project's
wetland crossings. No recreational facilities or sites listed in the
National Register of Historic Places will be involved. No residences or
businesses are predicted to experience traffic noise level increases
approaching or in excess of the FHWA noise abatement criteria. Air
quality will not be degraded by the proposed improvements.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all
practical measures to minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human
environment.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will
be followed during construction of this project to prevent siltation of
Wolfpen Creek and its unnamed tributary.
No special or unique environmental commitments are required for this
project.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the
project:
a) Improving the existing facility to a five lane shoulder section
This design alternative was chosen because it provides the number of
lanes required for projected traffic volumes. Because of the rural nature
of the project vicinity and the high operating speeds, curb and gutter is "
not recommended. Curb and gutter would also increase project construction
costs. This shoulder section also provides more clear zone for recovery
for vehicles that run off the road.
b) Improving the existing facility to a five lane curb and gutter
section
For the design reasons explained above,. curb and gutter is not
recommended for this project.
c) "No Build" Alternative
The "No Build" Alternative was rejected as the existing facility will
not be able to serve the high volume of projected traffic along US 64.
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
State Clearinghouse
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Henderson County Commissioner
The Mayor of Hendersonville
A citizen's informational workshop was held on November 17, 1994 to
obtain public comments on the project.
6. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposal and assessment can be
obtained by contacting the following:
H..Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
[phone]
7. Basis for Finding of No Siqnificant Impact
Based on an analysis of potential environmental impacts of the
proposed project, it has been determined that no significant adverse
effects on the quality of the human or natural environment will result
from the construction of the proposed project.
US 64
Widen to Multi-lane Facility
from of North I-26 to SR 1574 (Fruitland Road)
Henderson County
State Project No. 6.951016
T. I. P. Project No. R-2908
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen US 64 to a five lane shoulder section and
realign SR 1574 (Fruitland Road) just east of its existing location in
Henderson County. The total estimated cost of the project is $3,593,000
including $1,293,000 right-of-way acquisition and $2,300,000 for
construction. The TIP cost estimate includes $900,000 for right of way and
$1,200,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) with right-of-way acquisition scheduled for FY
1996 and Construction FY 1997.
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need For the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will improve the safety and traffic operations
of the subject section of US 64. The proposed project will relieve
traffic congestion at peak hours and make travel safer in the project
area. Two local schools are served by this section of US 64. Realigning
the intersection of US 64 and Fruitland Road will eliminate an existing
sight distance problem, making the intersection safer.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Projected traffic volumes anticipated for US 64 are as follows:
1997 Average Daily Traffic = 32,700 Vehicles per day (vpd)
2017 Average Daily Traffic = 57,700 vpd
* See Figure 4 for additional traffic information.
A capacity analysis was performed to predict the level of service for
the project. The intersection with Fruitland Road was assumed to govern
the capacity of this section of US 64. Because the final lane
configuration of this intersection has not yet been determined,
assumptions were made for this analysis.
No-Build Alternative
If no improvements are made to this section of US 64, the facility is
predicted to operate at level of service C with 1997 traffic, but will
degrade to level of service F well before the design period (2017).
2
Build Alternative
With the project in place, the facility will operate at level of
service A in 1997. The proposed improvements will allow the facility to
operate at level of service D or better through the design year (2017).
C. Accident History
Over a recent three year period (September 1, 1991 through August 31,
1994), 25 accidents occurred along US 64. Thirteen of these accidents were
rear-end slow or stop type accidents, which is typical for a two lane
roadway operating over capacity. The total accident rate for this portion
of US 64 is 267 accidents per one-hundred million vehicle miles
(ACC/100MVM). This greatly exceeds the Statewide average for similar
facilities in North Carolina of 169 ACC/100MVM.
The proposed project will improve the safety of this section of
US 64. The continuous left turn lane will reduce conflicts caused by
stopped left-turning vehicles.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
A. Existing Typical Section
West of the project in the vicinity of SR 1006, US 64 is a four lane
divided highway with a spread median and 6.7 m (22 feet) of pavement in
each direction. East on US 64, past Fruitland Road, is a two lane 6.7 m
(22-foot) roadway. The section of US 64 to be improved is a two-lane
shoulder section with 6.7 m (22 feet) of pavement. SR 1574 is a two-three
lane shoulder section with a pavement width of 6.7-10 meters (22-33 feet).
B. Right of Way
Existing right of way along US 64 and SR 1574 in the project vicinity
is limited to NCDOT maintenance limits (approximately 40 to 60 feet).
C. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
One secondary road, SR 1574, intersects this section of US 64. It is
currently signalized.
D. Access Control
No control of access exists along this section of US 64. f
E. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit on US 64 is 50 mph.
F. Functional Classification
US 64 is classified as a minor arterial.
3
G. Utilities
Aerial power lines are located along the project. A four-inch sewer
line is located along the east side of US 64. There are also high
pressure gas lines and an underground telephone cable running along the
project, and fiber optic cables on the west side of US 64. An R/V Park
sewage dump is located on the project.
H. Structures
One culvert is located along the project. Culvert No. 189 (carrying
Wolfpen Creek) was built in 1956 and has a sufficiency rating of 98.4 out
of 100. The structure is a double barrel 2.7 m by 1.5 m (9 ft. by 6 ft.)
reinforced concrete box culvert. Neither deterioration not traffic
volumes warrant the replacement of the culvert under this project.
1. School Buses
A total of 28 school buses (2 trips per day) use US 64. All of these
buses also use SR 1574 (Fruitland Road). Two schools (North Henderson
High School and Apple Valley Middle School) are located on SR 1574 near
US 64.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Typical Section
Widening the existing two lane shoulder section to a five lane
shoulder section is proposed from 1.6 km (1 mile) north of I-26 to 272.5 m
(892 feet) east of SR 1574. The roadway will consist of two through lanes
in each direction with a center turn lane. Pavement width will be 18.0 m
(60 feet). The total shoulder width will be 3.6 m (11.8 feet) with 3 m
(9.8 feet) paved and 0.6 m (2.0 feet) paved at full depth.
B. SR 1574 Realignment
To provide a safer intersection and improve sight distance, the
SR 1574 intersection will be realigned approximately 94.5 m (310 feet)
east of its existing location (see Figure 2). The intersection will
remain signalized.
Operational problems at the North Henderson High School and Apple
Valley Middle School entrances greatly affect the intersection of SR 1574
• and US 64. Improvements to Fruitland Road in the vicinity of these school
entrances are currently being evaluated. Additional turn lanes, traffic
signals, or improved turning radii may be implemented along this section
of Fruitland Road after further study.
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way for the widening is approximately 55 m (180
feet). Approximate right of way requirements are shown in Figure 2.
Additional construction easements may also be required.
4
D. Design Speed
A 90 km/h (55 mph) design speed is recommended for US 64 and 60 km/h
(35 mph) for SR 1574.
E. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project area.
F. Speed Limits `
No changes to the existing speed limits are proposed.
6. Structures
The existing culvert carrying Wolfpen Creek will be retained and
extended.
H. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
1. Cost Estimates
5`1,3 !c
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of
??-??-? .
This includes $2,300,000 for construction and 4M for right of way
acquisition. l?293K
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Design Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended improvements, a curb and gutter
section was considered. This alternative was not recommended due to the
operating speeds and the sparse development found along this section of
US 64. This section of US 64 is rural and there is no existing curb and
gutter section near the proposed project. The recommended design
alternative minimizes the project construction cost.
Because the proposed alignment minimizes impacts to adjoining
properties, no alternative alignments were considered. '
B. Public Transportation Alternative
Public transportation is not considered a feasible alternative to
improve the access and safety problems caused by the alignment of SR 1574
and the insufficient number of lanes on US 64.
C. "No-Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative would cause travel time along US 64 to
worsen and also increase the risk of accidents at SR 1574 because of poor
sight distance. These operations would lead to higher operating costs;
therefore, the no-build alternative has been rejected.
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social Environment
1. Social Effects
The proposed widening will have positive impacts for Apple
Valley Middle school and North Henderson High School. Positive
impacts for the school will be derived through increased safety,
comfort, and convenience for the students, staff, and teachers. All
users of the proposed widened highway facility will benefit from the
improved and safer traffic flow in the general area.
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, and it
will not interfere with facilities and services.
2. Relocation Impacts
It is anticipated one business and six homes in the vicinity of
the project will require relocation as part of this project.
NOTE - the difference in the amount of relocations shown on the
relocation report (page A-9) and the amount mentioned above resulted
from a more detailed preliminary design prepared after obtaining the
report.
It is anticipated that adequate replacement properties will be
available for relocatees. All relocations will be in accordance with
the revised North Carolina General Statute Chapter 133.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable
replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state
and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize
the inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff
will be available to assist displacees with information such as
availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale
or rent and financing of other housing programs. The Relocation
Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will
force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost
or to lose a favorable financing agreement (in case of ownership),
the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations, and possession of replacement housing which meets
decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at
least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property.
Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas generally
less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced
will receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as
(1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement
housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing
owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation
officer will also supply information concerning other state or
federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will
provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any
increased interest expenses for dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increase interest
payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replaced dwelling or to make a down payment,
including incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement
dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the State determines
is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by
the NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
or until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time
prior to displacement. No relocation payment received will be
considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code
1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable
replacement housing is not available, or when it is unavailable
within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the State so that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can
be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on
the project, since there appears to be adequate opportunities for
relocation within the area.
B. Land Use Planning
1. Status of Local Planninq Activities
The proposed improvement is located in the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of Henderson County. The County's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, was adopted in 1993. The current Henderson County Land Use
Plan was adopted in 1977. The County has a zoning ordinance, although
only selected portions of the County have been zoned.
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is largely undeveloped and rural in character.
Some residential structures front the existing roadway with scattered
commercial uses. The crossroads community of "U-No", located along
US 64 at SR 1574 (Fruitland Road) will be affected by the project.
North Henderson High School and Apple Valley Middle school is located
on SR 1574 just north of US 64.
3. Future Land Use
The County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides an analysis of
growth trends within the county and recommends a series of policies
and goals for guiding future private development and public
investments. The Plan indicates that the type of future development
likely to occur in the project area will be predominantly commercial
land uses. The Plan's Land Classification Map describes the area as
"Developed," with "Limited Transition" areas surrounding the
immediate US 64 frontage. The project is also located within the
County's urban service area, which is the area where public services
such as water and sanitary sewer extensions will have the highest
priority. Availability of these facilities will encourage
development within the US 64 project area.
According to Henderson County planning staff, the project area
remains unzoned. No new development has been formally proposed or
approved in the immediate vicinity.
8
The proposed project is consistent with the existing and
proposed land uses of the area.
C. Cultural Resources
1. Architectural Resources
The Areas of Potential Effect (APE) for historic architectural
resources was delineated and the maps and files of the North Carolina
Historic Preservation Office were consulted. The APE is shown on
Figure 6. There are no properties listed on the National Register of
Historic Places located within the APE for the subject project.
Since there are no National Register-listed properties in the APE, no
further compliance with North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) is
required.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, a NCDOT staff architectural, historian reviewed the APE
in the field. No properties over fifty years of age are located
within or adjacent to the permitting areas where federal permits may
be required. Since there are no properties listed on or eligible for
the National Register within the federally permitted area, no further
compliance with Section 106 is required.
2. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey was conducted for the project. Two
archaeological sites were discovered during the survey. Because
neither site is archaeological or historically significant, no
additional archaeological investigation of these sites is warranted.
The remainder of the project area appears to have very low or no
potential to contain significant archaeological sites. Therefore, it
appears that no significant archaeological sites will be disturbed or
destroyed and no additional archaeological assessment of the project
area is recommended prior to construction. The State Historic
Preservation officer has concurred with these findings, (see letter
in Appendix page A-5).
0. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmlands.
Efforts should be made to minimize the impacts to these farmlands wherever
possible.
The proposed improvement requires the acquisition of approximately
180 feet of additional right-of-way. Of the total right-of-way to be
acquired, the U. S. Soil Conservation Service classifies 0.5 ha (1.2
acres) as prime farmland soils and 1.13 ha (2.8 acres) are classified as
state important farmland soils. These designations are based on soil
characteristics, rather than actual use, and therefore provides a
conservative estimate of the impact to prime and important farmland soils.
E. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions
refer to the dominant vegetation and fauna in each community and how
these biotic components relate to one another. Vertebrate species
which were observed during field surveys are denoted with an (*).
a. Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated and remnant Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, are
the two terrestrial communities found in the study area.
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial
areas will be discussed in each community description, however
many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats found
along the project alignment and may not be mentioned in each
community description.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes roadside, lawn and
pasture habitats. Many plant species characteristic of the
mowed roadside and pasture are adapted to disturbed and
maintained habitats. The intensely maintained (mowed) areas are
dominated by fescue, Japanese honeysuckle, and dandelion as well
as a variety of landscape ornamentals. Less well maintained
areas exhibit more scrub/shrub growth including black cherry
smooth sumac, and rose.
Many animals present in these disturbed habitats are
opportunistic and capable of surviving on a variety of forage
resources, ranging from vegetation to animal matter. Virginia
opossum (*), American crow (*), and mourning dove (*) are
examples of species attracted to lawns and roadside habitats.
Also, several species of mice inhabit the less maintained
margins or ecotones of road shoulders.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest Community
This forested community is found primarily on the western
end of the proposed project. The canopy is composed of
short-leaf pine, loblolly pine, white pine, scrub pine, tulip
tree, red maple, and white oak. Birds such as northern parula
and blue-gray gnatcatcher may be common nesters in this
community layer particularly in portions of this community
dominated more by hardwoods than pines. Subcanopy growth is
spotty and is dominated by black cherry and saplings of
previously mentioned canopy species. A dense shrub/vine/herb
layer consisting of mountain laurel, blackberry, grape, Japanese
honeysuckle, and ground-cedar is also present.
10
Animals previously mentioned may be found in this
community, as well as, two-lined salamander and slimy
salamander, which may reside under vegetative litter. Raccoon
(*), eastern box turtle, and rough green snake are likely
residents here.
Scrub/Shrub Community
This bog-like wetland community is located on the south
side of US 64 just east of Apple Valley Church of God. Woody
vegetation is 2-3 m (8-10 ft) tall and includes species such as
tag alder, black willow, blackberry, soft needle rush, and rose.
Carolina wren (*), rufous-sided towhee (*), northern
cardinal, and raccoon are examples of species attracted to
scrub/shrub habitats. This community is also habitat for the
federally listed (Candidate 2) bog turtle as well as several
other federal Candidate plant species. (See table in Appendix
for federal Candidate species list of Henderson County.)
Hardwood Swamp Community
This inundated wetland community is located on the north
side of US 64, just west of Wolfpen Creek. An unnamed tributary
of Wolfpen Creek flows from west to east into this community.
The open canopy is dominated by red maple and black willow,
while tag alder, soft needle rush, and rose make up the majority
of the vegetative component in the shrub/vine/herb layer. Mole
salamander, bullfrog, painted turtle, northern watersnake, wood
duck (*), Carolina chickadee (*), and beaver are a few of the
animals likely to be seen in the swamp community.
b. Aquatic Community
The aquatic community in the study area exists within
Wolfpen Creek and an unnamed tributary to Wolfpen Creek. These
waterbodies have been degraded by sedimentation as a result of
development.
River banks, which are steep and heavily eroded exhibit
vegetation previously mentioned in the terrestrial community
descriptions. Animals such as bullfrog may reside along the
waters edge along with mountain dusky salamander, crayfish, and
segmented worms which exist under stones and other debris on the
river/stream bed. Some fish species likely to be found in this -
section of Wolfpen Creek include golden shiner, river chub, flat
bullhead, largemouth bass, and redbreast sunfish.
C. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project
construction are being addressed separately as terrestrial
impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial
communities, particularly in locations exhibiting moderate to
11
steep slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving
heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. Erosion
control measures will be implemented to ensure that adverse
sedimentation of these water resources will not occur.
Terrestrial
Few natural communities occur in the project area and those
communities have been highly fragmented and reduced as a result
of previous development. The man-dominated community component
of the project area will receive the greatest impact from
habitat reduction, resulting in the loss and displacement of
plant and animal life, regardless of which alternative is
chosen. Impacts to terrestrial communities will result in the
loss of existing habitats and displacement as well as mortality
of animal species currently in residence. Anticipated impacts
to terrestrial communities are listed in the Table below.
Anticipated Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities
Community Type
Man-Dominated
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Scrub/Shrub
Hardwood Swamp
Area (*)
1.73/4.3
0.93/2.3
0.13/0.32
0.13/0.32
Total 2.92/7.24
* Impacts are based on 54.9 m (180 ft) construction limits;
values given are in hectares/acres.
Aquatic
As mentioned previously, the aquatic component of the
project area has already been altered by siltation from erosion
due to development along US 64. Project construction is likely,
to temporarily increase sediment loads to the Wolfpen Creek and
its unnamed tributary. Construction related sedimentation can
be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are
important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile
organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered and
smothered by sedimentation resulting from construction related
erosion. Local fish populations can also be harmed by
construction related sedimentation. Increased sediment loads
and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering of fish
eggs. Erosion control measures will be implemented to ensure
that adverse sedimentation will not occur.
12
2. Water Resources
This section describes each water resource and its relationship
to major water systems. The proposed project lies within the French
Broad River basin.
a. Water Resources Characteristics
Water resources discussions include waterbody
classification, location of high quality waters, and licensed
dischargers. Wolfpen Creek flows east to west through the
proposed project area and is approximately 3.0 m (9.8 ft) wide
and averages 0.5 m (1.6 ft) in depth. Creek substrate is
composed of silt which overlays rock, gravel, and sand. The
unnamed tributary of Wolfpen Creek flows west to east along the
north side of US 64. This creek is approximately 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
wide and 0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep, with steep banks and substrate
composed of primarily sand and silt.
The Best Usage Classification of Wolfpen Creek and its
unnamed tributary in the proposed project study area is Class C.
Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
lists no permitted discharges for the project area. The Benthic
Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term
trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the
sampling for selected benthic macro invertebrates. No BMAN
information is available for the immediate project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-I
or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the subject
project study area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of
any kind will take place as a result of project construction.
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project area will result
from sedimentation and turbidity, as well as, non-point
discharge of toxic substances from increased roadway surface
area (engine fluids and particulate rubber). Increased sediment
loads and suspended particulates can lead to reduced depth of
light penetration in the water column, reduction in the water's
oxygen carrying capacity, and changes in water temperature.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures (Best Management
Practices and Sediment control guidelines) will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of this project.
13
3. Special Topics
a. Waters of the Unites States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and
in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These resources are regulated by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Project construction cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands (See
the Table below for anticipated impacts to wetlands).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project impact
areas was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Anticipated impacts to "Waters of the
United States" fall under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). Wetlands.crossed by or bordering the
project alignment are classified as Palustrine Forested
broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) and Palustrine Scrub/Shrub
deciduous (PSS1). The flooding regime for these areas ranged
from permanently flooded to seasonally flooded. Other indicators
of hydrology were present, including; oxidized rhizospheres,
stained and matted vegetation, and mottled soils. Locations of
wetlands are indicated on Figure 5.
Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
Site
1
2
3
NWI Classification Area
PF01 0.13/0.32
PF01 0.05/0.12
PSS1 0.13/0.32
Note: Anticipated impacts to wetlands are based on 54.9 m
(180.0 ft) of construction limits.
b. Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of
General Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 and /or 26.
Nationwide permit #14 is applicable (SITE #1) in cases where
fills for roads crossing waters of the United States provided:
a) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for
the actual crossing; b) the fill placed in waters of the United
States is limited to a filled area of no more than 0.13 h (1.3
ac). Furthermore, no more than a total of 60.6 linear meters
(200.0 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can occur in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands; c) and the crossing
14
is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of and withstand, expected high flows, and to
prevent the restriction of low flows and the movement of aquatic
organisms.
Nationwide permit # 26 is applicable (Site # 2 and site #
3) in cases where discharges of dredged or fill material into
headwaters and isolated waters provided: a) the discharge does
not cause the loss of more than 4.0 h (1 ac), in accordance with
the "Notification : general condition. For discharges in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands, the notification must also
include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands.
Henderson County is one of 25 counties designated as having
trout waters. Projects in these counties must be reviewed and
approved by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
prior to issuance of the COE Permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the
state issue to deny water quality certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance
of COE permits.
C. Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under one or
more Nationwide permits, mitigation for impacts to surface
waters is generally not typically required by the COE. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the
COE.
d. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are
in the process of decline either due to natural forces or due to
their inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species
listed for Henderson County and any likely impacts to these
species, as a result of the proposed project construction are
discussed in the following sections.
Federallv Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 5 federally
protected species for Henderson County as of December 2, 1994.
These species are listed in the table below.
15
Federally Protected Species - Henderson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Helonias bullata swamp pink T
Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia E
Sagitaria fasciculata bunched arrowhead E
Sarracenia rubra mountain sweet
var. 'off nesii pitcher-plant E
Sisyrinchium white irisette E
",E" denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that. is likely to become and
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range).
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) T
Flowers Present: May (first half)
Swamp pink is a perennial plant that grows from tuberous
rhizomes. It has lance-shaped, smooth evergreen leaves that
grow in basal rosette. Swamp pink has a hollow stem that is
topped with a short, dense, spike-like raceme of pink or
purplish flowers.
Biological Conclusion: No swamp pink exist in the project
area. The proposed project will not impact habitat for this
Threatened species.
Sagittaria fascilulata (bunched arrowhead) E
Flowers Present: April - June
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It
has spatulate leaves that stem from the base of the plant. The
erect flowering stalk has both male and female flowers on it,
• the male being above the female.
Biological Conclusion: No bunched arrowhead exist in the
project area. The proposed project will not impact this
Endangered Species.
Sarracenia rubra var. jonsii (mountain sweet pitcher plant) E
Flowers Present: May (late)
The mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous,
rhizomatous, perennial herb. Leaves of this plant grow erect
and in clusters. Each leaf is shaped like a hollow, trumpet
shaped, almost tubular pitcher covered by a cordate hood.
16
Pitchers are a waxy dull green color and recticulately veined
with maroon-purple. The maroon colored flowers are borne singly
on erect scapes and have recurving sepals. Flowers are present
during late May and fruits appear in August.
Biological Conclusion: No mountain sweet pitcher plant was
found in the project area. The proposed project will not impact
this Endangered species.
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) E
Flowers Present: June
White irisette is a perennial herb with dichotomously
branching stems. The basal leaves are bluish green in color and
are 1/3 to 112 the overall height of the plant. White flowers
are borne at the ends of winged stems and the fruit is a round,
pale to medium brown capsule containing three to six round or
elliptical black seeds.
Biological Conclusion: No white irisette exists in the
project area. The proposed project will not impact this
Endangered Plant.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat for four of the five protected species listed in
Henderson County occurs in the proposed project study area.
Surveys for these species conducted by a NCDOT biologist on
June 1, 1994 revealed no specimens in the project study area. No
impacts to protected species will result from proposed project
construction. Also, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
data base was reviewed and no records exist for rare species or
habitats in the study area.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected under
the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. The table on
page A-9 includes federal candidate species listed for Henderson
County and their state classifications (see Appendix for Table).
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
4. Soils
The geologic map of North Carolina (1985) depicts this portion
of the Piedmont Plateau/Appalachian Mountains as consisting of
Henderson Gneiss of the Inner Piedmont, Chauga Belt, Smith River
17
Allochthon, and Sauratown Mountains Anticlinorium. Soils within the
project corridor consist mostly of moderately drained soils. These
soils are composed of AASHTO Soils Classifications A-4, A-6, and A-7
with minor traces of A-2..
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of US 64 in Henderson County on noise levels in the immediate
project area. This investigation included an inventory of existing noise
levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the predicted
noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic
noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement
of highway traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of
Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are
predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristic of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1
(Appendix, page A-6).
. Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about
their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
18
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land
uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix, page A-1). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given
situation and time period, has the same energy as does time varying sound.
In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are
represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels '
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for 'assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The existing Leq noise level along US 64 as measured at 50 feet from the
roadway ranged from 65.0 to 67.6 dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise levels
are shown in Figure N1 in the Appendix.
Procedure for Predictina Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise
analysis. Existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting
up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were
assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this
report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions
during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the
proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which, during the peak hour of the design
year 2017, would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to sustain a
substantial noise increase.
Table N5 (see Appendix, page A-8) indicates the exterior traffic
noise level increases for the identified receptors in each roadway
section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +5
to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a
halving of the loudness of the sound.
19
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: (a) approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "
approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or (b)
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors in
the project area. As shown in Table N4 (page A-8), 16 receptors along the
project are predicted to experience noise impacts.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce
the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety
at access openings (driveway, crossing streets, etc. ) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally provide a sufficient
reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from
the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15.1 m (50
feet) from the barrier would normally require a barrier 121 m (400 feet)
long. An access opening of 12.1 m (40 feet) (10 percent of the area)
would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these 2 qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"No Build" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no build" alternative were also
considered. If the proposed widening did not occur, 12 residences and one
business would experience traffic nose impacts by approaching or exceeding
the FHWA's NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an
increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +3 to +5 dBA. As
previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of
2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
20
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from paving operations` and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term
nature of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime
hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures
are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted.
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air Pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and
any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges
from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient
air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the
impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO),
hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb)
(listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered
to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a
pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local
vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local
sources."
21
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to
compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within the project limits. Carbon
monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the year of 1997 and
the design year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission
Factors" and the MOBILE5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section
of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration
of 1.9 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was located at a distance of
18.2 m (60 feet) from the proposed centerline of the roadway and 18.2 m
(60 feet) from the existing centerline. The "build" and "no-build"
one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the
years of 1997 and 2017 are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
NEAREST SENSITIVE BUILD NO-BUILD
RECEPTOR 1997 2017 1997 2017
R-1 2.7 2.9 2.7 3.4
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period =
9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of
the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded
that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
22
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried
into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and
nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation and
maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to
decrease as a result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters. can burn regular gasoline.
Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating
lead emissions. In the future, lead emission are expected to decrease as
more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the sale, supply, or
transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Asheville
Regional Office of the N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources. The ambient air quality for Henderson County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will only by utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 770, and no additional reports are required.
H. Hazardous Material Involvement
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified 2 sites
which contain or have the potential for underground storage tanks (UST's).
In a subsequent records search of the DEM/Groundwater Section, the
following information was obtained:
.
23
Site No. 1
Highway 64 East Amoco (64 Grocery Bait and Tackle) is located on the
south side of US 64. According to the records of the DEM/Groundwater
Section, this facility (ID# 0-002841) has five (5) UST's (1-1,000g,
1-2,000g, 1-4,000g, and 2-550g) on the premises, which were installed on
May 10, 1979. The gas pumps at this facility are located approximately
14.6 m (48 feet) from existing US 64 centerline, and the UST's are located
approximately 18.3 m (60 feet) from existing US 64 centerline.
Site No. 2
U-No Grocery (Exxon Gas Station), which is on the north side of
US 64, is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of US 64
and SR 1574 (Fruitland Road). According to the records of the
DEM/Groundwater Section, this facility (ID# 0-017489) has four (4) UST's
on the premises. 1-6,000g tank and 1-2,000g tank were installed on
April 23, 1976, and 2-1,000g tanks were installed on September 24, 1979.
The tanks at this facility are located approximately 7.3 m (24 feet) from
the existing US 64 centerline.
A files search of the Division of Solid Waste Management was also
conducted to determine whether any known unregulated dumps or other
potentially contaminated sites were within the corridor. After reviewing
these files and the DEM Groundwater incident list, none of the known sites
within the Henderson County area were identified within the project
corridor.
1. Geodetic Markers
It is anticipated this project will impact 5 geodetic survey markers.
VI. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On March 31, 1993 a letter was mailed to the following federal,
state, and local agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental
input concerning the proposed project (Note: an asterisk indicates those
agencies who responded to this letter):
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
*State Clearinghouse
*Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Henderson County Commissioners
The Mayor of Hendersonville
On November 17, 1994 a citizens information workshop was held in
Henderson County in order to obtain comments and suggestions about the
project from the public. Approximately 23 attended this meeting. Most
citizens in attendance spoke in favor of the proposed project. Many of
24
the questions and comments concerned impacts to individual properties.
Other comments included suggestions for safety improvements at the North
High School and Apple Valley Middle School entrances to help improve the
operations along Fruitland Road.
VII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon the assessment of environmental impacts included in this
document, it has been determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on the human or natural environment. This
Finding Of No Significant Impact completes the environmental review for
this project.
BG/plr
FIGURES

