20011528 Ver 1_Complete File_20011018

04/27/99 14:35 FAX [phone] BHME, INC.
eel
- el

2l i
STATE OF IVOIYfH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, NZ 27611-5201
GoVEMOR
July 17, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ-DENR
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
10 02
c
E. NORIUs TOLSON
S ECM7=1'
SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Group XV Bridge Replacement
Projects
The North Carolina Depanment of Transportation has retained Barbara H. Mulkey
Engineering, Inc. to prepare the planning and environmental studies (Categorical
Exclusions) for the replacement of six (6) bridges in North Carolina. The bridge
replacement projects are included in the 19982004 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
The purpose of this letter is to solicit your input concerning the potential impact of the
proposed projects upon social, economic, demographic, land use or environmental
conditions near the projects. Attached are vicinity maps of the following projects:
1. B-2583, Madison County, Replace Bridge No. 328 on SR 1001 over the French Broad
River
'2. B-3197, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 79 on SR 1112 over the West Fork
Pigeon River
3. B-3191, Henderson County, Replace Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over the South Mills
River
4. B-3196, Jackson County, Replace Bridge No. 193 on SR 1157 over the Thorpe Dam
Spillway
-5. B-3238. Rutherford County. Replace Bridge No. 28 on SR 2138 over the Second
Broad River
--6. B-3660, Haywood County, Replace Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334 over Fines Creek
please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting. This letter
constitutes solicitation for scoping corrunents related to these projects. To allow us to
fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed projects, please respond in writing by August
19, 1998, concerning any beneficial or adverse impacts relating to the interest of your
agency.
A
04/27/99 14:35 FAX [phone] BHNE, INC.
If you have any questions or comments concerning these projects, please contact Ms_
Stacy Baldwin. P. E_ of this Branch at [phone], ext. 264 or Mr. Bill Hood. P_ R.
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc, at [phone]. ext. 14.
WDG/
[a 03
Attachmenu
04/27/99 14:35 FAX [phone] BHME, INC.
N
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: John Hennessy
Company: DWQ-DENR
Phone:
Fax: [phone]
From: Kevin Austin, P. E.
Company: Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc
Phone: [phone] (Ext. 16)
Fax: [phone]
Date: 4/27/99
Pages Including this
cover page: 9
Comments:
This is a copy of the July 17. 1998 letter we sent out to your department
requesting comments on the Group XV bridoe replacement projects.
Please respond by May 24, 1999. if you have any questions or require
additional information, please give me a call. Thank you for your
assistance with this matter,
zo1
04/27/99 14:40 FAX [phone] BIDIE, INC. 01
Facsamfle Uovev the&2
To: John Hennessy
Company: DWQ-DENR
Phone:
Fax: [phone]
From: Kevin Austin, P. E.
Company: Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc
Phone: [phone] (Ext. 16)
Fax: [phone]
Date: 4127/99
Pages including this
cover page: 9
Comments:
This is a copy of the July 17. 1998 letter we sent out to your department
requesting comments on the Group XV bridge replacement projects.
Please respond by May 24, 1999. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please give me a call. Thank you for your
assistance with this matter.
04/27/99 14:40 FAX [phone]
BIDIE, INC. ID 02
uzz-
2CU
22
419
GME MTN:
d
0
may/ x;,1,,9
/0-1 N
71
7.0
8-3197
V, t3s5
1
-r .- ' .
w.? f ^'• t 4 _ i ?Y ?o y b'°' ' , : ; ?, i. 2019 2214
13 ? - `i333 _S ,?M71s "r
4 QGO' `_ KNOB 1342 t'
I ' `` ' - _ ,x33 N, 22,3
1423
1x,•F ,, a ''• ,, •1332 °•' , .•
fit;'
'BUTTERMILK 1440
WN.
sal ? ?' ?+ 13t a d? CIA
y _
488 \ ! . i q ,yi"w `1373 =11318
T.AWL
KITN,
?uP,L
Date -?w
mzav-

_ T.,,4
` 40 W.
xcvfe flDl>}t
Liw
Imp cc,? Si i? sc!
Ednrys+ileY ?•
ifflat vi

Ycrth Carolina Department Of
Traueportatiori
Planning & Enviroamentnl Draneb
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MIUS RWSR
B-3191
kllemltaro ib k0ornsten
0 ,alas 1.0 mLas 2.0
t 04/27/99 14:40 FAX [phone] BH.11E, INC.
U03
,j`~1131 d
_ •' _ i -Traft
n PICOT' AM _
1164
- 1257 1129
_ B-3196
X1185 _ 1158 r;... 1130
KKXA5EGE
-Ij
Double Spring -77
Ctt • 2 FANS
• . r •?~ }ti,~ 1157
-.. ? .. '' •,4•' ? 112 ,1
', `_ 1173, ?A t tb; •? 0 _ _
_ g 1160 ?, - - 1159
1124
? 11n1 '? r !.t-j'; Q ill 4.
?. \t 1724', ?{
1163
6 - J
fop A
1182. - • L% ? • r 1120 . .
' r .? ' - - J '1 1154 1• '; ? •? , it \? -
SNOWBIRD 1145 etas
NITR. ,,y 1147 ' r , ??`
1145'?vL• 11 s
M?? 1
? , j ?.. ,
,h ?
\A
1 •7
'A
f y
:forth Caralina Department of
Tranepartation
Plaaniag Si Environmental Branch
JACKSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 193 ON SR 1157
OVER THORPE DAM SPILLWAY
[1-3196
klomltora L$ kilomotarl 3_2
f
0' mloJ LO r11?1u 2.0
04/27/99 14:42 FAX [phone] BIDIE, INC.
G?a 0 zem"a) u M 68e C (0 V (a V AD h (a a?
To: John Hennessy
Company: DWQ-DENR
Phone:
Fax: [phone]
From: Kevin Austin, P. E.
Company: Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc
Phone: [phone] (Ext. 16)
Fax: [phone]
Date: 4/27/99
Pages including this
cover page: 9
Commonts:
This is a copy of the July 17, 1998 letter we sent out to your department
requesting comments on the Group XV bridge replacement projects.
Pleaso respond by May 24, 1999. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please give me a call. Thank you for your
assistance with this matter.
1201
04/27/99 14:42 FLY 19198511918
BHUE, INC. ID 02
1a?s '•,Gy
O
rf HAYNES KNOB _ 1379
1934
tt? - r•. 6ETSEYS GAP' G
ELEV.5,895 G
03 vld. + ,'
PISCAH.
NATIONAL.-
FOREST Fines Graek, HERO ISTN.
Ch.• ?,? -
• •1311 1:33fJ• '`, 1334 ,343 ?,..
;. .?.. 1337
incl. Crock -
1334 -,
1
1339 d
1392 5 '1341 .1500 17
X344 1 5 3,: 1 k 5 1 `? -
22
: za ;;1- ,aas
n ^ a B-3660 cRaeTREE :BALD ;
WATE- ?? ' ?3e M -1351 = .. •EL.EV. 5,680
r'r'` 1 z OAK MTN.
Hopco
9i
C A ?' Q `?i13B6' ` 1353 t~ r
N 1338
1386 - •?; ?, ?
r!''•M .1345 o f .. 1393 -- ^03 -
1330 f 1354 1.3$2
L
G r9
j PARK '`??'' ?'1 r/ /?
.Ah'N.r nc w,
u
sm PLO
??? •YM SM?Wtt i15?i?
19-1
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
HAYWOOD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 204 ON SR 1334
OVER FINES CREEK
B-3660
O kUOmelefl 1.8 womelere 2
0 Oda I rriaa ?p