HENDERSON COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404
---....-- - -
? I '?3
` Mills River 91 3
„ 12 _.? !91
J
Bat Cave,
Fletcher FF 64
wntal1.. uitland 8 Mt
Hone
dneyvill
S ,o N
• ? East
Flat ,
` :niose Flat r? k
ItleRive?Tt4etla(!
J • ^3e
EEi
:

O

?,, ??,
<<
R

U)
z
O
Q
rr
D
0
LL
z
O
U
w
z
Q
J
0
z
F-
0
w
C?
CD
O
O
z
Od '•
O
026- ••...
by
i

?T
l
'IT
0
D
? 1 \'t
FIGURE 3
P
W
Y l
r
?U
M.
Z0 LL
cn
Z N H W
O Q =
W ` O
r
CM z
O
Z (7)
2 r
`C
''crA
V/
W

V.
CO
U)

°
? t 1
_ -

? M
N ? 07 m
aIT a'
tilts
\
? ~IM ,`
M?q ?
y
\ ti
?I r•
n

O I m
N
W h 0)
N
2
I ?

y y
10I N
?IN
!

MI
T` ?_- 40
O
?
NI M
- N

_ N F q
"I OIO1 .IN
wit"
N M 10 I I
sJ Ly.
?NI 10
?-
MIn -la-
M m
-I v

ro
cul in
M b ?

I V• -H

.? t

r
;;IN 21
jt
NI M N M
C N OI O
N
F
W
O
2
Mt
LLI
cc
D
LL
Average Daily Traffic Summary Sheet
Estimated ADT
in Hundreds
Route 1997 2017 % TTST % Dual % DHV % DIR
SR 1006
North of U.S. 64 67 134 2 3 10 60
SR 1006
South of US 64 22 43 2 3 10 60
SR 1574
North of US 64 34 67 2 3 10 60
US 64
West of SIR 1574 127 254 2 4 10 60
US 64
East of SR 1897 205 408 2 4 10 60
FIGURE 4A

HENDERSON COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404
?µ?E ??'/ Flelt: er 6l
3 Mounter FruillanE ' l
Mills River` 9 t Home dne u.;i ,il 6 C 1 OE N 1vin
H 7 H. e.'$}?i e 6 .7
tpr,a}1? East 1
ll Flat /
k?end sonviC
_ , •? _ Rock ,
amose Flat ibclr
Zir bni
4. iv c. Sr.
e ia?sr
Itl River .µleoo '
1 ;
J.
L.
UNII
I .

r.?, to
rv
P.
co
?I C
(D
X,

Rt b O n`:0??
7] ?? z7 ?' L L p c7

tv002U)
0 Q
`
pp ?
0
0Z-n0ol
co n (n n C ?j
Y
07DN 7,z
-? 6 ? y d

C" n

:IE1

APPENDIX
.tea tilgy?
C.
993
dice

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carohna27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 2QtiGc-cam
DATE: May 7, 1993
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 93-0820, Scoping
comments for proposed widening of US 64 north of I-26
to east of SR 1574, Henderson County (State Project
#6.951016, TIP #R-2908)
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
scoping comments on the proposed widening of US 64 north of I-26
to east of SR 1574 in Henderson County. The project consists of
widening the existing 2-lane road to a five-lane road.
A site visit was conducted on April 29 to better assess
fisheries and wildlife value of the project area. The project
crosses Wolfpen Creek, and the existing culvert in the stream
would likely be extended to serve the widened roadway. The
stream has a bankfull width of 4 feet and substrate of sand and
gravel. It likely provides habitat for various nongame fish
species such as chubs and shiners. Wildlife habitat is limited
to yards, apple orchards, and small stands of mixed hardwoods and
pine forest.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has
the following specific comments regarding this project:
-1) We are pleased that.-the existing roadway will be-widened
rather than shifting the roadway to a .new alignment.
2) Fisheries and wildlife resources are rather degraded in the
project area, and we have no special concerns or
recommendations other than installing stringent erosion
control measures prior to the start of'construction and
maintaining them until the project site has been stabilized.
A-1
The following information should be included in the
Environmental Assessment to be prepared for this project:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern.
species. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
species. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved. Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agencies:
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
Cecil C. Frost
Coordinator of the NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-3610.
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative-project-de--signs--should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the COE
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
A-2
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
,a
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information
request in the early planning stages of this project. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
?' n^ ?'yl9f 7(
•,?; 9
C`?r F
A
I
A-3
,,. SUTF o?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 7, 1993 1
MEMORANDUM .? MAY 1993
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Division ot Highways Branch DIVISION GF 2Q
Department of-Ttans portation HIGHWAYS
Fti?RONNiE?P
FROM: David Brook
Deputy Stat i is reservation Of 1cer
SUBJECT: Widening US 64 North of 1-26 to east of SR 1574,
Henderson county, R-2908, 6.951016, CH 93-E-4220-
0820
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National Register structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area.
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal permits may
require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However,
the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location of
significance of archaeological resources. A survey is needed in the Wolfpen Creek vicinity.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or
destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be
assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order XVI. If you
have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
'3. Church
F. Padgett
A-4
109 East Jones Street_- Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
CD,
13
p
Ot-
OCT 2 0 1993
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources' DIVISION OF
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division oIs Hiss
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. R
October 15, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transp rta?tio?n,
FROM: David Brook iistoric Deputy State Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: US 64 north of 1-26 to east of SR 1574, R-2908,
Henderson County, CH 93-E-4220-0820, ER 94-7448
Thank you for your letter of September 7, 1993, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Kenneth Robinson concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two archaeological sites were located within the
project area. Mr. Robinson has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
K. Robinson
M
A-5
109 List 'ones Street • ZAeioh. *tnrh C'^r-lira 27501_2R117
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

T
f
4
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally-Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-6
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
r
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50• >15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement 3uidelines.
I
A-7

' Description
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
US 64
From North of I-26 to SR 1574
Henderson County
TIP # R-2908 State Project # 6.951016
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dSA
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
1. From Beginning of Project to SR 1574 72 67 62 74' 135' 0 9 1 0 0
2. From SR 1574 to End of Project 71 67 61 62' 122', 0 6 0 0 0
TOTALS
0 15 1 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
Section
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
US 64
From North of I-26 to East of SR 1574
Henderson County
TIP # R-2908 State Project # 6.951016
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
<=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
41. From Beginning to SR 1574 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. From SR 1574 to End 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 0 21 0 0 0- 0 0- 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
A-8
RELOCATION
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR
PROJECT: 6.951016
1. 0. NO.: R-2908
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of IMinor-
i ?
Displacee i0wriers
Tenantskotal ities 0-1
Individuals' 0 2 2 0 0
Families 1 0 1 0 0
Businesses 2 0 d 2 0 V

Farms 0 0 0 N 0 Owner
Non-Profit 1. 0 0 0 0 0-20
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40
YES ?NO EXPLAIN ALL „YES" ANSWERS -7ON
X 1. Will special relocation r 70-10
se
i
b
rv
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
ff 100
a
ected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still
b TOTAL
?
e available after project ---
X` 4. Will any business be dis-
I I l placed. If so, indicate size 3.
type, estimated number of
--- - w employees, minorities, etc. 4.
JIX 5. Will relocation cause a
h
i
ous
ng shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- u
! i i
(li
--- -? ng
st)
X t i 7. Will additional housing

?

X a
programs be needed
S. Should Last Resort Housing
--- -- be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled, 6.
ld
l
ili
f
e
er
y, etc.
am
es
ANSWER TH
-- --a ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
X 10. Will. public housing be B.
- d
d f
-
- -w- nee
e
or project
X i! X 11. Is public housing avail- 11.
---- bl
I
-I] a
e
X 1 12. Is it felt there will be ad- 12.
equate DDS housing available
--a --?' ?_ during re I ocat i on period
J X a 13. Will there be a problem of
jl housing within financial

X means 11
14. Are suitable business sites 14.
-- --1 il
bl
( I i
)
I)
1 ava
a
e
st source
15. Number months estimated to i
}I i complete RELOCATION 6 MOS. n

meiocation Agent
arm 15.4 Revised 5/90
R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
_ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY: Henderson Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: N/A

07
M 15-,?SM 25-35M 3??iOW-1'
2 - 0 0
1 0 0 0
LUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
s Tenants For Sale M For Rent
0 0-150 1 0-20M 4 $ 0-150 . 3
1 150-250 1 120-40MI 8 150-250 9
0 250-400 0 40-70M. 6 250-400 8
, 0 400-600, 0 70-100 9 X400-600 " 0
0 , 600 LP 0 100 LIP 12 1600 UP 0
1 : 1 2 1 1 39 1 1 5
A
M
M
0
UP
20
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
Will not be disrupted due to the project.
a. Kerr's Country Corner Gas/Convenience Store.
Approximately 1,500 SF. Three employees.
r
b. Apple Valley Seasonal/Overnight Campground.
Approximately 13 spaces in proposed right of
way. One space appears to have a permanently
affixed trailer in right of way (This is counted
as residential tenant). One employee.
Local newspaper and Caldwell Banker-Hill and
Associates Realty.
As necessary in accordance with State law.
Housing Authority of the City of Hendersonville. t,
Caldwell Banker-Hill and Associates Realty and
local newspaper indicate adequate decent, safe
and sanitary housing will be available during '
relocation period.
Caldwell Banker-44ill and Associates Realty and
local newspapers indicate adequate decent, safe
and sanitary business sites will be available
during relocation period.
Approve Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
A-9 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
Federal Candidate Species
(and their Stat e Status) listed
for Hende rson County
COMMON NAME STATUS
(Scientific name) Federal/State HABITAT
eastern small-footed bat
` Myotis subulatus leibii C2 SC NO
eastern woodrat
Neotoma floridana magister C2 SC NO
bog turtle
Clemmys muhlenbergii C2 T YES
green slamander
Aneides aeneus C2 E NO
hellbender
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis C2 Sc NO
French Broad stream crayfish
Cambarus reburrus C2 W3 NO
Tennessee heelsplitter
Lasmigona holstonia C2 E NO
Diana fritillary butterfly
Speyeria diana C2 SR NO
bog asphodel
Narthecium americanum * Cl E YES
mountain heartleaf
Hexastylis contracta C2 E NO
French Broad heartleaf
Hexastylis rhombiformis C2 C NO
butternut
Juolans cinerea C2 W5 NO
Gray's lily
Lilium grayi C2 T-SC YES
sweet pinesap
Monotropsis odorata * C2 C NO
large-flowered Barbara's
buttons
s Marshallia grandiflora * C2 C YES
white fringeless orchid
Platanthera integrilabia * C2 E YES
A Gray's saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana C2 C NO
divided-leaf ragwort
Senecio millefolium C2 T NO
mountain catchfly
Siiene ovata C2 C NO
Schweinitz's sedge
Carex schweinitzii C2 E YES
New Jersey rush
Juncus ceasaiensis C2 C YES
A-10
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` • ,
w1W
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N
AFz1
. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 10, 1993
MEMORANDUM
FYI
193
SAY 10
WETLAND ROUP
WATER UALI_- SECTION
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Scoping Comments - NCDOT widening of US 64 north of I-26
to east of SR 1574, Henderson County, R-2908, Project
Review #93-0820
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current:
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channel ized/ relocated stream.banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r`

Melba McGee
May 10, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities _.affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
0820er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
• _ „a5I'A7gq
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR SAM HUNT
GOVERNOR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 31, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept, of Administration
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Br 9.
SUBJECT: Widening of US 64 north of I-26 to east of SR 1574,
Henderson County, State Project No. 6.951016, R-2908 '56 PP
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 64 north of I-26 to east of
SR 1574. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Trans-
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997.
The Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening existing US 64
from a two-lane roadway to a five-lane section. The project is shown on the
attached vicinity map.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency.
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by June 1, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Joseph
E. Foutz, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/pl r
Attachment
?U FE
APR

1 .
?e ?f p`OGf '":`j? 2
Milli, River
,H .
Hor ee?S
\Gat7tes
/ Bat ca,
Fruitland
je. er I
do
S' O N
o East
anrose Fla
Zirt Flick
Jmes Iduc. Sr. Fo s
ills Rive?T edo
HENDERSON COUNT` ;
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404'

I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OFiAA-N PORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

:6 ys
TO: _
REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
E2ic 6A1-193"Q OE'fh4/2
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
70 E /ro t? T Z P
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE.
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
'?" a=-

awe.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
FROM: Joseph E. Foutz, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping meeting for US 64 from North of I-26 to East of
SR 1574, Henderson County, State Project No. 6.951016,
TIP No. R-2908.
A scoping meeting was held on February 9, 1993 in the Planning and
Environmental conference room for the subject project. The following were in
attendance:
Ray Moore Structure Design
Jerry Sneed Hydraulic Design Unit
Bob Bumgarner Location and Surveys
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
John Kuski Traffic Control
Eric Galamb DEHNR-DEM
Jimmy Norris Roadway Design
Dean Sarvis Roadway Design
Danny Rogers Program Development
Don Sellers Right of Way
Steve Grimes Right of Way
Schenck Cline Planning and Environmental
Michael Paylor Planning and Environmental
Joe Foutz Planning and Environmental
The 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening the
existing two-lane facility to a multi-lane section. The present schedule for
the project is as follows:
Complete SEA/FONSI 10/94
Begin R-O-W acquisition FY/96
Begin Construction FY/97

March 24, 1993
Page 2

The subject project is 0.7 miles in length. US 64 should be widened to
a five lane shoulder section. Symmetrical widening will be accomplished where
possible but asymmetrical widening will be needed in certain locations to
allow for proper roadway transitions and to avoid relocatees and
environmental impacts. The DEM indicates that a small stream runs parallel
to US 64 west of Wolfpen Creek and suggests NCDOT avoid the stream by
widening to the opposite side. Avoiding this small stream could result in the
relocation of a business. Roadway design will develop cost estimates for two
alternatives in this area, widening to avoid the stream, and widening to
avoid the business.
One structure, a culvert, is identified along the studied route. The
culvert, which carries Wolfpen Creek, is in good condition and will be
extended to accommodate the proposed widening.
Robin Stancil from the State Historic Preservation Office states that a
survey was conducted of Henderson County and that no structures in the
project area are on the study list. However, she recommends the NCDOT
historian investigate the project area. An archaeological survey is not
needed for the whole project but will be needed in the vicinity of Wolfpen
Creek.
SR 1574 (Fruitland Road) intersects US 64 at the eastern end of the
project. A new school is being constructed just north of this intersection.
This complex will accommodate a high school and a middle school and is
anticipated to open in the fall of 1993. Because of the anticipated increase
in turning movements when this school opens, a traffic light may be needed at
the intersection of US 64 and SR 1574.
The intersection of US 64 and SR 1574 has poor horizontal and vertical
alignment and does not provide adequate sight distance for traffic entering
US 64. Realigning SR 1574 to the east will improve the angle of the
intersection and sight distance. Roadway design will include this
improvement in their studies.
Traffic estimates presented at the meeting were questioned. Planning
and Environmental has requested the traffic forecasting section to reevaluate
the project. The new estimates are attached.
Planning and Environmental will continue with planning studies.
Environmental input will be requested.
JF/plr

UN
/ JEalo?e ?_ _ - Bat Cave,
Fletc er 6
-, y 2 3 Fruitland
Mountai 6 ?• ?
` Mills Rive 9 3 Home 1
dnevville
\\H.ii ` 191 6 S' O N
Hor S e 6
o East
6 nderso ville Flat r
? Rock ?
en se Flat Rk ?•
¦
Zircenir .
1m•, ed,r. sr vo,e4 Salu
tle River ?Turedo yy
HENDERSON COUNTY ?.' 0v :1 11
6a
• jo..
.906 Y :
1571 .*.
• 5 0
• I7U
110] ;
• v
_ : / 17
?Goop? ? END
13,3
BEGIN ;• /°/ ?f- PROJECT
PROJECT /
! 1.01 • ti
1313
1a1) 141Z .45 d b ........... Ilta
1 l
•1.lfl. .36 ?
4'?.. ? l ::i h 11a)
?? - ?rJ <:'. .n 1715 R
f
)1 Is- .15 3L
::::::::•:::;13iv...? ... 1752 ??
1507
1497
?..?•.
.54
.60
1194
is
Oa \::: r \ 7R'.:ii1
1521
iszl \s ?? \ X27 `?0??3
.15 1 ?Gry Is]] •^,D 175
\ 1710 900 J) -??
.O 40 \4y : t :Y' °1711:: 1 •os I 2.6 n1a
1611 .,?,:..,.•,>)•'.5.? •;:•.
L.ft 170
.04 .47
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
.p » 75] DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 6311
L74P I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
:::'s:''%":• ``<><:>:? ':::0 191..... 1• I .17 y
o 07 BRANCH
b 12
HENDERSONVILLE .10
1 i %1`?] t11v])
US 64
C f " 'Qs FROM NORTH OF 1-26
TO SR 1574
HENDERSON COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT R-2908
FIG. 1
-
2
9
R Y
HEDERSON COUNT08
February, 1993

ROUTE
I ?
TE 93 J5
STIDT IN
HUNDREDS
%
TTST
%
DUAL
%
DHV
%
DIR
US 64 w OF 1-26 292 582 2 4 10 60
1-26 N OF US 64 363 722 14 6 10 60
1-26 S OF US 64 3,58 712 14 6 10 60
SR-1516 N OF US64 16 32 1 2 10 60
SR-1897 S OF US64 88 176 2 3 10 60
SR-1006 N OF US64 56 112 2 3 10 60
SR-1006 S OF US64 J.9 36 2 3 10 60
SR-1574 N OF US64 28 56 2 3 10 60
US64 W OF SR-1574 106
- 212
- 2 4 10 60
US64 E OF SR-1897 .1.71 34.0 2 4 10 60
CC) >- C'7 I I co d
C) F- O) `rl r (p
C\j D / A-: Q U) m
f? W W 1L z - `?-
w
T
Q Q vJ
c? ~ J N N
Cl)
z U- (3) CO
W t v
Z F" pC o ?.- ? T N r W
\ I r O T ,
Q CE Lo ((oY)
?zti= v -? -i
4 1 04
Xc
o
cot ? co fi
/ (D N co
N co co \ T- ?-_i T r
I co CE C/)
/ -4 ?? \ ?r •- 1?
'o V ? C) C.
If)
CV
0? N Lr)
T
cr)
L? o
C\j
? n mot'
i +
N-

f
~
W
C"i CD

--
I
CE o ,
U fr
?
Z D N
o ? Nt
fr w

w ll.. c[
p cry
z

2
0
CA - m m ` ?
/ CD \ °D
/ CO N \
N ?t ao
i N N
°i
\ T ?
CO
LL o v J N r N
Q T
(0
(,o
0/c
l.
L
oCC)
CD
L
? N
r ?
N `? r
co
W
0
0
T

co cn _

N I OD
r
I
?
c
e) O
t
•-
\ o
T ` N N

o
T
- T
?CC)
N
?00
N
J? T
.r
? 04
^' \ v/
tp
- N

Ai
A
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. 6-i c, C lolr?-?b LOS &4 - D EHP-3R
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
hr- Jnc Dc?{'b , Imo. ?.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
R"Zo

l
'?i

?d W m ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 31, 1993
ID LS ? LS ? lJ tS i? a
APR - 6 =
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Br 9' ?-?
SUBJECT: Widening of US 64 north of I-26 to east of SR 1574,
Henderson County, State Project No. 6.951016, R-2908
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 64 north of I-26 to east of
SR 1574. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Trans-
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997.
The Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening existing US 64
from a two-lane roadway to a five-lane section. The project is shown on the
attached vicinity map.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency.
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by June 1, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Joseph
E. Foutz, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/pl r
Attachment

HENDERSON COUNT'
_BAjR`0 L - Bat Cave
o t 3 Fletc er 64
Mounter Fruitland 6
` Mills Rivet 9 3 , Home
191 dney
\Hz 6 SON
\ Hor S e 6 ' 'a East
FA towa? ¦ Flat
r ,?{ nderSonvill - Rock
` enrose Flat Rack
Zir?oni?
? `` ilme: ed?c. sr. r
'Itle Rive' T F.
?edo?
.
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404
¦
a

!1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP

TO:
?-Ar. ?G-ir C-)a Dn m h REF, NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
-i R
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
1 ?

I

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR January 7, 1993
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
p ?UnC?,
JAN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager C
Planning and Environmental Branch G/
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 64; North of I-26 to East
of SR 1574, Henderson County, R-2908
A scoping meeting was initially set up for the subject project for
February 3, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in Room 470 of the Highway Building. It has
become necessary to reschedule this scoping meeting for February 9, 1993 at
9:30 A. M. in Room 470 of the Highway Building.
I apologize for any inconvenience this rescheduling may cause. If there
are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call Joe
Foutz, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JF/plr
q1 k a C
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Bat
Fletc er
/ 2 7 Frmtla
' Mountai
? Mills River 9 7 Home ?
\ 12 lat 6 dneyvi lie
\H e SON
Horse, noa East
'Etwa' Flat r
? Nedersonvd?le•
% Rock ,
enrose Flat R(r'?k
•
Zirroniy
?? rim?•,,d?rz,_fo,?? Salu
tie River?Tumdo 1 y
J 7 , u?t[J
H ENDERSON COUNTY ? ? !,ov-i--I. /
Q
i• A
UN,
II ?.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
FROM NORTH OF 1-26
TO SR 1574
HENDERSON COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT R-2908
FIG. 1
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
My-. F,e C'-xLynk, Dim-D64N6
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION..
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Zq 0
f
4? 'vu[ 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
December 28, 1992
a 0 W
I
r^ - 5 1993
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Bran
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for US 64; North of I-26 to East
of SR 1574, Henderson County, R-2908
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for February 3, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in Room 470 of the
Highway Building. You may provide us with your comments at the meeting or
mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Joe Foutz, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JF/plr
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date 12/23/92
:ev i .M i on Date
Pro.2 e c t !',w_ r Piriv?F"t . T,&q'
Programming
P1 a n n i ng x
Design
TIP # R-2308
Project #
F.A. Project #
Division FOURTEEN
County HENDERSON
Route US 64
Functional Classification RURAL MINOR ARTERIAL

Length 0.7 miles
Purpose of Project: To provide a higher, level of service and
enhance safety alone US 64.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Widen the existing roadway to a
five lane shoulder section north of I-26 to east of SR 1574 and
realign the OR 1574 intersection at North Henderson High School.
Type of environmental document to be prepared:
State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No b3ignificant Impact
Will there be special funding participation by municiipaljiit-?y',
developers, or, other? Yes No X
If yes,, by whoa and amount:
Hors and when will this be paid?
(?' ?D? Z - ? ? 6 ?Cg L
PROJECT S.COCO-PINGSHEET
Features of Proposed Facility
"t"ype of Facility: Proposed five lane shoulder, section
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Type of Roadway: (exi sti n'a) : Two lane shoulder, section
Interchanges 0 parade Separations 0 Stream Crossings I
Typical Section of Roadway: (proposed) Five lane shoulder,
section
Traffic: Current 9000 vpd Design year, 16,200* vpd
% Trucks % DHV /O
Desiqn Standards Applicable: AASHTO x 3R [ ?f
Design Speed
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) . . . . . . . . . . .
Right of Way Cost (including rel., uti l . ,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . .
Force- Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . .
F'r'v1im4nary Er,gIn n' . . . . . . .

Total Cost . . . . . . . .
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1i,200,000

Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T , 500, 0010
* estimate made by project planning engineer
PROJECT SCOOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED { } , MM E5T: CcS„T
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
3ur•face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
S-ubgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . $
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x . $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x . $
New Culverts. Size Length . $
Fill Ht.
Cul vert Extension . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . $
_
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guar,dr,ai 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or, C.L. . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . $
With or, Without Arms . . . . $
If 3R. Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement. . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers Delineators
$ Other,

CONTRACT COST (Subtotal):
PRODJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
rE Comets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
dulbtotal ;
Right oI" stay:
Will Contain w th i n Exist Right of Way: Yes
Exi ting Fight of Way Width: 60 feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width •1 20 N Est. Cost
Easements. Type Width, Est. Cost
utilities:
H,o X
Right of Way S•tiubtotal
ok-E=tirat_d Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By, •_ioe Foutz Gate: 12/28/92
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* day:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager,
city/Municipality
Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
INIT. (DATE
Board of Tran. Member`
Mgr,. Program &. Policy
Chief Engineer-Preeons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Cuff.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer`
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
Comments or Remarks:
(To
Cons
q
If you are not in agreement wlith proposed project or :s;cop?i ng,
?ote your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
9 i n i ti al and date after comments.
rN
A1/,T ?O 7'1
e ? ?YOrLvln
HENDERSON COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: HE'NDERSONIVII,I,E-10 1
Mdls Ri/ver 9I r
„ 12
5
? Bat C?r?
Fletcher H.
untarn Fruitland <^?
4 F
Home
6 dneyvi 11
S7O N
e East
Flat ,
_nrose Flat Ruck
.?IC Pover Tr;4edo?
J?. a
4
?y,1 iLJ
UNI
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, VA
Health and Natural Resources /Y.
W?A
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C E H N F=1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 4, 1996
Henderson County
DEM Project # 951166
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.739 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose
of widening US 64 from north of I-26 to SR 1574, as you described in your application dated 25
October 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2671..This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If
you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application.
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. DOT
stream relocation guidelines shall be followed for all stream relocations. In addition, you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and
its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Domey at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
Stephanie Briggs; NC DOT
P Sincer I
Jr P. .
ltr
95116 6
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNoR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 25, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
9 5) 1??
GARLAN D B. GAP iuTr J -
SECRETARY
NOV - 11995
Tf ANDS
WATER
dALITV I: R
SUBJECT: Henderson County, Widening of US 64 from north of I-26 to SR 1574
(Fruitland Road). State Project No. 6.951016, T.I.P. No. R-2908.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen 0.3
miles of existing US 64 between SR 1574 and north of I-26. The existing roadway will be
widened from two lanes to five lanes. The project will also realign SR 1574 to 310 feet east
of its existing location. The potential impacts of this project were evaluated in a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI)) which was
signed by the NCDOT on December 30, 1994.
During project planning, it was determined that five lanes were required to relieve
existing traffic congestion as well as handle future traffic needs. Two design alternatives
were considered for the proposed widening: a five lane shoulder section and a five lane curb
and gutter section. The NCDOT is proposing to construct a five lane shoulder section for
several reasons. The shoulder section is more appropriate for rural roadways with high
operating speeds, and allows a clear zone for recovery for vehicles that run off the road.
The shoulder section can also be constructed at a lower cost than a curb and gutter section.
The project impacts Wolfpen Creek, some o nnamed tributaries, and associated
wetlands. The crossing of Wolfpen Creek occ?fs ove eadwaters and so do all of the
other impacts of the project. Consequently, i A anticipa ed that the impacts of this project
can be authorized under Nationwide Permit 26.
The project includes eight specific sites of impact to waters of the United States,
including wetlands. A revised wetland delineation was completed along the project in
August of 1995. A copy of the delineation report is being provided to describe these
wetland impacts. The first site consists of a 70 meter channel change in an intermittent
tributary to Wolfpen Creek. This will require the placement of fill in 0.008 hectares of
surface water. The second site consists of a 165 meter channel change in the same
tributary. This section of the channel change has been meandered to mimic the form of the
existing channel. This work will require the placement of fill in 0.02 hectares adjacent to
the roadway fill. Sites 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are all described in the Wetland Delineation report.
63
2
Site 7 occurs at the crossing of Wolfpen Creek. The existing double barrel 9 ft. by 6
ft. reinforced concrete box culvert will be extended to accommodate the widened roadway.
This extension will impact 0.003 hectares of Waters of the United States. However, the
culvert extension will contain 0.0042 hectares of open water once constructed. As stated
earlier, this crossing occurs above headwaters.
This project has been coordinated with your Asheville Field Office and the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management previous to this transmittal. The NCDOT is
providing this information to your agency and to the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management pursuant to current application requirements. Enclosed you will find a
completed pre-discharge notification form as well as plan drawings of the impacted sites.
Please review the proposed work for permit authorization. If you need any additional
information, please contact Mr. Gordon Cashin at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: Mr. Bob Johnson, COE, Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DEHNR
Mr. David Yow, NCWRC, Asheville
Mr. Kelly Barger, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. F. D. Martin, PE, Division 14 Engineer
11
DEM ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #):
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT. 4 4 f H . h
1. Owners Name:
N.C. Department of Transportation Division o ig ways
2. Owners Address:
P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home):
(Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or rep onsible corporate official, address, phone number:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Henderson
Nearest Town or City: Hendersonville
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): US 64 from north of I-26 to SR 1574 (Fruitland Rd;
6. Name of Closest Stream/River: Wolfpen Creek
7. River Basin:
French Broad
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS 11? YES [ ) NO)[X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [XT
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: N/ A
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled;
See summary sheet (Sheet 2 of 9)
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted:

12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): Wideining to 5 lanes .
13. Purpose of proposed work: Public roadwsy improvement.
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that is.a t vig Tus pt be cbarrib? ou? ?z?l?c?sVeAlso, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Least damaging m s rac ca e
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened ecies or critical
]
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YESXj NO[
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES KX] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? rural
F If applicable what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
N/A
,
Owners Signature ate
1r
?K1 1i,4
INS ILl
got N7 I,F<
24
Ala ?
1 C vli
us;
jo
R".
IM V? 1374
I s 1 u
s JTE 1V 4 SITE V11
sITr i SITE
lIW
Ll1?ar t99i
.11
.11 ll,i 109 ?1 4.; ?io_ac:7 d !j?•
• 1i41.
.oLAE _ • ltd _ <:,::J `:f A 4
lilt ® 4:7
\J ... 1211
USZ
LNE
toll .54
.It 4J
Ii)0 °Y}?• 1.12! ?r :::1
?L 1
p ,J y 1747 1? \t?!y 1111 v ?•:17? 1_ ?allP9 J, ?i14
.S • , ? ?.° , 4f off? `' ::,°.: 2s LW Was
r
`a' 1147. `4''>. v'+•..,':t;.,. r.; Ly ,1•+
22 -• ? '.?".0: a9t?3::?. •.r.:. -0; :::;SL?yv3 ? 11i2 7ttL
UL4
07
.12
•: t.`• n: ''1 1711 .10 1R
r ! o p`.
e 41
5:.... ..._ ?.,`? ??... ? ?11I27 • ISi7 0 JUL
1297
VICINITY MAP
im
.1
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 6.951016 R-2908
WIDENING OF US 64
j SHEET I OF 9 i
• l
SUMMARY SHEET
Permit Delineation Project Fill in Fill in Surface Constructed
Site No. Report Site Station Wetlands Water Surface Water

-----------
---------------
----------------- Ha. (ac.)
------------------ Ha. (ac.)
-------------------- Ha. (ac.)
--------------------------
I - 14+80 to 0.0 0.008 (0.019) 0.008 (0.019)
15+48 L LT
II - 17+40 to 0.0 0.02 (0.049) 0.02 (0.049)
19+05 L LT
III B 18+55 to 0.038 (0.094) 0.0 0.0
18+92 L LT
IV C 18+92 to 0.033 (0.082) 0.0 0.0
19+35 L LT
V D 19+60 to 0.069 (0.170) 0.0 0.0
20+23 L LT
VI A 19+85 to 0.063 (0.156) 0.0 0.0
20+55 L RT
VII - 20+60 0.0 0.003 (0.0074) 0.0042(0.0104)
VIII E 26+74 to 0.065 (0.161) 0.0 0.0
27+43 L RT
TOTALS 0.268 (0.662) 0.031(0.077) 0.0322(0.079)
611
391
?N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 6.951016 R--2908
WIDENING OF US 64
SHEET Z OF 7
Ub. 1 yU
h ,?? \U ANNUL C . /11G? 2?C6
W 1 .5 dp
Lr) N WOODS
RY A. RA Y.. SPA'
? l25 m N _ j ?o .' fi
p \
EXISTING R/W
4.00' Di c. _
1 w f0
• 1 FO T_ T
A M t 0'
- - ' K>T
CON DI
C
SS Ell
CONOC \ I
0
?p EXISTING R/W
4T 14' 95E
GR GR
Zl?
.fd?e to ?• . F_
-' I S FD -4- MIN
F °
-L- STA 14.96.458 BEGIN - TRANSITION RT. SIDE
,;.
LOUISE GIBBS
•\ DB.289 PG. 51
JOHN B. BATSON
DB. 560 PG. 5 N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS I
J.
oa HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 6.951016 R-2908
WIDENING OF US 64
SHEET 3 OF .9
(Not of
' o ?,
SCale)
Natural
,. Ground
Slope
.c
D
d 8
Min. D m
When is >1.8m L
ax: d = :i[ m
Std. No. 868.01 b•m
Type Of diner ? « n?

FOR PROFILE 0/
CONC.
MARK.
S '
469•
SITE?
CH,,9NNEL ?NAnt?.,r ?EivG? h
..SUSAN:. DUNLAP t /A
I,g3''
DB. 290 PG, 319'
?S pS
4? h,
+33.615. END TRANSITION3
LT. SIDE a ak WOODS
- df. j Sri
ZI
.•? nx -7 -PROPOSED GUARDRAIL _
CST j . .r ?? ?? _ ..?-•---? -
<^ a y' tti
-• "
?? ??: +70 618 '° - -
3 .:
±? . ,? ? ? y? J ,. 661 ,•l ?
• ?' ett ?P .r. ? .
fi? "' 9 t s ?N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION a
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 6.951016 R-2908
"WIDENING OF US 64
???fJ? -' ,k''4?t?"t`,'y1! ?J?f3 ;, ?:? •. `? ,. SHEET y- OF _
9
X46 F i z ly;
a:. .
5 59 co
3 H o
O F<S+R'ilfl '
:3. E
Cb El)
LLJ
U 00 rT4
Al wo00,U'
>- N I J O cn • z H
F th •O W?ZW
C6
. PyZUON
M•84 2F?S
41 o k ,' H w w H
N , f I` A>=t-)3
w W /? H O
p ci a
(b I z
LLI
lt')
r4 / p iC
-SN
.^a
C3 o I
M
w ro ,' III
JN ? l4 ? ?0
V Q- O (l?j : I I
OQO
m?
W y,
z 3 ?Il ? I
I
w tC) I ,
CL
E•- o s' - - t I
?m z?
wC6
l
f 300
`V/ O in
N: ,
o co
/,,3 ` 350 P 1~ b . ??v E-4 rn ?
car( I E-4 c!N
}(0
0 >4 to
3: E-4
k Ef)
Z to
/
*y A'o
?• r .. xuoGc.
s /'3
E-4 0
/? 90 3A0 ?k / I t' G. O O rn O
OzaU) Z
?HW
ow zw
r I '
LL,
E-° 1' I acHnzUAcxn
J 1 h0 _ X' ' WHWWH
C.7 CL 3 i `?., \ W H x p S
ol I
u 00 k IJ L Li I ?. ? :- 3; z a
co D k , I LsJ (03
LNe?-11410,rlig
,
00 ??a co ?
co Lli
0
tz?
016
LLJ
? r M
00.4
r / / l1?
b ' 11? r _ • ? : ?r
• •z
3 A. .
? t t , J y. 3 .Q
p7 ;s Z` 4t,,?Zs'
-rr
54
'OL
74
.O t •I .r1
I 1 i.
LL _ ,o
LIJ
at
W
t t ?,? 4Yf ?? .
Lij
:D N
cr- • i `..1.f. ??y? a.il. ?l•?C li C. W /.r1• ?? '" i.-y'k, t rt .?. ..'
U CL
4 3
O W s L .a?» l(
W V L T I i
O co I ,fir
D LL. I
N??
0
.
• r
0 14 -
,I I X11 _
I c
i OH co
o
rn
P H N CV
p K L? >4
t? 3 H
t=? r ,t A te' V.? ca x z a
XS f t ? 0 0
I ?` ? t: r R ? W V O iS{ 0
( f , H si O
S59.3?a6 E ' r R } W000N0 -
9
•OW zW
wLO zUQcxn
FO 1 1 A >
_ 1111 t +a f
LIJ
Q ?- ? ?/ ? ? Ik?? ???!,l ?i ! !III! ? ..^? ? ?' :: '?
o(p 0000
I
I ? 1
t UJ ? I G \
.? W
\ I
?.? `p c?
Cam-
i
GR
cv_.
j PRO ED/
15
Fftwl ?CC?ARD AFL / /
CAT-l \ x BST- i=;r'n.,n
400 ,
-60NC Ann
I-1 ,
_ f0 f0 _ _
r --
t ' 1577dG US 64 BST _
ILI
'AWN
ARDRAIL
4
•138 ---- -
TS
-rDE
-L- PO --

1200

v N). 7-6- \?-
i
/gJ00t) J
T- POT Sta. /0.80 X 00-
1p , (d
Arr?? i
IN.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 6.951016 R-2908
WIDENING OF US 64

o •?
G
SPI-i
JIFW t _

, €,3 Cam'
V a.
%L E13
? W r.
\ s gb2 bt O r
\ z -? , ` r
10
a
47
CPT
CQ)
N0J I
N
J M ?? o yy?
C\l
l U Q- w
a ° U-
m (,o 0 r
m Q r
?dlS o
° •Fiz z
300?1c
W ,C
r' o w ? o ,
?I J I
w ? ?
co
j
o j? .07
Z
" n o
Fi
?W I