Michael F. Easely
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. I30X 2520L RALFAGII. N.C. 27611-5201
October 1, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund, M.S., PWS
NC DOT Coordinator
115 2 8
Lyndo Tippett
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Henderson County, Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 South Mills River
Road over South Fork Mills River; Federal Aid No. BRI-1338(2);
State Project No. 8.2951201; TIP No. B-3191. NWP # 12 for a
Utility Line Replacement.
E COPY
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion project-
planning document prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 09, 1999. An
addendum to the attached Categorical Exclusion is also included, which was signed by
the FHWA on December 18, 2000. The addendum to the C.E. states a new preferred
alternative which is described in this permit application. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 6 over South Fork Mills River on SR 133Ton e
-al' en , g area roa s to etour tra Ic urmg construction. This impact qualified
for _aW 73TCTT.NCDOT applied or t Is perms m August of 2001-.
Project design requires the replacement of an existing 20 inch waterline that
crosses South Fork Mills River. This waterline is owned by the City of Hendersonville
and provides raw water for the city water supply. The current line is installed below the
river and we propose that the new line should also be installed below the bed of the
stream. This waterline is an old pipe that is constructed of cast iron. If it is not replaced
there is reason to be concerned that during the construction of the new bridge the old pipe
will suffer damage and eventually break. The subsurface information obtained in the

preliminary planning phase of this project indicates that a directional bore for the
waterline would not be recommended due to subsurface rock. Impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters will be temporary, amounting to 0.024 acres. The area to be excavated
will be kept to a minimum. All material resulting from excavation will be placed so that it
is not dispersed by currents or other forces. Exposed stream banks will be stabilized
immediately upon completion. This work will not be conducted during the
moratorium dates established by the NCWRC (no instream work between Nov. 1
and April 15).
Enclosed are drawings for the proposed work, project site map and
preconstruction notification form for the utility line replacement. We have determined
that this activity will be authorized under Nationwide Permit 12. In addition, we
anticipate the 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of these documents to the Dept. of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Clay Willis at
[phone] ext. 334 or Steve Godbold at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDL'NR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. R.G. Watson,P.E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.eiir.state.nc.us/ilcwetIands/strmp,ide.htm1.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0.024 acres
Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
'Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name W
aterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F-] uplands [-] stream
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation,
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
Directional boring was considered here but investigation into the subsurface indicated that
this would not be feasible due to the amount of hard rock that would have to be drilled through.
wetlands
installation of
Page 7 of 12
S*
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, nu,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FFNA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local Floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http:/hvww.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: NONE
Total area of wetland impact proposed: NONE
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 temporary 0.024 acres South Fork Mills River 30 feet Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as Ur (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Nvww.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.conh,
www.nhapqucsl.com, etc.).
Page 6 of 12
*01
IV.
V.
VI.
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: to replace a old 20" iron water pipe that
carries raw water for the town of Henderson
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project:
Stream bed residential lawn agricultural field and disturbed woodland area.
Prior Project History
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
A NWP # 23 has been applied for so the replacement of Bridge # 6 can take place. This is TIP #
B-3191 This permit has not been issued as of the date of this application
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No additional anticipated plans for this project
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
Page 5 of 12

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than I1 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
Name of project:
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3191
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Mills River
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge # 6 on South Fork Mills
River Rd (SR#1338) over South Fork Mills River in Henderson County
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Stream bed residential lawn agricultural field and disturbed woodland area.
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): South Fork Mills River
9. River Basin: French Broad River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 12

Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. u 1 152
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit
F-I Section 10 Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 12
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: 0
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: N.C. Dept of Transportation
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh NC 27611
Telephone Number: 733-7844 Fax Number: 733-9794
E-mail Address: tcwillis2dot state nc us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 3 of 12
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://Ii2o.cnr.state.iic.tis/wrp/iiidex.hun. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes X No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes X No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes X No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 9 of 12
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No X If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone l extends out all feet perpendicuiar trom near oanK of cnannei; Lone i extenas an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone I .
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XII1. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No X
Page 10 of 12
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No X
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission request that no instream work be conducted between
November 1 and April 15
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page I 1 of 12
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
Fax: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
US Fis
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: [phone]
h and Wildlife Service / National 1V
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
[arine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 12 of 12
1346 U
1345
134
BIG - 4
KNOB
`s Mr'
\ \\ 91 0 A 1C L.E?
1347 1348 1 2 2
2114
2x28
1345
1 '2019 l 34 -
i \ 1 337 202 `338
Mills River
133 /
36 -- 22- 1
1328 -
' 1,
P I
? S G A H 1338
-" 1498
N T 1 0 N A L 334 12-32-
IF E S T 1335 / 13
- , 333 \ V 142
226 205 2052 - .- -
r-
'BEGIN
4
PROJECT 14 13\28,