I r _1_--
II
I i
II t
L t
1
?t
Q
cc
v?l
p
r I
?t
> ?I
Zz 4
w
w i
w
I,-,-
LLJ ;

U-i .?
z

H q

E-4 to .. N
4
. , 0 4 >

ti
a4 E-4
?
w w
z U
HOr1 O
U C) 44
' 0
+
r%4 Z in
?
o U) Z E-c
Z W
w
z
E-+H0E1W=
04 Enz0Cacn
W H W W H
D > w h 3
0
0
T U a

z
a`
a

Q
z
J
?Y
3
? o
?a
I<z
d?
r?
?v
t
i
L
LLJ
i
i
i
w-

C) a
j
W x
? g.
?o t
N? •
rn
N f'3
N

l<

v O
pp co
JtitiT
\^?Z~dd
w
n rr
N00 fr
oNC? Go cc

et RNfo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HuNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III -
Gow woR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
15 August 1995
Memorandum To: Gordon Cashin, Permit Coordinator
Environmental Unit
Attention: Stephanie Briggs, Permit Supervisor
Environmental Unit
From: Christopher A. Murray, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject: Wetland delineation for proposed widening of US
Hwy. 64 north of I-26 to east of SR 1574 in
Hendersonville, Henderson County. TIP No.
R-2908; State Project No. 6.951016
NCDOT is proposing to widen US Hwy. 64 in Henderson County
from north of I-26 to east of SR 1574. This memorandum
discusses wetland issues involved with this project. A
location map depicting the approximate locations of wetlands
encountered in this project is included as Figure 1.
Potential wetland sites were visited on 15 August 1995 by
NCDOT Biologist Christopher A. Murray. Two mechanisms are
currently being used to describe wetlands: a classification
system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) and a numerical
rating system developed by the North Division of Environmental
Management (DEM, 1995).
The Cowardin system provides a uniform approach in
describing concepts and terms used'in classifying ecological
taxa located in a wetland system. The DEM.rating scale gauges
wetland quality using a numerical rating system (0-100 with 100
being the highest value) that emphasizes water storage,
bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife
habitat, aquatic life values, and recreation/education
potential.
Wetland delineations were performed using delineation
criteria prescribed in "Corps of Engineers (COE) Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Table 1
summarizes Cowardin classifications and DEM ratings for
wetlands located in the project area.
0

:Z

JR 71 O?.
- ?t
IS03
•>' rw
- y
t
apt
yk- UU
-z
? ?ea
.j
L= .
' V IXS%S
_ a.
if]I A
•UM \1'G LT3!
•? mss,:" ? -
\° .osr o

J
J.1n_
b
UaLl
t x`t
o:3afd11yy--
1? GJi?
•• a to
os ]1
IAN ( V
1a
_ , ss
64
?? '-•? • I Moamar Ft tiand
` Milli Filar f I Mama
' Itl Edncyvill.
N jt ' .
Honc•,w,r F S O N
? • torral? •t East t
4ilendersonvd?r •ar S
Rock ,?
amore Flat Pedi.r:,
?. «.>r..Zi S
'Ila Arru out
t vV;'
J
i
r
. y ?
• .10
• • Y
• 470
?• opt;_, ' tsa
SIB .17
S1kE END j
`' ?•
Sit PROJECT
g
BEGIN
ROJECT •:?r 4ae- A ^

1711'
I7??
?z

?-0.1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
s DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 64
NORTH OF 1-26
TO EAST OF SR 1574
HENDERSON COUNTY
R-2908
12192 FIG. 1
HENDERSON COUNTY
USGS QUAD SHEET: HENDERSONVILLE-404
Table 1. Cowardin Classification and'DEM Rating for wetlands
located in project area.
Location Cowardice Class. DEH Rating
Site A PF01C 42
Site B PEM1C 33
Site C PEM1C 33
Site D PF01C 50
Site E PSS1C 50
The Cowardin classification PFO1C can be interpreted as
Palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-leaved Deciduous (1) with
a water regime that is Seasonally Flooded (C). PEM1 can be
interpreted as Palustrine (P), Emergent (EM), Persistent (1)
with a water regime that is Seasonally Flooded (C). PSS1C can
be interpreted as Palustrine (P), Scrub-Shrub (SS), Broad-
leaved Deciduous (1) with a water regime that is Seasonally
Flooded (C). COE forms for routine wetland determination and
DEM wetland rating worksheets are included as attachments this
memo.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D. Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Mark Shown, Hydraulics Unit
File: R-2908
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: R ZG D S Date: gb'-M S
Applicant/Owner. nlc o-r County:
Investlgator: C h, , s A u, r& y State: A.)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community t0:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect 10: s=_
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: we f=?
Of needed, explain on reverse.)

VEGETATION
DQm+inarK Plant Species Stratum lea er Geminent Plent S eeles Sts im ndi r
1._gaivla n arm t' 0R t- s. ilenr ?r_fi) l? rAc
2. ?l vnt,,- e C- f 6 vS F-AC Wt 10. C or'ex 5 l? F-,q r_
3. cc., e-'r ?P rAC
4. fulwka 11tM1r1PG F? ?Aei 1?. ._1-?Dat.(?S Co e-4,-. ,Z g
Lys
S.;ttld ao.D So. N 'PAC_' 13._ _tti . p??S C=12 /1h-1g
l L_ ??R L
6. ce r r JO W.en F? 14. n
Vt-06 gal.) err . O L
7. • h. w. ;.? X52 P At- 15.
a. Jr nos eMd?n?? ¦?
5_ A? c_}- 1e.

Feroaret et 09n*m ru Speew that are 081.FACW er FAC
(MMudim FAG).
,
f
Rentafks. [X?datilnLr; ((??p
?F ?kJ??Q?N?'lG 1
'??
HYDROLOGY
Reeetded t>•ta 4De0an.6 !A Ranwkt): WedoW Hydrology ktGo?wrs:
-wets. Lake, er TWe Gouge hhr+an? kwkat M
-Aarlal PhouWapin ..:.. fWundeted
?Othar
? .Saturated in Upper 1a kohee
ue Reaorded OM Avw1e61. _.......:y...? _ __..._.. _ Water Make
Ori(t uses

Fleur Observodons: _ Sod awn Deposit
:[Drainege Patterns in Wetlands

Depth of Surhoe W. i •?, ?' wrAs WrJ S Medeatere (2 x more required):
OxWlzed Roes Cheraw" in Upper 12 lrtatles

Cepth ID Free Water in ft y4 4 . t o50. ? -11n.) Water-Stained Leaves
? yZ Lace! Sod Survey Dw
o FAC•Neuasl Test
Dgnb to Saarrated Sol: _ a+- iu Wy ?.00ter gb*lain in Ranerks)
Rernirks:
fq *1'n 5 ?01 A i-

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series ad Phase): -1) 444 10 I a ^^
Drainage Class: P ?Q c , ^ ,eQ

Taxonomy (Subptoupl: c Feld Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? s No
ProAlOeeed°Hon:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
'
finches) Horizon (Munsell Moist)__
M ignsen Moistf Abundanes/Contrest Structure, ate.

Hydrlo Soil lndlostonn.
Wstotoi - Concraions
??? Wph Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sail
Odor _ ... _ .? . _ _ Organic Streeldnp in $or," Sacs
Agttic lf4-1- rs Regime /ysted on Load Hydro Seal List
Poduft ? Cotididons
1 ,/Ustad on NadwW Hyddc Soto Ust
2
GIrfed or Low-Ctrorna Criers Other Mxplain in Rematksl
Remarks:
OWN
WETLAND DETERMINATION

.y
t'
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProiectlShe: V-75 09 Date: t? i r,
ApplicantlOwner. Nc aI- County:
Investigator: r t4t,s tAorc G Y State: .plc
Do Normal Clrcumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID: ,ac-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID: (r.,
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
runt Plant loggias Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Soodes Stratum IndiggM
2. (C. k It.. U#wkMta iq_ Fftt io.
3. r"'Cer r, o, i
4. << 5 v s r.,, ?.. 'j
S. 13:
IL 14.
7. 15.
s. 16.

Poem of Oetnitnwa Species that an COL. FACW or FAC
toackwing FALL
7 5 o
. pae-et- ?e- P(°? ?S
HYDROLOGY

Resented o.a (Describe in Rernarksh WedoW Nvdralm Indicates:
-atrearm Lake, of We Gouge primary kukams:
As" Photograph -Inundated
/ Savanted In upper 1Z lnohea
=Na Reerded Cm Available . ... w_ .. :. -_ - -W
Oft Lines

Reid Observedens: sodinent Deposits
_ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Seoortdafy Wiestam tZ of mare fen deed):
Depth of stwtaee Waal Qtn.i `Otddlsed Root Channels in Upper 12 knah es

Depth to Fees Water in ft W _jNster-Stained Leaves
Logan Sol survey Oats
o FAC44musl Tan
Depth its Ssortated Seal: _ Qnd Other tExplain In Rwnwks)
Rattnitks:
- wet"- ?k6-ro(0 "7 NOf eJJ-f-tt eit-

SOILS
Map Unit Nams /
Mariam and Phase): 0 Q
Drainage pass:
?ntJ
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations
t^'v Confirm Mapped Typs? Yes
Profile Oase*i MM
Depth Matrix Color
s
Horizon IMunseil Moist)-*
nM Motto Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
(Munson Mcistf Abundance/Contrast Struct
_
?
t') ure, etc.

Hydric Soil hullostom-
-- Hh osaol Concretions
High Organio Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Sops
- ?w
- Aquic Moisoua Regime _ Organic sae.wng in aargy soli -
u6 isted on Local Hydro Sops List
-Reduairm CorWitlom
Gteyed or Low-Chrome Col
n ` ?' .. Listed on Notional Hydria Sok List
o Oche W=piain in Rant e"
aemsrks:. ....?. ..
Am -???,,?
a.h

WETLAND DETERMINATION

f .

r

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
8-
Project Name:. 47.ci;25 County: P-e,der5or`
Nearest Road: VA ?- q Date: ohs/a5-
Wetland Area (ac): +i.0o.cI e- Wetland Width (ft):
Name of Evaluator(s) : C)^r%S N morr-wY
Wetland Location: Adjacent Land use:
on sound or estuary (within-1/2 mi upstream,
pond or lake up lope, or radius)
on perennial stream forested/natural veg. Z0 %
on intermittent stream ? agriculture/urbanized Z O %
within interstream divide ? impervious surface L?%
other Adjacent Special Natural Areas
Soils Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series Ua??Oro bomJ" (1) - s?•?o, K-S(e-
.• SV/?C?S Q•r'r'ilSuG
predominantly organic (2)
(humus, muck or peat) 111•?,s St<<-\a9c,
predominantly mineral {non-sandy) Flooding and Wetness
predominantly sandy semipermanently to
H dr ulic Factors permanently flooded or
freshwater brackish nundated
steep topography seasonally flooded or
ditched or channelized inundated
_,,::--'total wetland width >_ 100 feet. intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Type (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest surface water
Swamp Forest _ Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay -? Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
Freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.: DEM RATING
WATER STORAGE x 4.00 =
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00 = rr
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00 = t_
WILDLIFE` HABITAT 4' --?-- x 2.00
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE` Z x 4.00 =
RECREATION /EDUCATION _ x 1.00 =
WETLAND SCORE =
(TOTAL)
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10o nonpoint disti:-bancp
within 112 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.

r.
e,%!I
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WE'T'LAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/sIte: ? z F o g Date: 9115- / 5
Applicant/Owner.. N C D 0'T County: H. ems
Investigator. C 1, 5 M.-ffo,y state: w r
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? se No . Community 10: Pf r?
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Ca) Transact 10: f e
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes (9o Plot ID: C./44_
(If needed. explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
rninen Plan aeies
1. _ CO r w1vu, stratum Indicator
_ - r7AAt- Doeninent Plant Soeeies Stratum- Indicator
9.
2._ ftetoG1o.r.s P 14-

3. - o1,A r o
ro9r _
11.
4. ?MDAI•'??S ta???r..s 14 AC 4--) f.
1- -F& 13. ;
Q. C t ?l? i - P- c t..) 14.
15.
a. 1s.

PNOeet of Oen i uft species that an 081.. FACW or FAC
(enckullm FAC•).
o a'7 0

WDROLOGY _

Reseeded Deft Mserdr. In R wiarksa: Wa ls"I Hy"Gay ""Cam
-stir.ern, Lake. er TWs aeuae Pekin" bdbecow.
?. A.rld Platearaphs
Otlnr
a _ 4rundated
in Upper 1 Z letcltas
No !'le
dad Oats Avsdsbts - Wear Marks
?Odit Unee

Held Observadem: SadiQlNa Deposits
_ Oraineaa Patters In We"i"
Secondsry WAGeats (a or nwe ge**Wa:
Depth of Suefaoe Water. - ?0xWI sd Root Cherwods in Upper 12 Iriehsa

Depth to Fne Waar In Pit: sow $Vk
GnJ ear-Stained Leaves

., , Load Son Sutwlr Oats

taaplh to Saattapd San: _ 1.2
`i ce 1.6 0 _ FAC•Nsimal Tea
Othw ft"n In Runs"
Renwlw I-
(+?e}?a,.? `?t?r?li??
2o•?fN {
a•F Sa^'??? Poi?-}-

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): c ^^

Drainagequs:
L0-
A
P
4
--
-w-
r,,

Taxonomy (Subgroup): "jL t'? V Va u Reld Observations
k-Confirm Mapped Type? No
Proflte Desenehcn;
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture.. Concretions.
On-ohoy). Horizon tMunseil Moist) iMunseff Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structur
e. etc.
10
fame Val

t:? o.rf ?a7ot...,
_ ?'Z Av ?orasl,

Hydde Soil lndleato ;
- Hietosal
tiom
-Co -.1m
- Hlst(s Epipedon
od
Sulfid _ High Organic Comem In 8udaoe Lsysr In Sandy Sato
e
or :.:._. _
-
- Aquic MeisarN RagirrMa _ organic streald" in Gaily sew --
std tsd an i cod Hyddo Sow Ust
Reehtein0 Cortditlma _ .._ -.. _ ....
--
.?sted an Natioesl Hydris Sob Wt ..
Glsyed w Low4lwoms Colors - Other (Explain in Rernie" .. _'
LIRtewmeft:
lfhd.... sal ets?...?-- a, ,a..•?Pr
.,,. ,P,?.?? .
WETLAND DETERMINATION
)lyd* hydo Vegetation Pram(( •c, ? Mo (Circle)
_• )
Wetland Hydrology heaentJ
$#"Me Sow (recent? i rr No is two Sampling Po&tc vYiwn a wetland? ? NO
Remerim p
411ft:e w -}Y?

i

.Y.
tr?Q• ? •
'Jr ^
Y4.
r

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: (I- ZQ 08 Date: a
Applicant/Owner.. NrdoT County: _! -e- t.sj„
Investigator: ?. State: A(C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes1 Plot ID: I a„
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
DGf W"RM Plant Syseist tramm M&I"ter Derninent Plant Seoeies Strot Indicator
1. i e^d(.Y- icloi -r P-Ic- a.
y100a0we a . P- F f to.
3. PLAQ* S firofwS FAr, o 7 i i. -- __-

4. ?
??
)9-- Fi1C-
17.
S. owt?t?s cace?s s 0 ?k") 13.
a, Pr?n..? SC?o+Jn? S f-ACU - 14.
'. aI 5 he I,u.. Ass K&A.id K ?- - = . is.
s. 16-

Pelaw DK Spaaiaathat an 091. FACW er FAC
IeuoMrdlnq F
Rar trsrka. k X Q
HYDROLOGY
?Rawn led Date IDeaceffm in Rees rk:):
_ he o«roe
Otter
?Na Reseeded Oats AveReMs. ? _.. ' . _., ... .. _ wewnd NydmIM kndioaters: -
P?+R+.nr
senaatad In Upper 12 kwhes hunwatec!
WSW M41-kA
Oritt Unaa

Reid Obeemedons: Sodk wx Oaposhs
Onku" Patterns in Wetlands
Seoondery Mr6aatora I2 or non required):
Depth of Swfaae Wooer:
rQn.) Oxidised Raw Chavo
sis in Upper 12 lndss

Osptlt to Free Water in Flt: v-
.,,*s%sr?•StsinW Leaves
l.ooai Sa survey Data
FAC•Wautral Test
Depth to Sanrrated SaB: _ -00 Other Ongsin In Remarks)
Rernarks:
wc?f ??Q `i,? ?ro(o? ao r e??,?r.?

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Maries and Phase): jja4-?0(0 1 DG s.N
Drainage Class:
)Sub rou )• Faaid Observations
Taxonomy 0 P • u V? t? {"5 Confirm Mapped Type) C Y.-.
Profile ?eierintion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
n e on on -1Munsell Moist).* (Wrisell Moist)Abundance/Contrast Structur
e. ate.
j I L ( _ 7 w4 G(q,
to a
,
,,,
"fie Soft ittdleatoes:
-
Hbde Epipedon ...... _ Conoretione
High Organic Content In Surfaoi
- Layer In -Sandy sae
Suifidle odor
_.•e_> . ... .. _... _
.... Aquic Moisture Regime
_.._._ - Organic streaWrq In S.rqy Seib ..
ah-W an Local Nydde Soffit Litt .
on National Hydtie Sails Lbt _
_ . _
M ..
.,.?Gleyed ar Lov.Cbrome Colu;, .
Othar WOMiatn in Rerttaeksi.
Remadts:
/?On-?K?(•
fOl,
Q
?
u
?
SQ1? setiv?k/?e?. QO?vla-
"L.
1NEYLAND DE?EMINATION

i

v
rj --'

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. Sri Og
Nearest Road: 14.,,.,, `r
Wetland Area (ac): z
Name of Evaluator(s) : c .i5-M,..r,
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
?on, intermittent stream.
within interstream divide
other
County: 5
Date: $!?S AS
Wetland Width (ft): so'
Soils
ak????
Soil Series
predominantly organic
umus, muck or peat)
predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hvdraulic Factors
t/ freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet.
Adjacent Land Use:
(within 1/2 mi upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. t{O %
-? agriculture/urbanized _ _7
-impervious surface z-0 %
Adjacent Special Natural Areas
Dominant Vegetation
'(1.).? aiie?s C e^4.
(3) gef? o. n?er?
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
,,inundated
easonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Tvve (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest' surface water
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay ..-'Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
lne Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt
stream channels.'
DEM RATING
or brackish marshes or
(
WATER STORAGE + x 4.00 =
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00 =
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
WILDLIFE HABITAT x 2.00 =
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE, x -4.00
RECREATION /EDUCATION x 1.00 =

WETLAND SCORE
(TOTAL)
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >lOp nonpoint disti.-banca
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
t• I •
d.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/site: 17 F o 8 Date: /-g ?-
ApplipmlOwner. nlc 00 J County: 14.E r5 j"
Investigator. _C?., s A M 'wroyy State• -VC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? • • lW No Community 10: >!NI
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect 1D: Ilk.
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes &o Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION

nunsnt Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Strsttnn Ind
fos"t
C^^OMuw? s AC-4 -
a.
2._ vs 4e -me to.
17L F191
4-_C-
S. .
13
IL 14.
7. 15.
s. 1e.

Paco nt of Derninatt species that an OEM.. FACW or FAC
(excluding, FAC-).
Rernacks:
HYDROLOGY _

R:oertFad Days (De m be in fl n?:eksl:
-sawn(, Lain, er Tide Gauge
Aare! Phetog,raphe
Other
2we Recorded Dent Available .._ : .. _ Wedand Hydrology ktdoatee
Fdmery Wicatsts:
-Inundated
„daunted In Upper 12 tnohes
Water Marks .
Drift untes

Field Cbeervadena so&"ent Deposit
_ Drak age Patterns in Wetlands
S
Z?
Depth of surfaos Wear. ?_?anJ O:ddfsed Root Owwxole
Upper 12 leaches

Depth to Fm Warn in Pic S e} fu';"! W Water-Stained !.saws
goad son survey Date

Depth tp saarntd Seat: SGi- 1Sn.) FAC-Neutral Test
-other Wmidn in Rermuts!
Rentaeks: Wt?`wn?X k 4r0cokI eulhori At s•?•?,?hS PQ?h a-

SOUS
Map Unit Nana L
?
N
(Series and Phase):
g4 7 d(o o o ,... Drainage Class: m?i foil C
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (c- Iv (/q „{^ { Reid Observations
Confirm Mapped Typel )WO-No
Profile Deserietlon:
Depth Matrix Color
fi e? Horizon (MunsNl Moistl Mottle Colors Mottle Tpxtun. Concretions,
(M "2611 Moist)Abundance/Contrast Stmoture
eta
,
.
,
Hydn(o Sa k4entow.
Nkftaoi Concretions
Hisdo Ppdtm _ High Omer" Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Sails
SuH is odor organic Streaking in Swirly Soft
AgWo Moisture Rogtme
Rsdmintg Conditions ?i?--d on Local NVddo Sails Ust -

on tUdonal & Seas Ust
V
?G(eysd or Low-Chrome Colon Other Owdain in Rona"
Ranaulcm
5,,j Q m ewe- c / a'1.11"3 R 0) h

WETLAND DETERMINATION
• s
I?ydrSphytb Wgstatlon Pnwnit? ,• No (Clydsl • - b)
Wedsnd Hydrology Present? (Clno No''
Hydric Sok Pnsertt No Is this Sampling Point WkMn a Wetland? No
Ramerlts: r _
er-e/?
(ee W e ?'lyr+ 'pi
Approved by HQUSAMMU

i
z.
.y

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: k gi 0)a Date: S r , (Al
Applicant/Owner.. NC Qof County:
Investigator. ?i r State:
Do Normal CMeumstances exist on the site? • • No Community 10:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes 67o Transact 10:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Ab Plot ID: _vo({1f needed. explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
lant seeeiee rstmn Indicator Oerfinent Plant Soeeies Stretum Indi
t

-t e, 51f l
? or
ca
9.
Fitc .
?y?.??
F4
13
.
14
.
15.