?
80
/- J CIO)
d1
13 2269
1421

14 7?
\ v 13 88
, 1 13 28
VICINITY MAP DETOUR ROUTE)
\1 ??
II ?
??\ 1
-4- OR ? Pam ru P. q a
+ ll I
k
eQ u9wiw
ll
1
END
aROJE(
1344
YW m q lor
EMBQNW IP RAW
s SEE DATA E,'A \
LASS T25rONSAP ?-
REMIQVE AND
EXISTI G .BRIDG
\`0
SUZIE E. HALL & ?0 CQ .
lp ROMAN TABAKMA
DB 982 G 798 \ Fio
\ \
\s
REPLAOC 6 BRID E "6
STE BEAM W/ SURVEY -?- o \ - 61
ASPH LT ON +
WOOD DECK
%
7"4 -1
OPOSEE B DGE
VALVE PIT
Fio i
Cr,
TO BLUE DG a ?' e • TO -MIL,
13 MH MI S IVER
? P
ISF
MEDIAN ST E '
BARRIER STAGE-2am, I
, i
SANDBAGS O ?i FR ES GOODE 45, , Al$*
i 760 234 532.30
PROPOSED 20"
WATER LINE *
PROPOSED
FIRE HYDRANT
i
OPTION 1
100 50 0
SCALE IN FEET
PLAN VIEW
40
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 8.2951201
Replacement of Bridge No. 6 over
South Fork Mills River and Approaches
on SR 1338 in Henderson Co.
SHEET 2 OF 5
EMB4NI M?N IP RAP
J, SEE DATA L,'A \
LASS IY IP RAP -}
T T. 25 ONS
o
` ` `
,L
2 \
SUZ E E. HALL & ? C,Q . \ ?-
'A ROMAN TABAKMA ?N
DB 982 G 798 FiA
REMgVE AND REPLAC ` `6' +
EXISTl G \BRIDGE NO. 6 E
BTE BEAM W/ \` `jam a' \
SURVEY
ASPH LT ON
+\
WOOD DECK
%
LA E I:z ` -' WATER
- F OPOSE DGE vALVE PIT C
N
EXIST. R/W
TO BLUE5 DG a £ TO HILLS RIVER-;--
SR 13 H MILLS JIVER I
r , N ,
^? r ISF
r
CLASS I & ST E
CLASS II '
RIP-RAP STAGE 2
SANDBAGS ?i FR ES GOODE qh , q1'w
O'
i r 60 234 532.30
PROPOSED 20"
WATER LINE *
PROPOSED to ty
FIRE HYDRANT /
100 50 0
SCALE IN FEET
OPTION 2
PLAN VIEW
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 8.2951201
Replacement of Bridge No. 6 over
South Fork Mills River and Approaches
on SR 1338 in Henderson Co.
SHEET 3 OF 5
2,150
?i STA. 23 + 67.50
ELEV. = 2133.30'
1 SPAN @ 125'
6'-3" STEEL GIRDER 2 140
90° SKEW
PROPOSED GRADE
------ -- - (tJ°j 21130
EXVAVATION
100 YR. FLOOD EL.=2122.9
v
2120
NORMAL WATER SURFACE EL.=2115.8
OPTION 1 1_ MEDIAN BARRIER PROTECTED
WITH SANDBAGS
OPTION 2 CLASS I AND II RIP-RAP
PROTECTED WITH SANDBAGS
2,110
21100
23 + 004-
100 50 0
SCALE IN FEET
24 + 004-
OPTION 1
PLAN VIEW
25+004-
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT 8.2951201
Replacement of Bridge No. a over
South Fork Mills River and Approaches
on SR 1338 in Henderson Co.
SHEET 4 OF 5
SUMMARY
Temporary Fill in
Site Number Surface Waters
1 .024 ac.
AAL
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION 0 1 1 5 2 8
t?NI FED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTII CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1U '
DA E William D. Gilmore, PE, M ager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Oer-
DATE ?. Niaolas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
'Ala
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 1999
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
a it$ 1111

a 3E AL
'
Willis S. Hood, PE Date • ; , i
?
Project Manager _
.
II??tt r?
S
s
?v
t
Ii
II
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G. s PE, Unit Head
Consul t ngineering Unit
(??" 84&t;?
Stacy B. 's, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
Ceotechnical Unit
A Section 6 Permit Nvill be required for the foundation investigations necessary on this project.
The investigation will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as
obtaining samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
Resident Engineer and Roadway Design Unit
No in-stream work will be conducted between November 1 and April 15 to avoid impacts on
trout reproduction.
Sedimentation and Erosion Controls Measures for Protection of High Quality Waters will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Hydraulics Unit
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval.
Categorical Exclusion
December 1999
'As
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 6 is included in the 2000-2006 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 31.8 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient. The replacement
of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
11. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northwestern part of Henderson County approximately 1.9 miles (3.1
kilometers) west of the town of Mills River. The project is on the edge of the Pisgah National
Forest (see Figure 1). Development in the area is rural agricultural in nature.
SR 1338 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System and
is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route and there is no
indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1338 has a 17-foot (5.2-meter) pavement width with 4-foot (1.2-
meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is a sag vertical curve through
the project area. The existing bridge is on a tangent that extends approximately 500 feet (152
meters) west and 200 feet (61 meters) from the structure. The roadway is situated approximately
15.3 feet (4.7 meters) above the rive: bed.
The current traffic volume of 1950 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2630 VPD
by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and
2 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit on this section of SR 1338 is 45 miles
(72 kilometers) per hour, but 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour curves exist east and west of the
site.
Bridge No. 6 is a one-span one-lane structure that consists of a timber deck with an asphalt
wearing surface on low steel truss and steel joists. The substructure consists of masonry
abutments. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1954 and is in fair condition.
The overall length of the structure is 88 feet (26.8 meters). The clear roadway width is 17.9 feet
(5.5 meters). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 16 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for
TTST's.
4W
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but power and telephone lines are
underground on both approaches and overhead as they cross South Fork Mills River on the
upstream side of the structure. An underground 20-inch waterline is located along the southside
shoulder of SR 1338. Also, the Mills River Volunteer Fire Department has a pump station and
hydrant under the east end of the structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to be moderate.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 6 during the period from September
1993 to August 1996
Four school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 110 feet (33 meters) long and 30
feet (9.2 meters) wide. The replacement structure will require a spill-through abutment on each
end. This structure will provide two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes with 3-foot (1.0-meter) shoulders
on each side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The final design of
the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the current 100-
year floodplain limits. The length of the new structure may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width, to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes and 8-foot (2.4-meter) shoulders on each side, in accordance with the
current NCDOT design Policy. Typical sections of the proposed approach roadway are included
as Figure 4.
This project does not meet the requirements outlined in NCDOT's Guidelines for the Location
and Design of Hazardous Spill Basins. While South Fork Mills River is classified as WS-II Tr by
NCDWQ, SR 1338 is not classified as an arterial route and does not have unusually high truck
traffic therefore hazardous spill basins are not warranted at this site.
This project must be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
forwarded to TVA for approval. The TVA will also be included in the list of agencies receiving a
copy of this document for their records.
4^
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 6 that were studied are described below.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 433
feet (132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the structure. The design
speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will be required due to
the poor vertical alignment of the existing roadway. A temporary on-site detour will be provided
during the construction period north (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary
detour will require a 90-foot (27-meter) bridge with a roadway grade approximately 5.0 feet (1.5
meters) lower than the existing bridge deck. The on-site detour will be about 2180 feet (665
meters) in length.
This alternative is not recommended because of the additional adverse impact on the ecosystem
due to the proposed on-site detour and the potential displacement of a residence. Also, the cost of
this alternative is more than Alternative 2 because it requires a temporary detour structure.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer does not prefer Alternative I because it may result in the
displacement of a residence immediately adjacent to the existing bridge. Also, it necessitates the
construction of a costly on-site detour.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment
approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing structure. The new
alignment will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour and will be
approximately 1,970 feet (600 meters) in length. The existing structure and approaches will serve
to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period (see Figure 2).
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
A third alternative was considered that closed the road, replaced the bridge in its existing
location, and maintained traffic with an off-site detour. The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer
rejected this alternative because the proposed off-site detour would require the use of soil and
gravel roads. Any other possible off-site detour in the project area was unacceptable due to its
length.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1338.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Bridge No. 6 will be replaced approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream of the existing
location as shown by Alternative 2 in Figure 2.
45k
This alternative is preferred because it is the least costly, allows traffic to be maintained on-site,
has a minimal impact on adjacent properties, and is less disruptive to the natural environment in
the vicinity of the project.
The NCDOT Division 14 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of Alternative 2 as the
preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:

I Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Preferred
tructure $ 234,500 $ 234,500
Approaches
oadway $ 210,900 $ 487,900
Detour Structure and Approaches $ 655,600 -0-
Structure Removal $ 12,600 $ 12,600
Misc. & Mob. $ 207,000 $ 332,000
Eng. & Contingencies $ 205,000 $ 183,000
Total Construction Cost $1,525,000 $1,250,000
Right-of-way Costs $ 70,000 $ 80,000
otal Project Cost $1,595,000 $1,330,000
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2000-2006 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), is $538,000, including $33,000 for right-of-way, $420,000 for construction and
$85,000 spent in prior years.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 19, 1998 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed
bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1) search
for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and
5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed
bridge replacement.
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Skyland, NC 7.5 minute series
topographic map (1991); Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of
Henderson County, NC (1980); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory map (Skyland, NC, 1995); USFWS Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
An
Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (May, 1998); North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database of rare species and unique habitats (January,
1998); and NCDOT aerial photography of the study area. Research using these resources was
conducted prior to the field investigation.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques, including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows.
Impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 60.0 feet (18.3 meters)
wide right-of-way limits and the width of the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches. The actual construction impacts should
be less, but without specific replacement stricture design information (pier intrusions, etc.) the
worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Mountain Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. The topography of the project vicinity can
be characterized as nearly level to steeply sloped. Elevation in the vicinity ranges from
approximately 2120 to 2500 feet (646 to 762 meters) above mean sea level (msl). The elevation
in the project area is about 2120 to 2140 feet (646 to 652 meters) above msl. Current land use in
the project vicinity is predominantly a mixture of rural residential, agricultural, and undeveloped
properties.
The Soil Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina indicates that Hayesville-Bradson is the
general soil association found in the project area. This association consists of gently sloping to
moderately steep well drained soils that have a loamy and clayey subsoil. The Hayesville-
Bradson soil association includes the following soils in the project vicinity.
Fannin silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes is mapped by the soil survey as occurring at the
western end of the project limit. Fannin silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes is mapped as occurring
on both sides of the northeastern approach. These soils are well drained and moderately
permeable. Fannin silt loam is not listed as a hydric soil. Field conditions generally conform to
soil survey mapping of the proposed project area, with the exception that soils adjacent to the
river at the northeast approach are more consistent with Rosman loam, which is also mapped on
both sides of the southwest approach.
Rosman loam is a well drained and moderately well drained alluvial soil commonly found
adjacent to streams on wide floodplains. Upon field investigation of the soils in the agricultural
fields on both sides of the southwest bridge approach mapped as Rosman loam, a massive
subsurface layer was found at a depth of about 8 inches (20 centimeters). This massive layer is
compatible with the Rosman classification. Rosman loam is not listed as hydric.
5
1W
Evard soils, 25 to 45 percent slopes occur mid-slope along the western approach to the bridge.
These well drained soils are typically found on the sides of mountains. These soils are not listed
as hydric.
Brevard loam soils, 7 to 15 percent slopes, occur on smooth foot slopes or benches at the base
of high Appalachian Mountains. These well drained soils are found at the eastern end of the
eastern approach to the bridge. Brevard loam soils are not listed as hydric.
C. Water Resources
1. Stream Characteristics
The proposed project falls within the French Broad River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
FRB3 (04-03-03) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of French Broad-06010105. The
South Fork Mills River flows northwest through the proposed project area with a width of
approximately 30 feet (9 meters) at Bridge No. 6. The depth of the river was approximately 1.0
to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6 meters) on the day of the investigation. The South Fork Mills River has a
Class WS-II Tr rating from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). Class WS-II indicates waters protected as water supplies. These waters
are found in predominantly undeveloped watersheds where point source discharges of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0 104, Considerations in Assigning Water Supply
Classifications, and .0211, Fresh Surface Water Classifications and Standards, of this subchapter;
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge are required; suitable for all
Class C uses. A Class C designation indicates the river's suitability for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental
classification, Tr, following the Class WS-II designation indicates the river is suitable for natural
trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. The Classification Date and Index for this
portion of the river is 8/3/92, 6-54-3 (17.5).
Point-source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within the project vicinity,
[0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers)] was conducted for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitted discharges and none were found.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from SR 1338 as well as
the agricultural fields may cause water quality degradation.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates
of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses benthos data as
a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in
water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
(BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this method out
approximately six years ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment sampling protocol.
Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling
stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical and
physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), as
6
AM
another method to determine general water quality in the basinwide sampling. The NCIBI is a
modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et
al. (1986). The IBI method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by
examining the structure and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information
about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition.
The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal
communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
The DWQ has a sampling station located at SR 1340, upstream of the project study area on the
South Fork Mills River. This station was last sampled in June of 1993, with a DWQ sampling
identification number of 6193. The NCIBI rating of the South Fork Mills River at this location
was determined to be Excellent.
Although outside the project area, Clearwater Branch, which is located approximately [0.9 miles
(1.4 kilometers)] southeast of the bridge, is another water resource of note because of its
classification. Clearwater Branch has a WS-II Tr ORW rating from the NCDENR. The WS-II
rating indicates waters protected as water supplies, and the Tr indicates suitability for natural
trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. The ORW indicates Outstanding Resource
Waters, which are unique and special waters of exceptional state or national recreational or
ecological significance which require special protection to maintain existing uses.
2. Anticipated Impacts
Aside from the South Fork Mills River and Clearwater Branch, no other High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II: predominately undeveloped
watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
project study area. The aquatic community in the study area exists within the South Fork Mills
River. The proposed bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 0.07 acres
(0.03 hectares) of stream bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual disturbance may
be less). The new replacement structure construction and approach work will likely increase
sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation could be harmful
to local populations of invertebrates, which are an important part of the aquatic food chain.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best management practices and the
use of High Quality Waters erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-
approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the
NCDWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters and additional guidelines for the protection of
waters designated as High Quality Waters by NCDWQ. The following are examples of standard
methods to reduce sedimentation and water quality impacts:
• Strict adherence to BMPs for the protection of surface waters during the life of the
project.
• Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into the water bodies.
• Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff
and decrease sediment loadings.
• Minimization of clearing and grubbing along the riverbank.
Awk,
The following are examples of the guidelines that have been developed to further protect High
Quality Waters:
• A maximum has been set for the amount of uncovered disturbed area allowed at the site
at any given time. This maximum is twenty acres.
• All flood control measures will be designed to protect for the 25-year storm, instead of
the ten-year storm used for standard measures.
• Sedimentation basins have efficiency criteria set at catching 70% of 40-micron size soil
particles in a two-year storm.
• Ground cover should be re-established in 15 working days or 60 calendar days.
3. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project study area. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of plant communities
is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common name only. Vascular
plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information
is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations,
evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
D. Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial community found in the project study area is Man-Dominated. The
northern quadrant of the northeastern approach contains remnants of a forested community,
however the area has been disturbed and the surrounding landscape is dissected into residential
and agricultural areas to the extent that the original community that was once within the project
area cannot be determined. Further discussion of the Man-Dominated community, along with
associated fauna, is given below.
1. Man-Dominated Community
The man influenced community within the project area includes road shoulders, agricultural
fields, residential properties, and areas that exhibit remnants of previously forested communities.
On both sides of the southwest approach, the road shoulders are approximately 3.0 to 4.0 feet
(0.9 to 1.2 metes) wide, grading into steep embankments which descend to agricultural fields.