POGO Of DOWnant Speaaa that an OSL. FACW or FAC
(utokxgm FAG). --
a
Baanufc?:
?re5tAt L a'??'?Sy
f??l??M???'L+I
HYDROLOGY
(teeaded Oats tool. ti Remit:):
-Strom 6eea. er TW* Qeupe
._"" ha
Other
_ Ne Reeerded Cara wedow WAka w WkWorv
Prieniry WWntow.
-Lendated
Seturned In Upper 12 kwhes
_water i &MM
-oft Unea

Field Obeerwdew _se&neru c.poaia
01shm" Petterne in Wadeeds
Seoardary kw1enters (2 or more fo**Wl:
Depth at sueiaee Wear: pftl Root ChewwWs in Upper 12 Inches
at
a$t
d L

OapRt M Free Wear In Flt: e
awre
eaves
Loom Sal survey Data
FAC44outrd Test
Depth to Seoxnad Sal: Other MmWn in RwrarW
Ronwka-.

SOILS
Map Unit Name D
Morfas and Phase): ci OC 9R^^ Drainage pass: ?l ??l (ci?r1e

Taxonomy (Subgroup): I Reid Observations -
/0 vA -1 Confirm M
d T
appe
Vpsl Ya o
Pmflle Descrietlon•
Depth Matrix Color
li ches) wafton Munsell Moiety Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions.
iMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast $trueture

tv r ( . etc.
c (a
?o
M
_ y
..
e^
Hydric soil Ntdtosteram - ----
. Concretions
- Hhda Epipadon High Organic Content in swf e. Law In sandy so"
sultk6c Odor _ .: _ ._. - . organic atreeld" in SenV soils
Aqub Maim" a.gim. =-10sted on Local Hydro soils Ust
aeckid^Q Coetddom tad on NedwW HVdde Sots List ._ '
R
Gisyad ar i ow-C?mrna C0104 ? Odw tb pWm in Rana"
.'

WETLAf1lD DETERMINATION
s
llydtophynb Vegetation ftwo&? Nei Mole.11.7.
ttsrdal
Wetland Hydtolopy Peseta? ( Yes,
Hydrio Saab Pesana? Yin Is this 30mp4nq Point Within a Wetiard? Yea
Ranecni:s: -QQ _ _
1411 , .Q2 - ?-a"?t/\. c.rc, S y ? t9 f- C SC., 9` t7? .

Ike (?_, .
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. i ? oun Y
Nearest Road: e- Date: e ,
{ac}: ? +- ( lac Wetland Width (ft):
Wetland Area _
Name of Evaluator(s):
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on• intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other

soils
Soil Series
predominantly organic
Jhumus, muck or peat)
/predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
H dr lic Fac_ tors
freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width > 100 feet.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.upslope, or radius)
_,Vforested/natural veg.?(o %
t/ agriculture/urbanized
/impervious surface ZQ--%
Adjacent -Special Natural Areas
Dominant Vezet_at ion
(1) aA ,v+ nJA^
(2) tlv +G onS ?Q
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently•to
permanently flooded or
inundated
? seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Tvae (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest surface water
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Fine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
Freshwater Marsh other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.; DEM RATING
i I x 4.00
WATER STORAGE
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00 =
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
x 2.00 = 7 _
WILDLIFE HABITAT -?--
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE: 2 _ x 4.00 =
RECREATION/EDUCATION ' x 1.00 = +..
WETLAND SCORE = _
(TOTAL)
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint distn-banc--?
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
? i
Y?.

.L
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Proiect/Site: Q Zr' n 8 Date: $// s (e; S-
-Applicant/Owner. NcOo ' County:
Investigator. C vela 'JI/GY State: ova J^
Do Norrnai Ckcumstances exist on the site? • • ?e No Community ID: PF, o ( c
Is the site sionificandy disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes IAA Transect ID: , ?
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ¢+Ib Plot ID: W
Of needed, explain on reverse.) --
VEGETATION
Da"drant Ian melee traturn Neater Dominant Plant Soeeiee 5"" v "War
1. OIAJ .?I ^??M V w\ 5 F L .q.
2--A g u t f, r A a c- -C F
a. N pr
4. ?t cx r,^ g-
6 y
12,
5
•
1a.
S• 14.
7. 15.
i. 1e.

Peroont of Dominant Spewas
(eaxskmOnq FAG). *at an OBL. FACW or PAC
/ o Q-3
Remarks: r (
HYDROLOGY

1leoetdod Daft Cesodbe In Ran:rkt:h Wedand NVdrekea kWicatate:
-Sweani. Lekm ar We Gouge pdmwv Mtdko mw.
Aatiei Fhotoptaphe
oeli.r laund.ad
?"sta.rad in upper 12 knohea
Raoadod Data Mwila r. µ ....._ ... __..._ _ _ ?, Wager marks
_otkec un"

Field Ob ervadenm 8"&w" Depo"
oaina" Pettenie in Wadanda

Depth of aortae. Wear: ?an.l $ darn (2 or mars mpdradl:
Reef CwwWs in upper 12 hakes

pepdi oe Ft" Wear N Fit: f ?•< o S 8n.) aae•Stained Leaves
.? UNd Sol sutwq Data

0"th m S m"ad Soil: _ A F I 0 ,..poo FAC-Nos d Tat
? Oder W**Wn in Rernukal
Rarrie?(i>: . Wt 1w..9 kL4b(0(eA"
SOILS
Map Unit Name /
(Seri
d Ph
'b Or
/O
L
ss an
o
ase): Q•?
a ?-? Drainage Class:
oa(( ot?h
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): IG V va Ulit t Confirm Mapped Type) Yps o
Profile Deseriedon: a.
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Conersdom,
finches) Horizon tMunsell Moist) LMunsell Mcisti Abundance/Contrast Structure. ate.

Hydrie sail htdleatow. _ .......
_ _.,.... _ `Comretlon a
-Haft moped" .... _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Saia
Suif flic Oder _ Orgar" St "Mm in son" soils
Agnla Mciswre Regime
RPduA g Condidons , ... __.. ._.. -an Loess Hyddo Soils Ust
` an On National Hydro Sots Ust
-6 fileyed w Lovr•Clrenna Colors Other (Expisin in RQnarltsl . .
Rsmatfa: .. _ ... _ .. ...
If4
WETLAND DETERMINAMON

z
Hydrophydo Vegetation Ptwent? No (Ards) {lStdel
W"Mw Hydrology Pjae rt? 46
.Hyddc Gals Pr«entt 6 Is this Sampling Point VRd" a Wetland? No
R«r,.ri:?

.y
rr • i
y
is
:j
.!-, 11
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: ILZC
I DAO Date: 8/i j /a
Applicant/Owner. AK DO County:
investigator.. MState:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on ttUskq? q???MNO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? as Transact ID: ?t
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ? Plot ID:
Of needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Demine?t Plant Saeeies Stratum Indicate;
1. trtatvc a ?p ? F,x • Qeminent Plant Specie* stratum l"Acator
g.
oI, t
ee
10.

2 .14- F
2-
1 t
4.
. 1Z
5. 13.
5• 14.
7. 15.
L 1e.

Pelow of De"nwa Species that we DBL. FACw or FAC (8W7J
(etakadinp FAC4.
ane.eke. -?i e l o,h
r
HYDROLOGY

Reoorded 04" Weaorbe in Remerka):
_streeam. Lsk^ er?We Game
As" rhea sphe
Other
r aaeeaded 0au Avedelde _' . _._ Wetlered Hydei"y lredioatoa:
FdMWV kWkW =
_hwndead
Seameted in Upper 12 kwhes
_ Wear mom -
e Dealt Lines

Field Obeervederet Sediment Deposits
Dakupe Patterns in WedwWs
8eoandwy locates (2 or more regedredi:
Depth sd Surface Wear. axw1nd Root Channels in Upper 12 Msahes

Depth Free Wear in Ph: towded Leaves
survey Oats
FAC44vi el Test
Depth to Satlusted Sol: Other (Btpiain in Remarks)
a«n«ks:

'104- ell lh1 ,r 54,--,P1•? pa"wi---
Vjo?Q, ?4ro(ok,7*
SOILS
-Msp Unit Name ' ,1 I
Mariss and Phase): F'+0?? 7 "(a
Drainage Class: YOo r J (tit /,I
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ?? {.,k Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Tvpsk -Yes
Profile Desed2flon•
Depth Matrix Color Motels Cobs Mottle Tsxturs. Concretions
anches) Horizon (Munsell MoisN * Wunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast S
tructure, etc.
Hvdrie Sol Weatms: .
-Hieft" Concretions
--wide rmlPsdon
sumft Odor High Organic Content in Surface Laver In Swndy se4e
.
_ . _ .._, .... t)rg.nio streaWnp in Setr?y sons -
-- Aquic Moisture Regime an Local Hydro Sao Lin
_ .
... ,
Rsduoitq Cor4ftrw _ ..... _.. _......
?
r
_ .
on National HW& Sob Litt ..
Gloved or Low-Chrortia Colon Odw !Explain in Rw wrksl .
Remarks:.
, f a l l
NvA- ? JA
-
( t-
c4
WETLAND DEnSWINATION

l?iydr+ophytia Vsgsatlon rwesritT ' ?i? Aio jC&dsI'•. - .
Wetland Hydrology rrosentl' ?
Hydria Sails frrsaorrtt Y" Is this Sampling point Within a weds"? vas
Rerneek>r
i

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Project Name:. z
Nearest Road: -
Wetland Area (ac):
Name of Evaluator(s):

Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
.on. intermittent stream
within interstream divide
County: yf-l e X
Date: 13- G
Wetland Width (ft):i-I.S'
other
soils `
Soi 1 Series 1?a+b???. Lo??
predominantly organic
/(humus, muck or peat)
? predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
H d aulic Factors
freshwater brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >_ 100 feet.
Adjacent Land Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
. ups?ope, or radius)
forested/natural veg. 3 D %
agriculture/urbanized _ro
--7impervious surface 40-%
Adjacent •SR.ecial Natural Areas
pomi_nant Vegetation
.'.`(2) A1dA4e.i.1( J4
($ ) ? ! 4
Flooding and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
/inundated
? seasonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Type (select one)* no evidence of flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest surface water
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay ?Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
Freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.: DEM RATING c
• .? = ?._
' WATER STO x 4.00
RAGE } -
-
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00
• ? * = ? S
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
±
WILDLIFE HABITAT x 2.00
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE' k x 4.00
-----
RECREATION/EDUCATION x 1.00 =
WETLAND SCORE =
(TOTAL)
* Add 1 point if in sensitiVe`watershed 'and >10% nonpoint distn-bancP
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius.
.x
•tt
"s
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: _ V 2 G 09 Date: i> 4? s--
Applicant/Owner: Arc-0 0 7" County: 14•rJ of
Investioator. State: d
Oo Normal CImmstances exist on the site? • • No Community 10: V35 1 C--
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ei Transact 10: t ?t
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
at Seeeies
C-?-?yS y
S tun, Indiestor
F C%J• OorMnent Plant Soeaies Strom Indicator
S. PIA-J-, S-P' oo.M F? ?
r(
,
- t96 L ?.
10.?0)i[o???d/dam 4QG/ 1 e--•S PO, e- v
!?j tj,n-,
?F/iG
t1. -C,,nnJs
F4.--? ?o ?
AJ ?C 1Z. -
13
e4,6.s FAGw te.

f?d?o? u1, r?FC. te.
r
reteee?t of Dot *um species that an COL. FACW w FAC
(eueludieq FAC4.
Retnork e:
HYDROLOGY _
Reeetded Cam WescrAw in Ren o*Al:
stro nh. Lake. or Tide Heaps
=AwW Mwtograpite
Other
2NQ Fitts rded Oats Avei We _ '... Wedatd Hydfe1M kuNoatees:
FdMw r kdk whom
kwad•ted
per
_ ::DWy sin" 12 Inches
Obit Unes
secament cap""
Field Obeerradofts: -4raange Panama in W dwws

Depth st Suds" water. 3-1daty W tcetwo (2 or than requindi:
ed Rent Chennda in tipper a l W wo

Depth is Free Water kt ft
? t Wetw$tWrwd Leaves
oGd ?Y paw '
Depth m Set listed Sol: Sat' _ FAGHeund Test
Other Wa*Wn In Ra natks)
Rstnrlis: 4JG? lrw ,'to `?1 a w s r,tf Dill
SOILS
Moo Unit Name
(Series and Phase): G 3 BPS v . lit
'O G V^ n
7 - / 5 , /o S IOP4? Drainage Class: We
c+.
Taxonomy (Subgroup): , L LL- ' ' } Field Observations
Confirm Ma
d T
l
ppe
ypa
Yes o
PMflls DescrieM_on•
Depth Matrix Color
(Inches) Horizon uwrweii Molso Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Coneret)one.
(Munson Moist)Abundance/Contrast Struct
r
u
e. etc. Yf- Pew. A ffV^e4.," /.0 6"

Conaredon
Epipodon Koh Organic Con int in Surface Layer In Sandy Sala
_
Odor
... Aqua Maim" Regime
_ Organio Streaking in Sandy Bois
? Listed on Load Hydra Soils Ust
!Oducing Conditions

d
L
Ch
i
Listed on Nations! Hydra Soils Ltat .. ... _ .. .
er
le
ow-
roma
Cdl Other Wholain in RanwW
Remarks: 041, C. c. }.- CJA^^n ? i!1.? ? ?
Y
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Fcydriowtia Vegetation ftwo ttt -. 1 No -reads) ., a.
Wetland Hydrology Present' ja card.)..
Hydra Seis tra.«tet Y?i/ •:Ne M tl+ie Sentp9eq Paint VYiWn o waend? -(Yoe) a«n.eicas .!/ ?s
Appeoved by Rw= MIT

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETE'riMINA11ON
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
F e: ci J Date: Owner. Nc oT County: r: c 6r,,. &. t- "pia State• Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID:
significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Y-es ,log Transect ID:
a potential Problem Area? Yes "- Plot ID: ed. explain on reverse.) '
VEGETATION
goeninertt Plant Seeei tutr+ Indicator Qorninent Plant Specie* Stn a ndl er
10.
3..J5

13.

15
.

PwGw of Oeminem SpoWn *At ers 08L. FACW ar FAC C21
(=WudkV FAC•).
Mmerks;
HYDROLOGY

lleoerd.d o.a we:edbe in R.nwekas
SWOO tt. Leks. sr Tide Gape
Aerial PhQuWphe
othw

Zue R.aer+d.d Osa.Avsdebis ........, ...... _ .__..... Wedow Hydro M hwioetots:
Prknmy It,W,ww.
kwndoW

swrated In Upper 12 hoha
_ Wear Marks
-oft Un"
Field Obewvedonin Sedhwt Oeposite
Camps Psnwas In Wetlands
Shy hdipetms (2 w roan mquinwi:
Cap* of Satfaoe Wear: -
W . OWdissd Root CiwtrwWa in Uppw 12 hopes

Cspth to l<Yee Wear In Me
??pna Weter•Staated Lsev"
=
- Loaei Sad Sunray Csa

llpth to Saattaad Sad: ?-60 -FAC44wmsi Test
- 0dW Mwisin In Rmnwkst
Rorrwtk`e:
Nv ,- t f ,?.,? Iry, n p i.? F-
?LP?C??v o(, llod- f,?t f?-?..T k? a r
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Sense and Phase): ?????', (? l< (O G 7- (S '9o 51,22C Drainage C1eas: -W e ( re4 i n e
T ?n C - f'1'? u I Feld Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Confirm Mapped Typal Yes o
Profue Descrietlen•
Depth Matrix Color Motto Cobs Mottle Texture. Concretions.
Onehem) Hem (Munsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. Ste.
Hvddo Soil Indh ators;
_ Histosol ... ..._... __......... -Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Dyer in Sandy Sole
-Suukm Oder Organic Streakft in Sandy sails
Aqub Molature Regime (Jared an hoot Hvdrb Soils Ust
Ro&u ttg Conditions __... _._? ..._... _ Umd on NadwW tlydtia Sods U t
Weved of Low-Clrorna Colon__ = QVw t6tplain in Rettterks)
aem,stits:
?-
WEfIAND DE E MINAMON

S
liydtbphvtb Vegetation Pneatit? •`•' (ClroM) ",; ? .. : ? tChds!
W"ww Hydtaogy PtsserttT
Hvdt(o Sacs hwent? Yee Is We 30"Plm Paint WIWn a Warlord? Yes lm%
Rwnwkw
sa,,,??t?? ,.h ?'
APPCOV" 40V M-1 1155AGE 331-

S,), c F,-
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th VERSION),
Z? County:
Project Name:.
Nearest Road: Wetland Area (ac):
Name of Evaluator(s):,
Wetland Location:
on sound or estuary
pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Date: $ 15 G
Wetland Width (ft): /20
v .
Adjacent and Use:
(Within 1/2 mi upstream,
.up lope, or radius)
?/ forested/natural veg. __Lo,_%
?? agriculture/urbanized _4D-:1
impervious surface _Ln %
Adjacent SRecial Natural Areas
sails omi ant 'Ve?eta?tion
soil Series
-r-
predominantly organic ?3) ?yo - r k t
Xuumus, muck or peat)
Z predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hd aul'c Factors
water brackish
steep topography
ditched or channelized
total wetland width >_ 100 feet.
Floo_ dinst and Wetness
semipermanently to
permanently flooded or
,,nundated .
UJ :easonally flooded or
inundated
intermittently flooded or
temporary surface water
Wetland Type (select one)* no evidence of.flooding or
Bottomland Hardwood Forest surface water
Swamp Forest Bog/Fen
Carolina Bay Headwater Forest
Pocosin Bog Forest
Pine Savannah Ephemeral Wetland
Freshwater Marsh Other:
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or
stream channels.: DEM RATING
-
WATER STORAGE x 4.00
BANK/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00
POLLUTANT REMOVAL x 5.00
WILDLIFE HABITAT x 2.00 =_
AQUATIC LIFE VALUE; x 4.00 =
RECREATION/EDUCATION x 1.00 =
WETLAND SCORE =
(TOTAL)
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed radius 0p nonpoint distn-banc,:
within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A14?EHNR
December 1, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Henderson County, Widening of US 64 from north of I-26 to SR 1574,
TIP No. R-2908
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) is proposing to widen 001
0.3 miles of existing US 64 between SR 1574 to north of I-26. The 401 Water Quality
Certification application is incomplete. The drawings do not show the limits of impact to the wetlands. dduu ``^^''""
What avoidance options have been investigated? Has DOT considered asymetrical
widenting away from wetlands and waters? Has the Wildlife Commission been involved
with the stream relocations?
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Eric Galamb at 733-1786.
Sincerely,
cc:
David Yow, WRC
Asheville Corps of Engineers
Central Files
John R. Dorney
Environmental Supervisor
V
'Aa
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
DI ~ ~ ~ PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO"
HORIZON RETIREMENT, INC. ,~e R-2908 4
Y CURVE BATA ~ DB.814 PG. 792 794 x o / ~ ~ ~ goo. _ ~ W HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS -YR~V cuRV~ DATA . D
9q ~ ~ ~ V ~i ~ p W ENGINEER ENGINEER
Pl Sta 11 +17.258 ~ Pl Sta 13+92.085 °
~ r ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ D
_ ~ ~ L 231.429 M , = 5 0 10 L 22.308
_ 3010 ~ 8_ 450 CM - 58 _ c T 117.2 ~ _ _ T =11°157
_600_CM____-- 8 Q R = 583.000 ~ _ - - , R = 400.000
N ~ e = 0.02
l~ ~ , o BST JAVA HILL GIBBS CONST.REU"
~ ~ I o ~ DB.157 PG. 179 -Y- ST A 1325
60 ~ ~ ~ ~ RB G C lI B..T ~ C ~U w • M ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ C 7 200 CON ~3 IN R R/W REV.
i I ~ S ~ _ BEG ESURFACI NG AND WEDGING
Fo ~ _ C' ~e n - " ~ ~ ° ~ ao° w FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L- SEE SHEET ll 5j625 ~ s
_ ~ _ -
I Fo jrNOR ~1 US 69 ~ W a ~o ~ BST ~ w .5`b 5gJ1A nn,, ~ 'V
II 200 w o o ErP xo ZR ~ R ~ e ~
~ CQ~,~C o v, _ _ - - H - ` r II C~ o H " 'p ~1 O MARY A. RAMSEY ~ ~p4 W Q o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o / 11 ~ Fo ~ ~ R - ~n, 24°3a ~ a Erp s Q' ~ DB. 551 PG.455 ~ .5~1 ~ ~ ~ ~
9iS0 C ~ ~ 00 W/ ,-"21 ~ ~ ` ~ DI ~ i m S 2q°38,pq" w V ~ 25 xb ~ \ 0 DB. 448 PG.497
~ ~ - - C`\~- - - - - - \ J L~ +86.269 ~ - ~ ~ 600 . 5 ~ ~ Q ~,92 \
c~ ~ C ~5 fIP - ~ \w ~ ~ q S 29 59 s~ 29°59'51" W m ~ ~ x S D~ \
i 106.126 TO EIP , ~ ~o +18.69 -~°°~f° ~t ~ ~ - - _ _ ~ 100.58 °°`-~o:5sa DAVI MCKIN Y M T A F Q YREV STA 14 03.236 io D LE ECL A Q ~
~ N 31°31'32" E ~`~'Lr~-~ Riw ' ~ ~ ~ _ - - - - - RAW W ~ V ~V BEGIN TRANSITION ~ ~ ~
i ~ i ~ ~ N, ~ ~ A woods DB. 749 PG.170 ~ ~ Q
6~^ ~ ~ \ ~ - - ~ ~ v'~ V A ~ t~ ~ DB.749 PG. 164-165 ~ erp ~v,, J ~ Q ~ \ ~ -~-z
~ ~ i \ \ w ~ ~ \ Zw R,gjy w' ~
GR i < r , ' i GR AXIS TINO ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ , ~ ~ Riw ~ o\ q50 ~ v SO /0 ~ 2&.0 591.9') ~ ~F N T Qj ~ .
1 ~ C CM ~ \ RE 0 _ N ~ ~ ~ ~FV FXi ~ 0
, _ _ ~ - - - _ _ Ells E EK~sr N G ~ ~ Z rN ~V G Ri 0 i ~ + ~
i~ ~ O ~ ~ \ V \ ~ w W ~ ter' GR , ' ~ \ 7~,,~ ~ ~ - - ~ + ~ w Q
, W `r-~ ~ ~ ~ .v~ ~ ~J F F ~~'~J 1 1 rv(~ Q
~ w ~ 7` ATI ' N ~ ~ i ~ ~ W ~ ~ zsFO ~ 4~ 9,~5'\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ MON (3p,~ \ n X s ~ ~1 o a v vv isFO o i ~C~~a ~
WC:,~S ~ , f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L- ST A.12 48.773 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ O 2 Raw wF \ ~ coNC ~ ~ ~
BEGIN 1.2 CONC.EXP .GU ER ~ N -L STA1320 ~ ~ 3 20 o \ \ X ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ END 1.2 CONC. ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~?M r ~~W..II t , ' d1s ~ ~J ~ s MTV 1 EXPRESSWAY GUTTE ~D ~ V \ ~ ~ co ~ ~ v ~ ] O ~ CONC. \ W ~ ~ Q N ° ~cov z9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
M ~ l~ SWAY GUTTER S \ °0 R ~ o 26 K ~ Y - coN
~ ' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~o_ Bus ~ ~ 2 s F ~ ~ '~s ~ 9~2 esr
~ WOODS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d C ~ ~ \ .3 eST F ~ ~ 9.7 BST 2G1 SPECIAL DI ADE = ' ~ ~ ~
~a ~ ~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ k 2.0
~ s LEROY ODELL JACKSON ~ ~ K _ ~ 2.4 PAVED SNOULDE~ ~ x39,4 J 2cl 2G1 , ~ Omm SEE PROFILE ~ ~ \ _ _ _ ~ \ \ ~
o ~ OSgU ~ i ~ S ~ 'o ~ Ri ~ ° ~ DB.602 PG. 214 r ~ Bu ~ ~R ~ ~ ~ E Mo ~ 300mm 300mm 0.6 PAVED SHOULDER ~ 0~~ ~
~ S i ~ i s ,--E ~W 1v. F ~.Q .W P 3 ~ ~ ~ BUK ~ ~ ESE EXISTIN° R ~ DB. 539 G. 8 3 ~ ~ c i.q ~1W ~ ' oN ~ Roc - 14 1 W" K ~w
gUS , ~ , ~ ,,,~E - ~ - . ~ H ~ _ , E N E._.,--E ~ ~ ~ ~ , REM V~ , pl - - - ~ 9 F o - H ~K
45 ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ , ~ ;,oNC " F - REM 300 EM~ _ -LREV~ 52 BST _ - - - __L11 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 12.0 - la. ~ ~ TRANS.TO EXIST.SUPERELEVATION ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ss \ - R
~ s% -_--x39.41 pVE ' ~ ,q - \ ~SO~i REM BEG1N WEDGING GRADE 64 vc i.. ~ REMOVE ~ 9. EV~ 150 ~,5 / REMOVE ~ c3o'~ ~
r~ ~ m s ~ ~3~5m ~ EGA C
~ ~ - • - - ~ 90 CM ~ ~ -375rn>71_ _ - - - - - - ~ - ~r
JB c R w ~c~' ` R ~ E EXISTIN , - , ~ REMpV - - - _ ~ -'N ° ~ ~ - - - _ 2"~ PAVED , _ - ~ /
_ , q50 CM ~ ~ ro ~ i 4 x zs„
6 m +N ~9 Omm - I2~~ ~t~'~Tl ~ ~ CHL
-w~ 1 ~ , ~ 6Q~~m ,i p CM , ~r ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
" ~ , i I ' 'RIP AP ~ CLASS R , + ~
. - 4.22 15 ~ - " a m ~ > Epp N 5 Om 2 o ~ 24 9 o N ~ ~
~~i.520 ~ /L QI CLAS EIP ~ - ~M 1.2m BASE DIT( m. BASE DITCH ' 125 mm MONOLITHIC ~
~ TO w ~ q5a •98586 ~~lP RAP k ~ • ~ ~ GR SS LINE q'SS LINE6 ~ ~ ~ ~K CONC"ISLAND ~ ~
a WIL ~ ~ i CB ~ ~ •o D ~ 20.0 SEE DETAIL H' E + DETAIL H' _ _ _ ~ ~ + 1.2m BASF DITCH ~
U~c o N -L- Sr I ~ ~7 Fss ~ c 1.5~ sue, , ~ A 2'5535 x65.61 , ~ A , , r ~ F CL SS ~ RIP RAI? \
IP N o ~ ~ I `I BEGIN 2.4 PAVED SHOULDE , E ~ ~ ` ~ ~ a5~' ~ ~ ~ +50 _ + SEE DETAIL 'A' + x--___ I
~ , s ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -L POT Sta. l2 98.986 o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 58.295 ~ x ~ ~ + ~ 1.2 m BASE DITCH
o 9°1 -LREV- PC Sta. l2 98.986 ~~ooos 20.0 ~ ~ ~ GRASS LINED
gU ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ OR ~ ~ ~ a ~ P ti w~ SEE DETAIL H
~ 50 - o ? MARTHA J.
~ A ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ 20.0 3 r ~ o 00 ' DONALDSON o ~
` z (65.6) w r s ~ THOMAS LARRY JACKSON ~ o w ~ ~ , ~ ~ DB" 643
w ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~F ~ ~Q. ~ w ~ ~ t,1 ~ ~ FNC ` ~ + ~ ~ PG" 492-494 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ s,,
~ ~ 1 F ~ s ~ ~ • o w ` ~ S o ~ ~ `
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % in 1 ~
0 I I ~ I 0 ~ ~
\ ~ DB. 812 PG. 313-314 i ~ ~ / ``ti ~ ~ ~ ap ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ O 1 / ~ ~ ~ D
~ ~ ~ . ~ C^
r` ~ I S BK __-u ~ ~ M
~~4~ ~ ~ ~ WOODS ~ ~ v BETTY B. LAWS
~ ` ~ ~ i ~ + DB" 689 PG" 703
~ ~.I PAULINE SEARCY ~ , ~ -
~ ~ DB.274 PG. 135 ~ ~ ' - 3 i
DB. 240 PG. 98 ~ MOUNT PISGAH I
j LUTHERN CHURCH
06.556 PG. 249
06.800 PG. 827 DETAIL A
BASE DITCH
( Not to Scalelb Fill -LREV-CURVE DATA -CURVE D
Natural ~ Slope _ DETA L H Q
Ground ~ 8% P/ Sta 13+79.710 PI St 4+ °387
r ° p ti°° BASE DITCH d., ~ Min.D= 0.7 m (NOt t0 SCQe) 0'
B Max.d= 0.7 m "Fill - - + Natural ~ L =159.309 FIII e~p L 78.76 Slope
- 1.5 L ST A 12 40.000 slope When B is <1.8m b m Ground T 8/, T = 80.724 = 90.691
B= 1.2 m D BEGIN STATE PROJECT R-2908 ,45 R = 400.000 R = 430.000 - m
Type of Liner=CLASS B RIP RAP Min. D - 0.45 m N 182961.3836E 297901.670 b = I.5 m ,5 m e = 0.08 , ~
5 B = 1.2 m FROM STA. 13+60 TO 14+35 -L- RT - > 3~~~ 1.2 m runoff - 64 ~o ~ . ~~u~u~u_ u~ a . ~:.5..:,:.:,:,:5~55,:5:..~55
Q s ESP ~ ; X22 a3HU.~u""....~..,...,.:. " Y~~~;, ifi ';°'S%iiir;%f „ z ~~5„
FROM STA. 13+00 TO 13+60 -L- RT o~ RT ~ 9. ~~~u~~u~uuu;;,~. ~s:-~">::::<:-=:::w• ff..fffff..,:,,- ~~uuuuuuuu R p u~uuuu~x 5. i ~ xxxx....u5sxz:,::: ~ a ~ L•
N STA. 14+35 TO 14+60 -L- RT CK u5G..5^~% ~:..:IAS .~:}v: S~~f~H.S .f;% / / .fff.'
M~ ^S f 0 O,,((~~ 5uuuGu'2' u~~~. C~ ~fh....
~0. 1 ,•i~::,:, zzzzff::zz.,..~~ff~~pp yfiffi% uu....:.:•:
~A ~9. uu-M::..:, A ;Sri:~riri~~,,.s.,;:~.,<fff<ufr,,,,,.,fu•;sf~;~;ff;~;.,;,,, uu~a:N. • 5~.,..,.: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,K,.S•;5.5.55.5.55:. p~,5~ .....:......................u...........
,i:, 6p /L ~L S g12 16
L <~L _ _ ~
N\ ~

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
R 2908 5
DETAIL A DETAIL ~ HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
DETAIL BASE DITCH DETAIL B ' ' ENGINEER ENGINEER LATERAL U DITCH
SPECIAL LATE( Not to Scale)b Fill (Not to CIAL LATERAL 'V` DITCH (Not to Scale) ( Not to Scale) L . ~ Fill
Natural r".:~ ~ Slope Fill f Slo e _ Natural ~ p 5 0
2 - ~ Natural -e Ground _ D 8% Ground I\ ~ d~ o° ° al I, o~ ~ Slope ~ s 10 ~d a~ ~~e Ground D 2 8% a~
~ s ° Min. D = 0.7 m J ~ s~, ~ B Max, d= 0.7 m f ?i D F~° Min. D=.45 m Min. D= .45 m 93 99,, h ~ '9
sp ~ b= 1,5 b = 1.5 m 9~ ~
~ ~ When B Is <1,8m m FROM STA. 15+48 1 STA. 15+48 TO 16+00 -L- LT FROM STA. 17+10 TO 17+30 -L- RT
B= 1.2 m " O O Type of Liner=CLASS 'B' RIP RAP CONST.REV.
d' m STA. 17+30 TO 17+60 -L- RT
m J ~ J ~ N FROM STA. 17+40 TO 19+06 -L- LT R/W REV.
~ ~ STA. 15+20 TO 15+40 -L- LT
~ ~ ~Q ~Q
~J J FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L-,SEE SHEET 11
d' 00 ~cp IP
d.~ ,
fit; , d; - p <0 ~ <D ~oN~. MARK.
+ ~
S
X99
~ o O o I Q.,~ iii, 9~Sy
~ ~~9 ~
i j~ W ~ O
X14, V
~ ~ ~ J J ~ J ~ ~
~ ~ 1 EIP ~ S ~ ~ "\.J
D ~ , ~ r~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,J ~ , ~ ~
> ~ ~
+ ~ ALEXANDER E. NELON s OO ~ MARY A, RAMSEY , v 1 SUSAN DUNLAP
~ DB. 790 PG. 275 s~ -oRV- Por sta. >'o+oo.ooo ~ DB.290 PG. 319 ~
O DB. 551 PG.455 -L POT Sta.ll62.000 ~I
DB.448 PG.497 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o ~ ~ o0 W ~ ~ ~ t , o~c ~ 1.2m BASE DITCH
\ ~ o G +33.615 END TRANSITION CLAS ' 'RIP R S B AP
~ ~ i ~ ~ s ~ ' ~ SPECIAL DITCH ~ ~ ~ cT. sIDE ~ SEE DETAIL A
a~ 'fir, 1 ~ , ~1' ; ~ , GRASS LINED ~ ~ ~ +50
o ~ ay '9. ~ ~ ~ SEE DETAIL B o Q woos .20 {40 35.0 wooDs
a~ F ~ ODS ~ 1114.8') {60 26.0 28.0 ~ ~ ~ (91.9 J 28.0
~ ~ ors I m BASE DITCH ~ o wo ~ ~ ~ o .2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,(85.3) oo Tp (9L9') -DRV-PDT Sta. l0+00.000
Z96.458 -L~o CLASS B RIP RAP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ - T -L POT Sta.IT 97.2T3
,o EE DETAIL A ~ ~ ~ , 26.0 (85.3) ~ , X50 ~ CLASS E ~o 0 CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
~ ~ ~ ~
NW ~ ~ - + ~
~ -oRV Por sta.lo oo.ooo oR° ~ 3~ _ , _ _ _ -L- PDT Sta.15+72.000 ~ ~ ~.r- - - - - - -
F - _ F _ - ~ ~ - F
FCLASS ,B, , ~ 450mm 1
P ~ ~ 1 so., y1 F 9~ F RIP RA ~ F ~ .o ~ C o, C C ~ `"~j. 750mm `w~~ ~ ~ e r~ 2.4 PAVED SHOULDER PROPOSED GUARDRAIL CAT-I Q
F I25 mm CONC. MONO. ISL. ~ ~
ExISrING R/w 375mm 3 lD 3.0 ROCK HW ~ ~Q
~ 400 W DI I f G i_ ~ J w w COLLAR quo CoNO ~ ~ ~OLLAR w w - I\
FO FO ~ w w w F f0 FO FO ~
~~E V ° / 11 REMOVE N 4814 25 E - -
M c6o~~__ ~ ~ _ REMOVE us ~4 6.6 BST I ~ BST
T FSS _ _ _ _
- - VC L5 U/ 600 - ~ 6 0 CONC ~ ~ ~ DI 400 ~M 400 CM ~ (G 375 - ~ - - - - - ~ ~ l0 I 0 SS P ~ I, EIP q00 ~ \ ~ _ CD ROCK H ~ \ +70.618 EIP ~ _ _ - - ~i COLLAR ~ - JB ~ 8.25
_ - - ~ CONC HW ~ ~ ~
~ u Cp ~ EXISTING R/W X`~0 450mm 4 X~ 'o ~~~~-L~ ~P
~ 4714 E ~i coNC GP ~9 ~ , 3, 9 75 mm ~ ~~'s ~ ~ „
GR i ~ ~ t n 9 I GAS-30 28~ 2-~SL'S ~ ~ ti~1 .6 ~ ~ .0,~ ~ ~ ~ i I S - - - - - S 41 5.o E r o ,Ax „ z cAS ~ ~ ~a~ ~ cAS ~~UPs GRADE TO DR IN ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 41`4 ~ 36.0 E 2G1 - C , , k Qo 2 ~
; e o .X ~ ~,o I D~ESf l ~ w/~~ ~ ~ ~36 ~3 ~9, s ~ c' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Y 2.4 PAVED 2GI 9B, ~ S OpFiq !y L ~ I KERU ga? _ W/?~~'~ ,;/M ~ „G'v~ ~ BST aVED ~ ~ ~ •o ~
- S S ~ L- STA 14 96.458 9 s , ~ ~ 0 9 s & 6` - ~ SHOULD R DER 375mm _ _ C s ..p n ~ _ - - m % ~ ~ ~ o,
BEGIN TRANSITION RT.SIDE 9 F _ - .Q R 10.0 _ R 10.0_____ DI ~ / , R 10.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -
+83 ~20 ~ R ~ ~
C ~ E ' C I F E-E-E E ~E ~ E - ~T / / +75
z ~ E-E • S BLK Bus G E E E 60 E E~ ~ I • a +75 '75 25.0 ~ , , 0, E - ~ 25.0 LATERAL V ~ DIT H E E (82.a ~ 75 (82.0 J - ~ E S
W .0 78 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 25.0 - ~u ~ 28 9.9' ~ ~ z 25.0 ~ (82.0) GRASS LINEb 32.0 99 - -
N ~ ~ .0(101.7) ~ 0 20c - ~ 182.0') 28.1 ~LJ_ _ ~T c~-~ ~ N 89 24 29.4E ~ ~ ~ 19L~ o , (82.0') 28.0 +83 ~ ~ ~ % (105.0') SEE DETAI D, +80 ~ , so - ~ ~ u 30.0 s - _
~ ~ ~ ~ = ti +15 ~ s ~ ~ 8 _ ~ ~ TEMPORA 191°g~ 28.0 '+33.615 END TRANSITION ~ w ~ i (98.4) ' . ~ 29.0 ~ ~5`-
_ - - T StO. l +oo.oo~ Z 9~, , 25.0 C-~~R ~ eoo DRAINAGE TEMPORARY (91.9) RT. SIDE , S713610.2 E ~ , ~ x(95.1)0 DRAINAGE ~ . ~
. DRV PO F o ~ 9 00 96.458 L ~ ~ ~ 9, / conic EASEMEI~ ~ ~ ~ o.. (82.0') ~ A EMENT ~ ~ o~, `5: ES ~ ,
25.0 - -POT Sta. l4 90.000 ~ s F ~,,,~a~L REV ~ ~ 3(.0 ~ TIE PERFORATED PIPE 182.01 EIP ~ ~ 5 ~ ATED PIPE ~ ~
1101.7) +40.000 ~ ~ ~ P PoTSf0.1o ~ / LASTIC PIPE INTO DI ~0 ' > ~ ~ E INTO DI J. HOLLIS JUSTUS PoTStO.lo+35.000 0
~ 6 C' F 15 ~ DB. 495 PG. 493 ~ ~
LOUISE GIBBS ; / ~ ~ 9 i ~ S 48.0 DB. 465 PG. 283 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
DB.289 PG. 51 ~ 0 ~ (15T.5 ~ DB. 423 PG. 75 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A °
~ JOHN B. BATSON / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / r~ ~ ~ ~
DB. 560 PG. S - ,ti ~ 80 -LREV a~ \ ~ \ ,9 ~ WOODS ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ / ~ ti o
a ~ / ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~
- o ~ti ~ Is.o h. POT Sta.10 3 .ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
152.5 J ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 6' ~o s ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ ~ ~ ~ I L
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ POT Sta.10~50.000 ~
~ s •99 0. WOODS i i .WOODS ~ C' i ~ 9 Q 9 S,
~Y D S~ / MARTHA J. ~°j~ ~ '9i /y ( `
DONALDSON ~ V
n I\ POND
DB.643 ~ ; Q ~ ~
PG. 492-494 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,
ao ~ / 'o EIP a~ /
o ~ ~ , ~
•6' ~ - l 1 V Oa ,~g~ ~ / s o .a CU E D Ao t ~ o
P1 St 4~ .387 ~ \ c~
o = ~ 10" rRT) uu,~ ~ \
~ EIP L 8.76
N a - r,.r.- o ~ - 90.691 5. t wl ::5~~:'~ .~H \ / a'. ..,xxx~ ~ lP
~ h~ ~ R 430.000 GM a 111 .M ~V V
°N ~ w c' w / . fl e_
i
L N a w
Q~f1 - 7 ~ (i;
~