Vegetation on the shoulders and embankments includes blackberry (Rubus argutus), white clover
(Trifolium repens), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), and planted regularly maintained grass. A
culvert extends under the road in the vicinity of the agricultural fields.
A residential property is located on the south side of the northeast approach near the corner of the
bridge. The property owner maintains grass to the edge of the river. There are additional
residential properties with maintained lawns along the south side of the northeast approach, and
.n
the road shoulders in this area are a mixture of dandelion (Tara-cacum offcinale), plantain
(Plantago sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), and planted grass.
A private road with a gate is located on the north side of the northeast approach, along with
beehives kept by the property owner south of the road. Vegetation in this area has been disturbed
in the past and trash has been dumped near the corner of the bridge. The soils are well drained
and the topography is sloping in this quadrant of the project area. This area appears to possibly
be the remains of a Mesic Mixed flardwood Forest, however there are several open areas with
weedy vegetation such as blackberry and rose (Rosa sp.). Additional species in this area include
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Corpus
florida), red mulberry (Morns rubra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia). A very thin
buffer of vegetation with similar species separates the agricultural fields from the river on both
growing in the buffer strip on the north side of the southwest approach.
2. Wildlife
Wildlife noted in the Man-Dominated community on the day of the site investigation included
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Rabbit (Sylvilagus
floridanus) scat was also observed. Other species that frequent disturbed areas could utilize this
community as well. The racoon (Procyon lotor) might be seen here and the Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) could be found here looking for insects, snails, and earthworms to eat.
Five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) might utilize this habitat to lay eggs in rotten wood or
under a rock, and the brown snake (Storeria dekayi) may be found here searching for slugs and
earthworms. Several species of birds that are adaptable to disturbed areas could also find habitat
in the Man-Dominated community.
E. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the South Fork Mills River. Within
the project study area of Bridge No. 6, the South Fork Mills River flows west to northwest and is
approximately 30 feet (9 meters) wide. The South Fork Mills River and SR 1338 cross at this
location perpendicular to each other. On the day of the field investigation the river was very clear
and the flow was moderate. The depth of the river ranged from about 1.0 to 2.0 feet (0.3 to 0.6
meters). The river substrate consisted of cobble and gravel and the banks were slightly undercut.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussels. No federally protected
mussels are known to exist in the area and no evidence of mollusks was observed. Dip netting
along the riverbank yielded several unidentified juvenile fish approximately 0.4 inches (1.0
centimeter) in length. The property owner adjacent to the bridge stated that he often fishes for
trout in the river.
The District 9 Biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
indicated the river in the project area is considered to be of high quality and has been
recommended for Wild and Scenic Status, although he was unsure if the designation had been
9
ask,
implemented. The NCDENR, Division of Water Resources was consulted regarding the
designation of the river. They said that the South Fork Mills River is not currently designated as
Wild and Scenic. The Biologist said that this is a good site for trout fishing and that downstream
in the French Broad River, the NCWRC manages for a musky (Esox sp.) fishery. He stated that
musky may breed in the tributaries, but he was wisure of reproduction times or when limitations
should be required.
1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly
in locations exhibiting slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment
loads as a consequence of erosion. Efforts will be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the
construction site.
Terrestrial Communities
Alternative 2 will result in more long-term impacts to terrestrial communities; however, in the
short term Alternative 1 will have a larger impact due to the temporary detour. Table 2 details the
anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 2
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 6 Man-Dominated Aquatic Total
Replacement Community Community
Impacts acres (ha) acres (ha) acres (ha)
Alternative 1 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82 (0.32)
Temporary Detour 2.54(l.01) 0.07 (0.03) 2.61 (2.61)
Alternative 2 2.25 (2.25) 0.07 (0.03) 2.32 (2.32)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 60.0 feet (18.3 meters) right-of-way width.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where
alternatives overlapped the existing alignment.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the South Fork Mills River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of up to 60 feet (18.3 meters) linear or 0.07
acres (0.03 hectares) of stream bottom (this represents "worst case" conditions; actual
disturbance may be less). The new replacement structure construction and approach work will
likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related sedimentation
10
400
could be harmful to local populations of invertebrates, which are an important part of the aquatic
food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of best management
practices and the use of erosion and sediment control measures for high quality waters as
specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
E. Special Topics
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). "Waters of the United States" are regulated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods of
the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and NCDWQ. Up to
60 feet of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 6.
a. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Since no significant impacts are expected from this project, a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) level study was conducted. Categorical Exclusions are subject to the
provisions of Nationwide Permit 23. This permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
federal agency. It states that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. The CE report is submitted to the
USACE to document that the terms and conditions of the Nationwide Permit 23 are met.
However, final permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the USACE. Since
Henderson County is a North Carolina trout county, concurrence with the nationwide permit will
also be required from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
If filling from a proposed project will impact wetlands or surface waters, a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification will be required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. North
Carolina has developed General Certifications (GC) that will satisfy Section 401 of the CWA and
correspond to the USACE's Nationwide Permits. An application will be made for the impacts to
"Waters of the United States".
W
b. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation will not be required by the USACE.
Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of less than 150 feet is generally not required by the
USACE or NCDWQ. A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the
USACE and NCDWQ.
2. 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.
a. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists five federally protected species for Henderson County as of September 15,
1999. These species are listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status
*Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle) Threatened (S/A)
Helonias bullata (swamp pink) Threatened
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Threatened
Sag ittariafasciculata (bunched arrowhead) Endangered
Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii (S. jonesii)
(mountain sweet pitcher plant) Endangered
Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette) Endangered
NOTES:
* This species is not listed by USFWS for Henderson County; however, USFWS
has requested that it be included with the species for this project. See Biological
Conclusion under species description for more information.
Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.)
12
Am
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (S/A) to other rare species. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 protection.
Species: Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to 3 inches (8.0
centimeters). Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The
periostracum (outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juvenile
have a yellowish-brown color.
Known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina in the Nolichucky River
(including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), the Tuckaseegee, the South
Toe, and the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The Appalachian elk-toe has been reported
from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, well-oxygenated, moderate to
fast flowing water. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly substrates often mixed
with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free, coarse, sandy
substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area has been visited three times since October 1998 by NCDOT
Environmental Specialists, US Fish and Wildlife Biologists, and/or NC Wildlife Resources
Commission Biologists to survey for mussels and other rare plant and animal species in
area rivers. The slippershell mussel (alasmidonta viridis) was the only species of mussel
found in the project area. Given the results of these surveys, it is apparent that the
Appalachian elktoe does not occur in the project area. It can be concluded that project
construction will not impact this species.
Species: Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle)
The bog turtle is a small reptile, 3.0 to 4.5 inches (7.5 to 11.5 centimeters), with a conspicuous
yellow, orange, or reddish blotch on each side of its head. The carapace is light brown to
mahogany in color, weakly keeled, and becomes rougher with age. A light brown or orange
sunburst pattern may be present on large scutes. Bog turtles reach sexual maturity in 5 to 7 years.
This species eats mostly insects, but will also consume worms, snails, amphibians, and seeds.
Mountain habitat in North Carolina consists of sunlit marshy meadows, spring seepages, wet cow
pastures, and bogs. Narrow, shallow, slow-moving rivulets are preferred. According to the May
14, 1998 USFWS rare species list, the northern population of the bog turtle, which includes New
York south to Maryland, is listed as threatened. The southern population, which includes
Virginia south to Georgia, is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance. This bans the
collection and trade of bog turtles from the southern population, but makes no special land
management requirements upon private land owners in North Carolina. Since the southern
population is not biologically threatened and is not subject to Section 7 consultation, a
biological conclusion is not needed.
13
ilk
Species: Helonias bullata (swamp pink)
Swamp pink is a perennial, which is one of the first wildflowers to bloom in the spring. It
possesses fragrant, pink flowers that occur in clusters of 30 to 50. Its dark evergreen, lance-