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
R 2908 6
HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
0 10
EIP
CONST.REV.
R/W REV.
~~/3,
~ .o P g3 o F FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L-, SEE SHEETS Il AND 12
o• 94 ~ M
DETAIL
LATERAL 'U' DITCH DAVID H. HAMMOND rcH
Not to Scale) ~ Fill DB.782 PG. 205 ) -Fill
Natural ~ X04 e~ Slop ROBERT C. TUCKER DB. 476 PG° 565 Ground 2• ~ Sloe J.P, SEARCY CHC ,x ~e< P~x~ DB. 771 PG. 901
~o d+= F Min, D=.45, Mm. D=.45 m DB, 266 PG.199 ~ --X - 0
Q DB. 90 PG. 275 ~ Max, d= .45 ~ N ~ Type of Liner=CL.'B'RIP RAP Max. d= .45 m p 'RAP DB, 385 PG. 615 ~ x ~
~ /o _ _ DB. 278 PG.191 _ ~
20. oti FROM STA. 20+52 TO 20+93 -L- L1 ~P HAROLD CAGLE 63 F P M° 0+93 L LT 2 ~
•o ~ s ~ ~ DB. 463 PG.123 ~ , s9 ~ N - e
o~ °o ~ ~ ~ X i ' ~ CHL °o, ~ , ~ X200 .~--X Q
Q 219 /Y ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ U~ 1 / 1 ~ ~-~'~x
~ ~ ~ 1l W ~ ~ .p x c n
r^ v 1 ~ i EIP I v / ~ ~ ~ W . 1p c
I SUSAN DUNLAP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ROBERT C. TUCKER ~I D6.290 PG. 319 z ~ ` , C. TUCKER ~ ~ _X ~.I
DB.90 PG. 275 ~ RUBY CAGLE PG. 275 ~ 5 ~ c ~ ~ ~ aK o ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~N~, i s
PT sta.lo+24.13 ~ ~R
1.2m BASE DITCH ion ~ ~ +05 ~ DB. 328 PG.181 s ~ w, ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ SPECIAL DITCH ~ , ~ i
CLASS 'B` RIP RAP ~ 63os ` ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ 35.0 0 . SEE DETAIL A " ` ~ ~ (114.8') ° D ~ ~ ~ ~ CLASS B RIP RAP , , C
+30 ~ k ° o ~ WOODS 65 92, •pg 25 X coN SEE DETAIL 'I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B5T
+4 "'L ~ t,, 25 35.0 5 ~ , 35.0 35.d, ~ , ~ 32.0 ~ 37.0 ~3
28.0 (114°8) 28.0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ • (114.8) (114.8 _ (105.0') ~ (121.4) +33
(91.9'1 oF~ s ~ ~ ` ` E E E E ~ ~ ~ ~ , F 3a.a
/ T 191°9'J 00 ' s {20 ~ F~ ~ 0~, ~ °9g 0 ~ ~ , ~ 198.41
r 28.0 (91.91 o, o ~ ~ ~ 9 25.0 25.0 ~ F E ~ 182.0') 0 - - - _ _ X E E-E
of , 82.01
k
- ww F F------- ~ ~ i~ o C . ~ ~ ~ R JO ~
- - - - - - OP~SED GUARDRAIL , , - ---x , _ 15 - C S a 0 3.26
~ M ~ ~ ~ x ~.,,~-L„~- ~ _ ~ , ~9 ~ PROPOSED ~ /gs _ ` ~ - ~ ~ GUARDRAIL 3
° ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ k 2.4 PAVED SHOULDER THOU ER ~ - ~ ~ i LD - O
O . • ~ MELT ~ 3, , s R „ a I x esT omm N 4l 45 32.6 W X car-I
EXISTING R/W = + ~ ~o WW s ~
I ~ - • ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ 400 CONC ~ X200 CHI
I~ w w ' ~ w ~ 0 FO F FO ~ ~0, FO FO FO
- c ~ ~ ~ \ - - - - - - - - ~ -
US 64 8ST ~
US 64 6.6 BST - - - ~
~ m w <0 ° o ~ 100 SS PVC I, U v /
EfC19T C R/W o ° LE WW WW t0 T? ~
' i _~_r'~t~ _ EIP X X Q .6 X X
x,S 900 WW & ISBW X X X xrA-~r~r~: X X 1200 WW & 2SBW
WOODS S~ ~ 9 p, ~ ~ <<,, + Fro o ~ ~ F CLASS 'I' RIP RAP ~ ~3 - MELT -DRV POT Sta.lO 00.000 ~ PROPOSED , ~ EST.118 M.T.
\ ~ o GUARDRAIL ~ ~ -L- POT Sta. 20+98.000
2.4 PAVED SH R 0 6.Im 375mm 3.o cR OULDE ~ _ - _ _ c _ ~ ~ - c ~
~3 ~ ~ ~ _
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ -
0 _ - 0 0 c ~ - _-E-E o o w ~ \ ~ E c E~ ~ o E E E E 60
_ _WOO~s _ _ - - - _-E-E ~3 30 °o ~ WOODS - ~ ~ ..-E-- E ~ X m ~ ' ~ X 25.0 TDE-TDE-TDE TDE- DE D ~ ~ {00
~ - ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ 60 ~ - E ~ ~ 182.0') '80 SPECIAL DITCH +40 25.0 74 ~ ~ (82.0'1
- -------F--~~E ~ 2 25.0 0 ~ ~ ~ + ~ o 3.0 GR ~ ~ ~ 28.0 GRASS LINED ~ WOODS ~ 25.0 ~ ~ 28.0 ~ t 25.0 ~ 191>9 J SEE DETAIL 'B'
9 32.0 ~ (82.OJ ~ ~ _ _ ~ o ~ ~ - - ~ , o (IOS.o J -oR - Por sta. ~o+oo.ooo ~ 38 ~ 74 ~ (82.0) 191.91 X WOODS (82.0) ~o ~
28 F 30.0 30.0 ~
- ~ 32.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + - - ~ ~ \ L POT Sta, l8 T3 00 ~ Z (98.4 J LATERAL 'V' DITCH 98.4') ~ ~ ~ U'~,,~~
- , (105.0) ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ / es~ ~ F 2 ~ ~ ~ 43.0 0 / ~ S SPECIAL DITCH ~ X GRASS LINED ~
' ~ ~ s ~ ' ~ (141.1') / ~ ~ , eko ~+ll ~ , G R RA IN ~ ~ G SS L ED SEE DETAIL D ~
~WOODSI WOODS SE ~ 35° ~S ~ o SEE DETAIL 'B' ~ 10
i ~ ~~P ,m ({l4. 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~E X r' CHANNEL EXCAVATION o
s Por sta, io 50.000 ~ ~ ~ o 2 ~ EST. 35 C.M. 1 ~
~ '85 9 ~ ,r ~ ~ 1
~ 49.0 ~ , °s + ~ ~ \ ~o ` (160.8') ~ s~. ~ ~ ~
s ~ ~ . ~ c~ s ~ ~a ~ ~ ~
\ G °o
\ ~ ~ p~9 + ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ HARRY W. DERMID 110
J Woods DB, 775 PG, 741-742 v
so ~ ~ ~ + / DETAIL B
SPECIAL LATERAL V DITCH Q ( Not to Scale) .
\ ~ ~ ~ c, ~ o s~ ~ ~ ~ + F~I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ . ~ o Nafural ~ 04 ~ Slope Ground p a~ ~~e
o .p ROBERT W. ELLIOTT ~ + ti~ ~y Fro ~ Min. D=.45 m
~C ~ D E T DETAIL A
~ o ~ DB.792 PG.15-17 s~ DB. 722 PG. 811 ~ ~ (No' BASE DITCH FROM STA. 19+66 TO 20+40 -L- RT
Qs ~ DB. 515 PG.463 + - ~ (Not to Scale) b ~ Fill STA. 20+80 TO 23+60 -L- RT
~ 6' 0 ~H Natural S + o ~ V~~ ~ Ground Mural Slope
-ound ~ 8% dt D DETAIL D o
m ~ ~ A°~ \ S 9 a 6\• Min.D= 0.7 m = 0.7 LATERAL V DITCH B Max.d m (Not f0 SCale)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /
When B Is <L ~ g5T Then B is <1.8m b= 1.5 m b Fill II p~ B= 1.2 f~~_ SIoPe m Natural ~ ~uuuu.:u.~ ;y'
ROBERT W. ELLIOTT Type of Liner pe of Liner =CLASS B RIP RAP Ground p 2~ 8%
N ~ DB.792 PG.15-17 Y h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : i
~a o ~ DB.722 PG. 811 s~ FROM STA.I FROM STA. 17+40 TO 19+00 L LT ~ ~M,:.~ ~?~a::::::::~>:~ . a:.,~; a : ..:s;.,
S F DB. 515 PG.463 ~ o , xxxxe ' ~ iiiii '%'r'i?iti'r :xx: ~ _ ~ i%%%i%iii~
~ 9 c~. ~ ~ ~ \ FROM STA. 20+40 TO 20+65 -L- RT : ~ ~ ~ ~.:x~~:a:~
\ \ STA. 20+73 TO 20+80 -L- RT ~~~~:~xg~~~ ~ ~n~<.rs~F~ ~•____~.__<_______:~:~~<:;;~~~.:...
~L ~ 0 Q ] o EIP
WOODS N~ ~

STATB STATE PR0IPLT R6FBRENCE NO. SHEET Heed NO.
~ TRI N~~~ 6.951016 ~
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets ~ ~ ~ ~~4 ~ ~4 9TAT6 PRO1.N0. A.PROI. DB9C81P1'lON
See Sheet 7 B For Conventional Symbols
6.951016 WA P.E.iR.W.
i " " " ' ~ ~ ~ ALL DIMENSIONS IN THESE
PLANS ARE IN METERS AND
/OR MILLIMETERS UNLESS
C OTHERWISE NOTED
~ ~ b~ N HE1~lDER o sow O J~ cov~~
~ ~ PROJECT
N ~.h"~ r, BEGIN LUCATI011t: US 64 EAST OF I-26 I-26 TO EAST OF SR 1574
I y~ HENDERSONVILLE / ~ PROJECT
CITY LIMITS %
,`~6 ~ / /
, TYPE OF WORK: G~RADI11tG, DRA ~ PAVI11tG, CULVE : ~ sR i~ a o PAVEMEKT MA s DRAI11tAGE, WIDE11tI11tG, RESURFACI11lG
ILVERT, SIGNALS, THERMOPLASTIC
" MARKI11tGS A11tD MARKERS.
Y~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ X006 ~s
m J ,~o
viciNmr nnAP
~M

l~~

+ `
~
~ ~

N
N
J J
-L- STA. 12+40.000 ~ ~ O
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 6.951016 '~`,o
N 182961.3836E 297901.6700 ~i BEY ,;y'~~` L > . , ~ , Sri, S tY~~
~ ~ ~ -L- STA. 28+09.284 (~jc ~n5fi~ ~°~`4
6 ~ END STATE PROJECT 6.951016 j ~~L`~`S~~
4 WB -REV ~ ~~~c~`~.
\ ~ N 183940.3404E 299085.7808
O -Y L US 64 ' n~
~
~ ; ~
~
~ ~ L] b~y~8 ~ ~~1
.
TO
FROM ~ 2b ~ vs FOHFI'l~
~<<F

Clearing on this protect shall be performed to the limits established by Method U,
HYDRAULICS E11iGINEER DIVISIOX OF HIGHWAYS
Prepared In tl~ Office of: STATE OF NORTIY CAROLINA
V GRAPHIC RATIO DESIGN DATA PRO ECT LENGTH
s o ~o ADT 1993 = 10600 Dl ADT 2015 = 21200 LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT 6.951016 = 1.567 km ~~S ~ O p~,,gNg TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 6.951016 = 1.567 km DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
7995 ST.MmARD SPECQ+ICATTONS
DHV = 60% P.E.
5~°~10 RIGHT OF D = 4 % iHT OF WAY DATE: JAMES G. NORRIS, JR. srcx~rurc~: P~
AUGUST 18,1995 PROJECT ENGLVPBR ROADWAY DESIGN ST9T8 HIGHWAY &YGA~E6R -DESIGN
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) T - 2 ~O AUGUST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOAf
ERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
2 0 4 V = 100 krr?h ~~G LETI7NG DATE: A. DEAN SARVIS. PE
NOVEMBE - ~ PROFILE (VERTICAL) OVEMBER 19 19 6 PROJECT D6SIGX 6NGAI88R
P~ APPROVED POR
SIGNATf/RB: DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE

DI ~ ~ ~ PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO"
HORIZON RETIREMENT, INC. ,~e R-2908 4
Y CURVE BATA ~ DB.814 PG. 792 794 x o / ~ ~ ~ goo. _ ~ W HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS -YR~V cuRV~ DATA . D
9q ~ ~ ~ V ~i ~ p W ENGINEER ENGINEER
Pl Sta 11 +17.258 ~ Pl Sta 13+92.085 °
~ r ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ D
_ ~ ~ L 231.429 M , = 5 0 10 L 22.308
_ 3010 ~ 8_ 450 CM - 58 _ c T 117.2 ~ _ _ T =11°157
_600_CM____-- 8 Q R = 583.000 ~ _ - - , R = 400.000
N ~ e = 0.02
l~ ~ , o BST JAVA HILL GIBBS CONST.REU"
~ ~ I o ~ DB.157 PG. 179 -Y- ST A 1325
60 ~ ~ ~ ~ RB G C lI B..T ~ C ~U w • M ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ C 7 200 CON ~3 IN R R/W REV.
i I ~ S ~ _ BEG ESURFACI NG AND WEDGING
Fo ~ _ C' ~e n - " ~ ~ ° ~ ao° w FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L- SEE SHEET ll 5j625 ~ s
_ ~ _ -
I Fo jrNOR ~1 US 69 ~ W a ~o ~ BST ~ w .5`b 5gJ1A nn,, ~ 'V
II 200 w o o ErP xo ZR ~ R ~ e ~
~ CQ~,~C o v, _ _ - - H - ` r II C~ o H " 'p ~1 O MARY A. RAMSEY ~ ~p4 W Q o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o / 11 ~ Fo ~ ~ R - ~n, 24°3a ~ a Erp s Q' ~ DB. 551 PG.455 ~ .5~1 ~ ~ ~ ~
9iS0 C ~ ~ 00 W/ ,-"21 ~ ~ ` ~ DI ~ i m S 2q°38,pq" w V ~ 25 xb ~ \ 0 DB. 448 PG.497
~ ~ - - C`\~- - - - - - \ J L~ +86.269 ~ - ~ ~ 600 . 5 ~ ~ Q ~,92 \
c~ ~ C ~5 fIP - ~ \w ~ ~ q S 29 59 s~ 29°59'51" W m ~ ~ x S D~ \
i 106.126 TO EIP , ~ ~o +18.69 -~°°~f° ~t ~ ~ - - _ _ ~ 100.58 °°`-~o:5sa DAVI MCKIN Y M T A F Q YREV STA 14 03.236 io D LE ECL A Q ~
~ N 31°31'32" E ~`~'Lr~-~ Riw ' ~ ~ ~ _ - - - - - RAW W ~ V ~V BEGIN TRANSITION ~ ~ ~
i ~ i ~ ~ N, ~ ~ A woods DB. 749 PG.170 ~ ~ Q
6~^ ~ ~ \ ~ - - ~ ~ v'~ V A ~ t~ ~ DB.749 PG. 164-165 ~ erp ~v,, J ~ Q ~ \ ~ -~-z
~ ~ i \ \ w ~ ~ \ Zw R,gjy w' ~
GR i < r , ' i GR AXIS TINO ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ , ~ ~ Riw ~ o\ q50 ~ v SO /0 ~ 2&.0 591.9') ~ ~F N T Qj ~ .
1 ~ C CM ~ \ RE 0 _ N ~ ~ ~ ~FV FXi ~ 0
, _ _ ~ - - - _ _ Ells E EK~sr N G ~ ~ Z rN ~V G Ri 0 i ~ + ~
i~ ~ O ~ ~ \ V \ ~ w W ~ ter' GR , ' ~ \ 7~,,~ ~ ~ - - ~ + ~ w Q
, W `r-~ ~ ~ ~ .v~ ~ ~J F F ~~'~J 1 1 rv(~ Q
~ w ~ 7` ATI ' N ~ ~ i ~ ~ W ~ ~ zsFO ~ 4~ 9,~5'\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ MON (3p,~ \ n X s ~ ~1 o a v vv isFO o i ~C~~a ~
WC:,~S ~ , f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L- ST A.12 48.773 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ O 2 Raw wF \ ~ coNC ~ ~ ~
BEGIN 1.2 CONC.EXP .GU ER ~ N -L STA1320 ~ ~ 3 20 o \ \ X ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ END 1.2 CONC. ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~?M r ~~W..II t , ' d1s ~ ~J ~ s MTV 1 EXPRESSWAY GUTTE ~D ~ V \ ~ ~ co ~ ~ v ~ ] O ~ CONC. \ W ~ ~ Q N ° ~cov z9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w
M ~ l~ SWAY GUTTER S \ °0 R ~ o 26 K ~ Y - coN
~ ' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~o_ Bus ~ ~ 2 s F ~ ~ '~s ~ 9~2 esr
~ WOODS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d C ~ ~ \ .3 eST F ~ ~ 9.7 BST 2G1 SPECIAL DI ADE = ' ~ ~ ~
~a ~ ~ . r ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ k 2.0
~ s LEROY ODELL JACKSON ~ ~ K _ ~ 2.4 PAVED SNOULDE~ ~ x39,4 J 2cl 2G1 , ~ Omm SEE PROFILE ~ ~ \ _ _ _ ~ \ \ ~
o ~ OSgU ~ i ~ S ~ 'o ~ Ri ~ ° ~ DB.602 PG. 214 r ~ Bu ~ ~R ~ ~ ~ E Mo ~ 300mm 300mm 0.6 PAVED SHOULDER ~ 0~~ ~
~ S i ~ i s ,--E ~W 1v. F ~.Q .W P 3 ~ ~ ~ BUK ~ ~ ESE EXISTIN° R ~ DB. 539 G. 8 3 ~ ~ c i.q ~1W ~ ' oN ~ Roc - 14 1 W" K ~w
gUS , ~ , ~ ,,,~E - ~ - . ~ H ~ _ , E N E._.,--E ~ ~ ~ ~ , REM V~ , pl - - - ~ 9 F o - H ~K
45 ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ , ~ ;,oNC " F - REM 300 EM~ _ -LREV~ 52 BST _ - - - __L11 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 12.0 - la. ~ ~ TRANS.TO EXIST.SUPERELEVATION ~ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ss \ - R
~ s% -_--x39.41 pVE ' ~ ,q - \ ~SO~i REM BEG1N WEDGING GRADE 64 vc i.. ~ REMOVE ~ 9. EV~ 150 ~,5 / REMOVE ~ c3o'~ ~
r~ ~ m s ~ ~3~5m ~ EGA C
~ ~ - • - - ~ 90 CM ~ ~ -375rn>71_ _ - - - - - - ~ - ~r
JB c R w ~c~' ` R ~ E EXISTIN , - , ~ REMpV - - - _ ~ -'N ° ~ ~ - - - _ 2"~ PAVED , _ - ~ /
_ , q50 CM ~ ~ ro ~ i 4 x zs„
6 m +N ~9 Omm - I2~~ ~t~'~Tl ~ ~ CHL
-w~ 1 ~ , ~ 6Q~~m ,i p CM , ~r ~ ~ ~ 0 ~
" ~ , i I ' 'RIP AP ~ CLASS R , + ~
. - 4.22 15 ~ - " a m ~ > Epp N 5 Om 2 o ~ 24 9 o N ~ ~
~~i.520 ~ /L QI CLAS EIP ~ - ~M 1.2m BASE DIT( m. BASE DITCH ' 125 mm MONOLITHIC ~
~ TO w ~ q5a •98586 ~~lP RAP k ~ • ~ ~ GR SS LINE q'SS LINE6 ~ ~ ~ ~K CONC"ISLAND ~ ~
a WIL ~ ~ i CB ~ ~ •o D ~ 20.0 SEE DETAIL H' E + DETAIL H' _ _ _ ~ ~ + 1.2m BASF DITCH ~
U~c o N -L- Sr I ~ ~7 Fss ~ c 1.5~ sue, , ~ A 2'5535 x65.61 , ~ A , , r ~ F CL SS ~ RIP RAI? \
IP N o ~ ~ I `I BEGIN 2.4 PAVED SHOULDE , E ~ ~ ` ~ ~ a5~' ~ ~ ~ +50 _ + SEE DETAIL 'A' + x--___ I
~ , s ~ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -L POT Sta. l2 98.986 o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 58.295 ~ x ~ ~ + ~ 1.2 m BASE DITCH
o 9°1 -LREV- PC Sta. l2 98.986 ~~ooos 20.0 ~ ~ ~ GRASS LINED
gU ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ OR ~ ~ ~ a ~ P ti w~ SEE DETAIL H
~ 50 - o ? MARTHA J.
~ A ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ 20.0 3 r ~ o 00 ' DONALDSON o ~
` z (65.6) w r s ~ THOMAS LARRY JACKSON ~ o w ~ ~ , ~ ~ DB" 643
w ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~F ~ ~Q. ~ w ~ ~ t,1 ~ ~ FNC ` ~ + ~ ~ PG" 492-494 ' ~ ~ ~ ~ s,,
~ ~ 1 F ~ s ~ ~ • o w ` ~ S o ~ ~ `
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % in 1 ~
0 I I ~ I 0 ~ ~
\ ~ DB. 812 PG. 313-314 i ~ ~ / ``ti ~ ~ ~ ap ~ ~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ O 1 / ~ ~ ~ D
~ ~ ~ . ~ C^
r` ~ I S BK __-u ~ ~ M
~~4~ ~ ~ ~ WOODS ~ ~ v BETTY B. LAWS
~ ` ~ ~ i ~ + DB" 689 PG" 703
~ ~.I PAULINE SEARCY ~ , ~ -
~ ~ DB.274 PG. 135 ~ ~ ' - 3 i
DB. 240 PG. 98 ~ MOUNT PISGAH I
j LUTHERN CHURCH
06.556 PG. 249
06.800 PG. 827 DETAIL A
BASE DITCH
( Not to Scalelb Fill -LREV-CURVE DATA -CURVE D
Natural ~ Slope _ DETA L H Q
Ground ~ 8% P/ Sta 13+79.710 PI St 4+ °387
r ° p ti°° BASE DITCH d., ~ Min.D= 0.7 m (NOt t0 SCQe) 0'
B Max.d= 0.7 m "Fill - - + Natural ~ L =159.309 FIII e~p L 78.76 Slope
- 1.5 L ST A 12 40.000 slope When B is <1.8m b m Ground T 8/, T = 80.724 = 90.691
B= 1.2 m D BEGIN STATE PROJECT R-2908 ,45 R = 400.000 R = 430.000 - m
Type of Liner=CLASS B RIP RAP Min. D - 0.45 m N 182961.3836E 297901.670 b = I.5 m ,5 m e = 0.08 , ~
5 B = 1.2 m FROM STA. 13+60 TO 14+35 -L- RT - > 3~~~ 1.2 m runoff - 64 ~o ~ . ~~u~u~u_ u~ a . ~:.5..:,:.:,:,:5~55,:5:..~55
Q s ESP ~ ; X22 a3HU.~u""....~..,...,.:. " Y~~~;, ifi ';°'S%iiir;%f „ z ~~5„
FROM STA. 13+00 TO 13+60 -L- RT o~ RT ~ 9. ~~~u~~u~uuu;;,~. ~s:-~">::::<:-=:::w• ff..fffff..,:,,- ~~uuuuuuuu R p u~uuuu~x 5. i ~ xxxx....u5sxz:,::: ~ a ~ L•
N STA. 14+35 TO 14+60 -L- RT CK u5G..5^~% ~:..:IAS .~:}v: S~~f~H.S .f;% / / .fff.'
M~ ^S f 0 O,,((~~ 5uuuGu'2' u~~~. C~ ~fh....
~0. 1 ,•i~::,:, zzzzff::zz.,..~~ff~~pp yfiffi% uu....:.:•:
~A ~9. uu-M::..:, A ;Sri:~riri~~,,.s.,;:~.,<fff<ufr,,,,,.,fu•;sf~;~;ff;~;.,;,,, uu~a:N. • 5~.,..,.: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,K,.S•;5.5.55.5.55:. p~,5~ .....:......................u...........
,i:, 6p /L ~L S g12 16
L <~L _ _ ~
N\ ~