shaped, and parallel-veined leaves form a basal rosette which arises from a stout stem which can
extend to a height of 8 to 35 inches (20 to 90 centimeters) during flowering. This plant tends to
reproduce by clonal root growth and grow in clumps close to the parent plants. Due to this, plant
populations can be extremely dense with some populations in the southern Appalachians having
plant densities of 56 plants per 10.7 feet (1.0 meter) square. Flowers are present from March to
May.
In North Carolina, the largest populations of swamp pink are found in the Pisgah National Forest
in the "Pink Beds" area. Seven other populations occur in Jackson, Henderson and Transylvania
counties. Swamp pink occurs in numerous wetland habitats including Atlantic white-cedar
swamps, Blue Ridge swamps, swampy forested wetlands which border small streams, meadows
and spring seepage areas. The species requires habitat, which is saturated with water, but not
flooded. Swamp pink ranges over seven states, and is often associated with evergreen trees such
as Atlantic white cedar, pitch pine, American larch and black spruce. Swamp pink is somewhat
shade tolerant and needs enough canopy to minimize competition with other more aggressive
species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project study area for the swamp pink due to a lack of wetlands in
the area. A search of the NCNIEIP database showed no reported occurrences of this species
in the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the swamp pink.
Species: Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia)
Flowers Present: mid-May to mid-June
The small-whorled pogonia is a perennial with long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem
3.7 to 9.8 inches (9.5 to 25.0 centimeters) tall. The stem terminates in a whorl of 5 or 6 light
green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed and measure up to 3.2 x 1.6 inches (8.0 x 4.0
centimeters). A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the stem, however,
individual plants may not flower every year. Extended dormancy, although not scientifically
documented, is purported to occur under certain conditions.
Twenty-three populations of the small-whorled pogonia occur in the southeastern United States.
These populations are known from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Five populations occur in North Carolina. Most Southeastern populations of this plant number
less than 25 plants. Habitat for the small-whorled pogonia usually occurs in open, dry deciduous
woods with acid soils. This species also occurs in areas with relatively high shrub coverage or
high-density saplings, however flowering appears to be inhibited in these situations.
14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat for this species does not occur within the project area. There are not deciduous
woods or rich cove hardwoods within the project area. In addition, the NCNHP showed no
reported occurrences of the small-whorled pogonia within the project vicinity. This project
will not affect the small-whorled pogonia.
Species: Sagittaria psciculata (bunched arrowhead)
Bunched arrowhead is an immersed aquatic perennial herb. It has spatulate-shaped basal leaves.
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.
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 and have smaller, less
vigorous plants. Soils are characterized as sandy loam below a muck layer ranging in depth from
10 to 24 inches (25 to 60 centimeters).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project area for the bunched arrowhead. The soils are not of the
correct type and there are no bogs present. There are no reported occurrences of this plant
by the NCNHP within the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the bunched
arrowhead.
Species: Sarracenia rubra var. jonesii (S. jonseir) (mountain sweet pitcher plant)
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 are hairy 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 from April to June and fruits appear in August.
The mountain sweet pitch-plant is found in bogs and streams in southwestern North Carolina and
northwestern South Carolina. 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
high 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.
15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat does not exist within the project area for this species since there are no wetlands
present. There were no pitcher plants of any type within the project area at the time of the
investigation, and the NCNHP showed no reported occurrences of the mountain sweet
pitcher plant in the project area or vicinity. This project will not affect the mountain sweet
pitcher plant.
Species: Sisyrinchium dichotomum (white irisette)
White irisette is a perennial herb that grows with a dichotomous, branching pattern and reaches
heights of approximately 4 to 8 inches (11 to 20 centimeters). The basal leaves, usually pale to
bluish green, are from one-third to one-half the height of the plant. The fruit is a round, pale to
medium brown capsule containing three to six round or elliptical black seeds. Tiny white flowers
appear in four to six clusters at the ends of winged stems. The dichotomous branching pattern
and white flowers combine to distinguish this herb from other species within the genus. Flowers
are present from May to July.
White irisette is endemic to the upper Piedmont of North and South Carolina with four known
populations occurring in North Carolina and one population occurring in South Carolina. North
Carolina's populations occur in Polk, Henderson and Rutherford counties. This species has
apparently always been a narrow endemic, limited to an area in the Carolinas bounded by White
Oak Mountain, Sugerloaf Mountain, Chimney Rock and Melrose Mountain. This species occurs
on rich, basic soils probably weathered from amphibolite. It grows in clearings and the edges of
upland woods where the canopy is thin and often where down-slope runoff has removed much of
the deep leaf litter ordinarily found on these sites. The white irisette is dependent on some form
of disturbance to maintain its open habitat. Artificial disturbances such as power line and road
right-of-way maintenance are maintaining open areas that may have been historically been
maintained by native grazing animals and naturally occurring fires.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Soils within the project area are not appropriate for this species. The site investigation was
conducted during the flowering time of this species and it was searened for, even though
the soils were inappropriate. The plant was not found and the NCNHP database showed no
reported occurrences of the white irisette in the project area or vicinity. This species will
not be affected by this project.
b. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa which may
or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species or
species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the
16
NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of'
1979. Table 4 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Henderson County and their state
classifications (NCNHP, January 1998).
TABLE 4
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES OF
CONCERN IN HENDERSON COUNTY
Scientific Name (Common Name) North Carolina
Status Habitat
Present
,4neides aeneus (green salamander) Endangered No
Cambarus reburriis (French Broad crayfish) Significantly Rare No
Carex schweinitzi (Schweinitz's sedge) Endangered No
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis (hellbender) Special Concern Yes
Hexastylis contracta (mountain heartleaf) Endangered Yes
Hexastylis rhombiformis (French Broad heartleaf) Candidate Yes
Juglans cinerea (butternut) Not Listed Yes
Juncus caesariensi.s (rough rush = New Jersey rush) Candidate/
Prop. Endangered No
Lasmigona holstonia (Tennessee heelsplitter) Endangered Yes
Lilium grayi (Gray's lily) Threatened -
Special Concern No
Lysimachia fraseri (Fraser's loosestrife) Endangered No
Marshallia grandiora (large-flowered Barbara's button) Candidate No
Monotropsis odorata (sweet pinesap) Candidate Yes
Myotis leibii (Eastern small-footed myotis) Special Concern No
*Narthecium americanum (bog asphodel) Endangered No
NeotomaJloridana haematoreia (Southern Appalachian
woodrat) Special Concern No
Plantantherea integrilabia (white fringeless orchid) Endangered No
Senecio millefolium (divided-leaf ragwort) Threatened No
Silene ovata (mountain catchfly) Candidate No
Speyeria dana (Diana fritillary) Significantly Rare No
NOTES:
Candidate (species which are considered by the State as being rare and
needing population monitoring).
Threatened (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Endangered (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Not Listed (species whose status is not listed at this time).
17
Special Concern (species which are afforded protection by state laws).
Significantly Rare (species for which population monitoring and conservation action
is recommended).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
No habitat exists in the project area for any federally protected species known to occur in
Henderson County. Habitat is present in the project area for six FSC species listed in the county.
No rare species were observed at the time of the site visit and no impacts are expected to occur to
protected species.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
In a memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
indicated that the only structure of architectural importance in the general project area is Bridge
No. 6, which has been determined not to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. Photographs of all other structures in the APE were reviewed with an NCDOT
Architectural Historian and representatives of the SHPO on November 13, 1998. None of the
other properties were considered to be eligible as indicated in a concurrence form dated
December 30, 1998. Copies of the concurrence form and the memorandum are included in the
Appendix.
C. Archaeology
Also, in their memorandum dated October 6, 1998 the SHPO recommended that "a
comprehensive archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project."
During the course of the archaeological investigation two archaeological sites were located
within the project area. However, no further investigation of these sites has been recommended
and in a memorandum dated October 12, 1999 the SHPO concurred with that recommendation
since neither site involves significant archaeological resources. No further archaeological work
will be conducted in connection with this project. Copies of these memorandums are included in
the Appendix.
18
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards
and specifications.
Me project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in
land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
SR 1338 is a boundary for the Pisgah National Forest, property to the south of SR 1338 is within
the boundary of this National Forest. However, all studied alternatives for this project involve
land to the north of SR 1338. The United States Forest Service has indicated that the project will
not effect any land in the Pisgah National Forest.
Bridge No. 6 is located on SR 1338 over South Fork Mills River in Henderson County. The
superstructure is composed completely of timber and steel, and the substructure is not located in
the river. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any component into Waters of
the U.S. during construction.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resource Conservation Service.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects.
There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage
within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air
19
Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Henderson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will
result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
20

1340 ?? 1333
1422 c?
BU i ERi?1: . 1440 3M T i?J . 2
Ql? N 1.2 C
a 1316
N
2078 1421
1487 ? m 1316 - 2088-
1 1327
F A R KI N -1366 1328 1318 1.1
M T N ,
2
1423 P? 4 2208 f
) ry 3 1419.-
"XI
CANE M7 N 1496
4 - -- a
,349
P IS G A H 10
--- - ° M 1443
,l7Ji70W?i/ _-
m \
13,16 0 1350 1.4
?r:B- 3191 1?51-
I !347 1318 \
- l 191 `,,
1345
N A T 1 0 N A L 28Q
5 s 9
337 2019 2214
-3= o I 1338 -- 2020 1338 .5
1343 , `- 3
3 ? 4 Mills River
1342 s \ p 2
K l h j 1339 ?
1336 11, 5 2213 q
1_33_8_ 1498 1328 a 6
F O R E S T 134 - X335 1332
- 1331
s 3 1.0
6 ° 1426
? 2053 --
y " Y
Mills lhv?
l s. * l ®-
enrose Fist Rock t g k
• Zircoms
I- Ed- Sr fn"'r ? $al 1
(Ile River Tuxedo
HIV Bit Cave
Fletc at 64 1
mounlsi? Fruition lew
Home Edneyville
OSON
74 (East Flat
ilOE Rock
North Carolina Department Of
-?. Transportation
?G r Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
B-3191
0 Kdometers 1.6 kiiometers 3.2
i. I - i
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 1

f
It
P'ItNL.)tKbUN 9-%JUN I T
<< fi / BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
B-3191
r.
j r
r? r SIDE VIEW
_ LOOKING NORTH

EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
?r

X71 co
C') x
W
G v C?
a G T r X, c7
A o E a ^? ? iz
a_ O z

z CD rn
c
Cf)

°'= xz
w
E.. 0
o.... C C7
L] O
Ul
;roa-?
Q
x
x
'i o I

Clq
Elm

?_

C
1

00
*N l

O
I
o Z
? i I
3 O
I

Ei 1 W Ei Ni
N

N
A
M ^ ?
I OI OI N

Q h=

- U
QD
CL
ad 0

E;
%0 i
-41- C411
OIL
CI w
a?

Q
Oi
ad
Q
[) N
tV Cp I Q c) 1 Z
? V O C
- - -
o I
E
W L
T or v
00
N o?
i
N
b ?
?I
O CO CO

$ ? w
O O
`o r

C O ?O

Z F- - CV
N
? II II
------ - J II
r N
VVVLL ? ? O
N
ry uj "
'- N d
? J a z Z
? t c?

O 1; Z
8 O N
ui

Z

U.

[ CD c?

CC \, w w ro z? ? U

0
Qa U]
0
C
O O
O
a
I
chO 00
I
_ i0.nE;
co
U
co
^-
N c o O m
' w z ?D
F'
o ° C
z w 1

zoCLw
U 71

I
I
?y
2
I
N
M ? W

I QJ
i
7
0
V ?
W
N
I
I W
i

I co
I
? I
V

I V
O
~
0

J ca m

N
N?: N
O O
r- W
V O O
Z LL
C
Cl
,O
O N
? N
~
s
J II
?I II
a
°O C4
O
W ? N N

v d

w
Z W
Q
Z
Z
O
M O
Q
M
= D
U.
N
'>a Aorr.h Carolina Urp:irtment Of
Oran p.)rtatloll
L s Project Development ??
b. 1
Ejiviroriiiicn!at Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 6 ON SR 1338
OVER SOUTH MILLS RIVER
B-3191
A ev 2.0
FIGURE 6
FEN1A - Floodplain Map of Project Area
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P 3cx 189C
? `roll` `.uvf`I ?':?•^'r1 `8402 139-'
July 12, 1999
_ aEL_-
Planning Services Section ?,,?'.?? '??'.,?
J
a ,J;Ji ? : Ic4?
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager \
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
This is in response to a letter from your office dated July 18, 1998, addressed to
Mr. Steve Lund of our Asheville Regulatory Field Office, and faxed to Mr. Lund on
May 13, 1999, requesting comments on six proposed bridge replacements in five
western North Carolina counties. These counties and TIP Nos. are Madison - B-2583,
Haywood - B-3187 and B-3660, Henderson - 6-3191, Jackson - B-3196, and
Rutherford - 8-3238, (Regulatory Division Action ID Nos. 199930825, 199930826,
199930830, 1999 03 827, 199930828, and 199930829, respectively).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources that
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. Enclosed are our
comments on these issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects. If we can be of
further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
W. Coleman Long
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
July 12, 1999
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON;
Six Bridge Replacements in Five Western North Carolina Counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis Planning Services Section, at
[phone]
Henderson County does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP). However, we recommend that the proposed crossing improvement in that
county be designed so as not to significantly increase upstream water surface
elevations. The remaining four counties are participants in the NFIP. The crossing in
Madison County is located within the jurisdictional limits of the town of Marshall, which is
also a participant in the NFIP. Of these, the crossing of the West Fork Pigeon River in
Haywood County and, possibly, the French Broad River crossing in the town of Marshall
involve detailed study streams with 100-year flood elevations determined and floodways
defined. The crossings of Fines Creek in Haywood County and West Fork Tuckasegee
River in Jackson County are on approximately mapped streams, which do not have
100-year flood elevations shown. We do not have flood maps in our office that cover
the French Broad River crossing in Marshall and the Second Broad River crossing in
Rutherford County. We refer you to the community and county for possible flood
ordinance requirements relative to these crossings. A summary of flood plain
information that we have pertaining to the bridges in the NFIP participating counties is
contained in the following table. This information was taken from the pertinent Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream BFE* FIRM
328 SR 1001 Madison French Broad R. 5/78*
79 SR 1112 Haywood W. Fk. Pigeon R. 2687** 8/98
204 SR 1334 Haywood Fines Creek Approx. 7/84
193 SR 1157 Jackson W. Fk. Tuckasegee Approx. 5/89
* Flood map not in our office. Refer to town of Marshall for ordinance requirements.
** Base (100-year) Flood Elevation in feet N.G.V.D.
July 12, 1999
Page 2 of 3
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
For the detail study stream crossings, reference is made to the Federa! Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA's) "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished
previously to your office. Improvements to the bridges should be designed to meet the
requirements of the NFIP, administered by the FEMA, and be in compliance with all
local ordinances. Specific questions pertaining to community flood plain regulations or
developments should be referred to the local building official.
Except for Rutherford County, all of the affected counties are within the planning
jurisdiction of the USAED, Nashville District. The Nashville District does not currently
have projects that would be affected by the proposed bridge projects. Mr. Harry Blazek
may be contacted at [phone] for further information and comments from the
Nashville District.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steve Lund, Project Manager Asheville
Field Office Regulatory Division at (828).271-4857
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, U.S. Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required
for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any
adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge
replacements, including disposal of construction debris. Specific permit requirements
will depend on design of the projects, extent of fill work within waters of the United
States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and
other factors.
Although these projects may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion, in order for the
proposal to be considered for authorization under Nationwide Permit No.23, the project
planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the proposed
activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on the
aquatic environment. Please be reminded that, prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) should provide a letter of notification to the Asheville
Regulatory Field Office and the appropriate North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission office with reference to impacts to mountain trout water habitat. The
mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the utilization of nationwide
permits.
July 12, 1999
Page 3 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued
Our experience has shown that replacing bridges with culverts often results in
sufficient adverse impacts to consider the work as having more than minimal impacts on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the following items need to be addressed in the
project planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Offsite detours are always preferable to onsite (temporary) detours in wetlands.
If an onsite detour is the recommended action, justification should be provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands and "time-of-the-year" restrictions on in-stream work if
recommended by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, if
undercutting is necessary for temporary detours, the undercut material should be
stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
d. All restored areas should be planted with endemic vegetation, including trees, if
appropriate,
e. The report should provide an estimate of the linear feet of new impacts to
streams resulting from construction of the project.
f. If a bridge is proposed to be replaced with a culvert, NCDOT must demonstrate
that the work will not result in more than minimal impacts on the aquatic environment,
specifically addressing the passage of aquatic life, including anadromous fish. In
addition, the report should address the impacts that the culvert would have on
recreational navigation.
g. In addition, to be considered for authorization, discharge of demolition material
into waters and wetlands and associated impacts must be disclosed and discussed in
the project planning report.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Division would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Lund.
C
Tonnasseo Valloy Authority, ICS °; :St : ur.rr; t u ; vy, r<: cx, de, .: r Ssee 379C ;.199
October 22, 1998
tit: - William D. Gilmore, P. E.. iManager
!'fanning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department ot" hransportaiion
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
RAC
6
/99
GROUP XV BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS, FRENCH BROAD RIVER, WEST FORK PIGEON
RIVER, SOUTH MILLS RIVER, WEST FORK TUCKASEGEE RIVER, AND FINES CREEK, HAYWOOD,
I IENDERSON, JACKSON, AND MADISON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
TVA has reviewed the scoping notice for the following proposed bridge replacements in western North Carolina:
• B-2583, SR 1001 over French Broad River, Madison County
• B-3187, SR 1112 over West Fork Pigeon River, Haywood County
• B-3660, SR 1334 over Fines Creek, Haywood County
• B-3191, SR 1338 over South Mills River, Henderson County
• B-3196, SR 1157 over West Fork Tuckasegee River (Thorpe Dam Spillway), Jackson County
The environmental document prepared for these projects should note that approvals under Section 26a of the
TVA Act would be required for the bridge replacements and structure modifications. TVA would hope to use the
Federal Highway Administration Categorical Exclusion documents as support for its environmental review of the
same actions. Therefore, the inclusion of information related to wetlands and potential mitigation, Floodplain
Management Executive Order, National Historic Preservation Act compliance, and Endangered Species Act
compliance would lower TVA's review costs and greatly facilitate TVA's eventual approval of the projects.
Other issues to be discussed would vary according to project location and impacts but may include, as
arpropr:a;e, 3ti,tc-!i5tcd specie:; (blodiver:il j 11TIpac:s) and visual innpzcts.
Please invite TVA to any interagency meetings, i f any are found to be necessary. Please send a copy of the
completed environmental documents to'CVA.
Should you have any questions, please contact I larold M. Draper at [phone] or hmdraper a tva.gov.
Sincerely,
Jon N1. 1?yrt
Environmental Management
r
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

APPROVED:
? o0 1 .L h,vrx-cam
U/William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
DATE
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHtiVA
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2000
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
C 14"
4 SEAL
21071 a
William T. Goodwin, PE D e
9.
Project Manager ??'.,??tGII??????`
04
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Stacy B. Ais, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITiti1ENTS
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following
special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, Resident Engineer and Roadway Design
Unit
No in-stream work will be conducted between November 1 and April 15 to avoid impacts on