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
R 2908 5
DETAIL A DETAIL ~ HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
DETAIL BASE DITCH DETAIL B ' ' ENGINEER ENGINEER LATERAL U DITCH
SPECIAL LATE( Not to Scale)b Fill (Not to CIAL LATERAL 'V` DITCH (Not to Scale) ( Not to Scale) L . ~ Fill
Natural r".:~ ~ Slope Fill f Slo e _ Natural ~ p 5 0
2 - ~ Natural -e Ground _ D 8% Ground I\ ~ d~ o° ° al I, o~ ~ Slope ~ s 10 ~d a~ ~~e Ground D 2 8% a~
~ s ° Min. D = 0.7 m J ~ s~, ~ B Max, d= 0.7 m f ?i D F~° Min. D=.45 m Min. D= .45 m 93 99,, h ~ '9
sp ~ b= 1,5 b = 1.5 m 9~ ~
~ ~ When B Is <1,8m m FROM STA. 15+48 1 STA. 15+48 TO 16+00 -L- LT FROM STA. 17+10 TO 17+30 -L- RT
B= 1.2 m " O O Type of Liner=CLASS 'B' RIP RAP CONST.REV.
d' m STA. 17+30 TO 17+60 -L- RT
m J ~ J ~ N FROM STA. 17+40 TO 19+06 -L- LT R/W REV.
~ ~ STA. 15+20 TO 15+40 -L- LT
~ ~ ~Q ~Q
~J J FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L-,SEE SHEET 11
d' 00 ~cp IP
d.~ ,
fit; , d; - p <0 ~ <D ~oN~. MARK.
+ ~
S
X99
~ o O o I Q.,~ iii, 9~Sy
~ ~~9 ~
i j~ W ~ O
X14, V
~ ~ ~ J J ~ J ~ ~
~ ~ 1 EIP ~ S ~ ~ "\.J
D ~ , ~ r~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,J ~ , ~ ~
> ~ ~
+ ~ ALEXANDER E. NELON s OO ~ MARY A, RAMSEY , v 1 SUSAN DUNLAP
~ DB. 790 PG. 275 s~ -oRV- Por sta. >'o+oo.ooo ~ DB.290 PG. 319 ~
O DB. 551 PG.455 -L POT Sta.ll62.000 ~I
DB.448 PG.497 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~
~ o ~ ~ o0 W ~ ~ ~ t , o~c ~ 1.2m BASE DITCH
\ ~ o G +33.615 END TRANSITION CLAS ' 'RIP R S B AP
~ ~ i ~ ~ s ~ ' ~ SPECIAL DITCH ~ ~ ~ cT. sIDE ~ SEE DETAIL A
a~ 'fir, 1 ~ , ~1' ; ~ , GRASS LINED ~ ~ ~ +50
o ~ ay '9. ~ ~ ~ SEE DETAIL B o Q woos .20 {40 35.0 wooDs
a~ F ~ ODS ~ 1114.8') {60 26.0 28.0 ~ ~ ~ (91.9 J 28.0
~ ~ ors I m BASE DITCH ~ o wo ~ ~ ~ o .2 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,(85.3) oo Tp (9L9') -DRV-PDT Sta. l0+00.000
Z96.458 -L~o CLASS B RIP RAP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ - T -L POT Sta.IT 97.2T3
,o EE DETAIL A ~ ~ ~ , 26.0 (85.3) ~ , X50 ~ CLASS E ~o 0 CLASS 'B' RIP RAP
~ ~ ~ ~
NW ~ ~ - + ~
~ -oRV Por sta.lo oo.ooo oR° ~ 3~ _ , _ _ _ -L- PDT Sta.15+72.000 ~ ~ ~.r- - - - - - -
F - _ F _ - ~ ~ - F
FCLASS ,B, , ~ 450mm 1
P ~ ~ 1 so., y1 F 9~ F RIP RA ~ F ~ .o ~ C o, C C ~ `"~j. 750mm `w~~ ~ ~ e r~ 2.4 PAVED SHOULDER PROPOSED GUARDRAIL CAT-I Q
F I25 mm CONC. MONO. ISL. ~ ~
ExISrING R/w 375mm 3 lD 3.0 ROCK HW ~ ~Q
~ 400 W DI I f G i_ ~ J w w COLLAR quo CoNO ~ ~ ~OLLAR w w - I\
FO FO ~ w w w F f0 FO FO ~
~~E V ° / 11 REMOVE N 4814 25 E - -
M c6o~~__ ~ ~ _ REMOVE us ~4 6.6 BST I ~ BST
T FSS _ _ _ _
- - VC L5 U/ 600 - ~ 6 0 CONC ~ ~ ~ DI 400 ~M 400 CM ~ (G 375 - ~ - - - - - ~ ~ l0 I 0 SS P ~ I, EIP q00 ~ \ ~ _ CD ROCK H ~ \ +70.618 EIP ~ _ _ - - ~i COLLAR ~ - JB ~ 8.25
_ - - ~ CONC HW ~ ~ ~
~ u Cp ~ EXISTING R/W X`~0 450mm 4 X~ 'o ~~~~-L~ ~P
~ 4714 E ~i coNC GP ~9 ~ , 3, 9 75 mm ~ ~~'s ~ ~ „
GR i ~ ~ t n 9 I GAS-30 28~ 2-~SL'S ~ ~ ti~1 .6 ~ ~ .0,~ ~ ~ ~ i I S - - - - - S 41 5.o E r o ,Ax „ z cAS ~ ~ ~a~ ~ cAS ~~UPs GRADE TO DR IN ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ 41`4 ~ 36.0 E 2G1 - C , , k Qo 2 ~
; e o .X ~ ~,o I D~ESf l ~ w/~~ ~ ~ ~36 ~3 ~9, s ~ c' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Y 2.4 PAVED 2GI 9B, ~ S OpFiq !y L ~ I KERU ga? _ W/?~~'~ ,;/M ~ „G'v~ ~ BST aVED ~ ~ ~ •o ~
- S S ~ L- STA 14 96.458 9 s , ~ ~ 0 9 s & 6` - ~ SHOULD R DER 375mm _ _ C s ..p n ~ _ - - m % ~ ~ ~ o,
BEGIN TRANSITION RT.SIDE 9 F _ - .Q R 10.0 _ R 10.0_____ DI ~ / , R 10.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ -
+83 ~20 ~ R ~ ~
C ~ E ' C I F E-E-E E ~E ~ E - ~T / / +75
z ~ E-E • S BLK Bus G E E E 60 E E~ ~ I • a +75 '75 25.0 ~ , , 0, E - ~ 25.0 LATERAL V ~ DIT H E E (82.a ~ 75 (82.0 J - ~ E S
W .0 78 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 25.0 - ~u ~ 28 9.9' ~ ~ z 25.0 ~ (82.0) GRASS LINEb 32.0 99 - -
N ~ ~ .0(101.7) ~ 0 20c - ~ 182.0') 28.1 ~LJ_ _ ~T c~-~ ~ N 89 24 29.4E ~ ~ ~ 19L~ o , (82.0') 28.0 +83 ~ ~ ~ % (105.0') SEE DETAI D, +80 ~ , so - ~ ~ u 30.0 s - _
~ ~ ~ ~ = ti +15 ~ s ~ ~ 8 _ ~ ~ TEMPORA 191°g~ 28.0 '+33.615 END TRANSITION ~ w ~ i (98.4) ' . ~ 29.0 ~ ~5`-
_ - - T StO. l +oo.oo~ Z 9~, , 25.0 C-~~R ~ eoo DRAINAGE TEMPORARY (91.9) RT. SIDE , S713610.2 E ~ , ~ x(95.1)0 DRAINAGE ~ . ~
. DRV PO F o ~ 9 00 96.458 L ~ ~ ~ 9, / conic EASEMEI~ ~ ~ ~ o.. (82.0') ~ A EMENT ~ ~ o~, `5: ES ~ ,
25.0 - -POT Sta. l4 90.000 ~ s F ~,,,~a~L REV ~ ~ 3(.0 ~ TIE PERFORATED PIPE 182.01 EIP ~ ~ 5 ~ ATED PIPE ~ ~
1101.7) +40.000 ~ ~ ~ P PoTSf0.1o ~ / LASTIC PIPE INTO DI ~0 ' > ~ ~ E INTO DI J. HOLLIS JUSTUS PoTStO.lo+35.000 0
~ 6 C' F 15 ~ DB. 495 PG. 493 ~ ~
LOUISE GIBBS ; / ~ ~ 9 i ~ S 48.0 DB. 465 PG. 283 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
DB.289 PG. 51 ~ 0 ~ (15T.5 ~ DB. 423 PG. 75 ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A °
~ JOHN B. BATSON / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / r~ ~ ~ ~
DB. 560 PG. S - ,ti ~ 80 -LREV a~ \ ~ \ ,9 ~ WOODS ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ / ~ ti o
a ~ / ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~
- o ~ti ~ Is.o h. POT Sta.10 3 .ooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
152.5 J ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 6' ~o s ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ ~ ~ ~ I L
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ POT Sta.10~50.000 ~
~ s •99 0. WOODS i i .WOODS ~ C' i ~ 9 Q 9 S,
~Y D S~ / MARTHA J. ~°j~ ~ '9i /y ( `
DONALDSON ~ V
n I\ POND
DB.643 ~ ; Q ~ ~
PG. 492-494 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,
ao ~ / 'o EIP a~ /
o ~ ~ , ~
•6' ~ - l 1 V Oa ,~g~ ~ / s o .a CU E D Ao t ~ o
P1 St 4~ .387 ~ \ c~
o = ~ 10" rRT) uu,~ ~ \
~ EIP L 8.76
N a - r,.r.- o ~ - 90.691 5. t wl ::5~~:'~ .~H \ / a'. ..,xxx~ ~ lP
~ h~ ~ R 430.000 GM a 111 .M ~V V
°N ~ w c' w / . fl e_
i
L N a w
Q~f1 - 7 ~ (i;
~

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
R 2908 6
HIGHWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER ENGINEER
0 10
EIP
CONST.REV.
R/W REV.
~~/3,
~ .o P g3 o F FOR PROFILE OF LINE -L-, SEE SHEETS Il AND 12
o• 94 ~ M
DETAIL
LATERAL 'U' DITCH DAVID H. HAMMOND rcH
Not to Scale) ~ Fill DB.782 PG. 205 ) -Fill
Natural ~ X04 e~ Slop ROBERT C. TUCKER DB. 476 PG° 565 Ground 2• ~ Sloe J.P, SEARCY CHC ,x ~e< P~x~ DB. 771 PG. 901
~o d+= F Min, D=.45, Mm. D=.45 m DB, 266 PG.199 ~ --X - 0
Q DB. 90 PG. 275 ~ Max, d= .45 ~ N ~ Type of Liner=CL.'B'RIP RAP Max. d= .45 m p 'RAP DB, 385 PG. 615 ~ x ~
~ /o _ _ DB. 278 PG.191 _ ~
20. oti FROM STA. 20+52 TO 20+93 -L- L1 ~P HAROLD CAGLE 63 F P M° 0+93 L LT 2 ~
•o ~ s ~ ~ DB. 463 PG.123 ~ , s9 ~ N - e
o~ °o ~ ~ ~ X i ' ~ CHL °o, ~ , ~ X200 .~--X Q
Q 219 /Y ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ U~ 1 / 1 ~ ~-~'~x
~ ~ ~ 1l W ~ ~ .p x c n
r^ v 1 ~ i EIP I v / ~ ~ ~ W . 1p c
I SUSAN DUNLAP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ROBERT C. TUCKER ~I D6.290 PG. 319 z ~ ` , C. TUCKER ~ ~ _X ~.I
DB.90 PG. 275 ~ RUBY CAGLE PG. 275 ~ 5 ~ c ~ ~ ~ aK o ~ ~ ~ ~ c~~N~, i s
PT sta.lo+24.13 ~ ~R
1.2m BASE DITCH ion ~ ~ +05 ~ DB. 328 PG.181 s ~ w, ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ SPECIAL DITCH ~ , ~ i
CLASS 'B` RIP RAP ~ 63os ` ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ 35.0 0 . SEE DETAIL A " ` ~ ~ (114.8') ° D ~ ~ ~ ~ CLASS B RIP RAP , , C
+30 ~ k ° o ~ WOODS 65 92, •pg 25 X coN SEE DETAIL 'I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B5T
+4 "'L ~ t,, 25 35.0 5 ~ , 35.0 35.d, ~ , ~ 32.0 ~ 37.0 ~3
28.0 (114°8) 28.0 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ • (114.8) (114.8 _ (105.0') ~ (121.4) +33
(91.9'1 oF~ s ~ ~ ` ` E E E E ~ ~ ~ ~ , F 3a.a
/ T 191°9'J 00 ' s {20 ~ F~ ~ 0~, ~ °9g 0 ~ ~ , ~ 198.41
r 28.0 (91.91 o, o ~ ~ ~ 9 25.0 25.0 ~ F E ~ 182.0') 0 - - - _ _ X E E-E
of , 82.01
k
- ww F F------- ~ ~ i~ o C . ~ ~ ~ R JO ~
- - - - - - OP~SED GUARDRAIL , , - ---x , _ 15 - C S a 0 3.26
~ M ~ ~ ~ x ~.,,~-L„~- ~ _ ~ , ~9 ~ PROPOSED ~ /gs _ ` ~ - ~ ~ GUARDRAIL 3
° ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ k 2.4 PAVED SHOULDER THOU ER ~ - ~ ~ i LD - O
O . • ~ MELT ~ 3, , s R „ a I x esT omm N 4l 45 32.6 W X car-I
EXISTING R/W = + ~ ~o WW s ~
I ~ - • ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ 400 CONC ~ X200 CHI
I~ w w ' ~ w ~ 0 FO F FO ~ ~0, FO FO FO
- c ~ ~ ~ \ - - - - - - - - ~ -
US 64 8ST ~
US 64 6.6 BST - - - ~
~ m w <0 ° o ~ 100 SS PVC I, U v /
EfC19T C R/W o ° LE WW WW t0 T? ~
' i _~_r'~t~ _ EIP X X Q .6 X X
x,S 900 WW & ISBW X X X xrA-~r~r~: X X 1200 WW & 2SBW
WOODS S~ ~ 9 p, ~ ~ <<,, + Fro o ~ ~ F CLASS 'I' RIP RAP ~ ~3 - MELT -DRV POT Sta.lO 00.000 ~ PROPOSED , ~ EST.118 M.T.
\ ~ o GUARDRAIL ~ ~ -L- POT Sta. 20+98.000
2.4 PAVED SH R 0 6.Im 375mm 3.o cR OULDE ~ _ - _ _ c _ ~ ~ - c ~
~3 ~ ~ ~ _
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ -
0 _ - 0 0 c ~ - _-E-E o o w ~ \ ~ E c E~ ~ o E E E E 60
_ _WOO~s _ _ - - - _-E-E ~3 30 °o ~ WOODS - ~ ~ ..-E-- E ~ X m ~ ' ~ X 25.0 TDE-TDE-TDE TDE- DE D ~ ~ {00
~ - ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ 60 ~ - E ~ ~ 182.0') '80 SPECIAL DITCH +40 25.0 74 ~ ~ (82.0'1
- -------F--~~E ~ 2 25.0 0 ~ ~ ~ + ~ o 3.0 GR ~ ~ ~ 28.0 GRASS LINED ~ WOODS ~ 25.0 ~ ~ 28.0 ~ t 25.0 ~ 191>9 J SEE DETAIL 'B'
9 32.0 ~ (82.OJ ~ ~ _ _ ~ o ~ ~ - - ~ , o (IOS.o J -oR - Por sta. ~o+oo.ooo ~ 38 ~ 74 ~ (82.0) 191.91 X WOODS (82.0) ~o ~
28 F 30.0 30.0 ~
- ~ 32.0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + - - ~ ~ \ L POT Sta, l8 T3 00 ~ Z (98.4 J LATERAL 'V' DITCH 98.4') ~ ~ ~ U'~,,~~
- , (105.0) ~ ~ F ~ ~ ~ / es~ ~ F 2 ~ ~ ~ 43.0 0 / ~ S SPECIAL DITCH ~ X GRASS LINED ~
' ~ ~ s ~ ' ~ (141.1') / ~ ~ , eko ~+ll ~ , G R RA IN ~ ~ G SS L ED SEE DETAIL D ~
~WOODSI WOODS SE ~ 35° ~S ~ o SEE DETAIL 'B' ~ 10
i ~ ~~P ,m ({l4. 1 ~ . ~ ~ ~E X r' CHANNEL EXCAVATION o
s Por sta, io 50.000 ~ ~ ~ o 2 ~ EST. 35 C.M. 1 ~
~ '85 9 ~ ,r ~ ~ 1
~ 49.0 ~ , °s + ~ ~ \ ~o ` (160.8') ~ s~. ~ ~ ~
s ~ ~ . ~ c~ s ~ ~a ~ ~ ~
\ G °o
\ ~ ~ p~9 + ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ HARRY W. DERMID 110
J Woods DB, 775 PG, 741-742 v
so ~ ~ ~ + / DETAIL B
SPECIAL LATERAL V DITCH Q ( Not to Scale) .
\ ~ ~ ~ c, ~ o s~ ~ ~ ~ + F~I~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ . ~ o Nafural ~ 04 ~ Slope Ground p a~ ~~e
o .p ROBERT W. ELLIOTT ~ + ti~ ~y Fro ~ Min. D=.45 m
~C ~ D E T DETAIL A
~ o ~ DB.792 PG.15-17 s~ DB. 722 PG. 811 ~ ~ (No' BASE DITCH FROM STA. 19+66 TO 20+40 -L- RT
Qs ~ DB. 515 PG.463 + - ~ (Not to Scale) b ~ Fill STA. 20+80 TO 23+60 -L- RT
~ 6' 0 ~H Natural S + o ~ V~~ ~ Ground Mural Slope
-ound ~ 8% dt D DETAIL D o
m ~ ~ A°~ \ S 9 a 6\• Min.D= 0.7 m = 0.7 LATERAL V DITCH B Max.d m (Not f0 SCale)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /
When B Is <L ~ g5T Then B is <1.8m b= 1.5 m b Fill II p~ B= 1.2 f~~_ SIoPe m Natural ~ ~uuuu.:u.~ ;y'
ROBERT W. ELLIOTT Type of Liner pe of Liner =CLASS B RIP RAP Ground p 2~ 8%
N ~ DB.792 PG.15-17 Y h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : i
~a o ~ DB.722 PG. 811 s~ FROM STA.I FROM STA. 17+40 TO 19+00 L LT ~ ~M,:.~ ~?~a::::::::~>:~ . a:.,~; a : ..:s;.,
S F DB. 515 PG.463 ~ o , xxxxe ' ~ iiiii '%'r'i?iti'r :xx: ~ _ ~ i%%%i%iii~
~ 9 c~. ~ ~ ~ \ FROM STA. 20+40 TO 20+65 -L- RT : ~ ~ ~ ~.:x~~:a:~
\ \ STA. 20+73 TO 20+80 -L- RT ~~~~:~xg~~~ ~ ~n~<.rs~F~ ~•____~.__<_______:~:~~<:;;~~~.:...
~L ~ 0 Q ] o EIP
WOODS N~ ~

STATB STATE PR0IPLT R6FBRENCE NO. SHEET Heed NO.
~ TRI N~~~ 6.951016 ~
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets ~ ~ ~ ~~4 ~ ~4 9TAT6 PRO1.N0. A.PROI. DB9C81P1'lON
See Sheet 7 B For Conventional Symbols
6.951016 WA P.E.iR.W.
i " " " ' ~ ~ ~ ALL DIMENSIONS IN THESE
PLANS ARE IN METERS AND
/OR MILLIMETERS UNLESS
C OTHERWISE NOTED
~ ~ b~ N HE1~lDER o sow O J~ cov~~
~ ~ PROJECT
N ~.h"~ r, BEGIN LUCATI011t: US 64 EAST OF I-26 I-26 TO EAST OF SR 1574
I y~ HENDERSONVILLE / ~ PROJECT
CITY LIMITS %
,`~6 ~ / /
, TYPE OF WORK: G~RADI11tG, DRA ~ PAVI11tG, CULVE : ~ sR i~ a o PAVEMEKT MA s DRAI11tAGE, WIDE11tI11tG, RESURFACI11lG
ILVERT, SIGNALS, THERMOPLASTIC
" MARKI11tGS A11tD MARKERS.
Y~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ X006 ~s
m J ,~o
viciNmr nnAP
~M

l~~

+ `
~
~ ~

N
N
J J
-L- STA. 12+40.000 ~ ~ O
BEGIN STATE PROJECT 6.951016 '~`,o
N 182961.3836E 297901.6700 ~i BEY ,;y'~~` L > . , ~ , Sri, S tY~~
~ ~ ~ -L- STA. 28+09.284 (~jc ~n5fi~ ~°~`4
6 ~ END STATE PROJECT 6.951016 j ~~L`~`S~~
4 WB -REV ~ ~~~c~`~.
\ ~ N 183940.3404E 299085.7808
O -Y L US 64 ' n~
~
~ ; ~
~
~ ~ L] b~y~8 ~ ~~1
.
TO
FROM ~ 2b ~ vs FOHFI'l~
~<<F

Clearing on this protect shall be performed to the limits established by Method U,
HYDRAULICS E11iGINEER DIVISIOX OF HIGHWAYS
Prepared In tl~ Office of: STATE OF NORTIY CAROLINA
V GRAPHIC RATIO DESIGN DATA PRO ECT LENGTH
s o ~o ADT 1993 = 10600 Dl ADT 2015 = 21200 LENGTH ROADWAY PROJECT 6.951016 = 1.567 km ~~S ~ O p~,,gNg TOTAL LENGTH STATE PROJECT 6.951016 = 1.567 km DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
7995 ST.MmARD SPECQ+ICATTONS
DHV = 60% P.E.
5~°~10 RIGHT OF D = 4 % iHT OF WAY DATE: JAMES G. NORRIS, JR. srcx~rurc~: P~
AUGUST 18,1995 PROJECT ENGLVPBR ROADWAY DESIGN ST9T8 HIGHWAY &YGA~E6R -DESIGN
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) T - 2 ~O AUGUST DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOAf
ERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
2 0 4 V = 100 krr?h ~~G LETI7NG DATE: A. DEAN SARVIS. PE
NOVEMBE - ~ PROFILE (VERTICAL) OVEMBER 19 19 6 PROJECT D6SIGX 6NGAI88R
P~ APPROVED POR
SIGNATf/RB: DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE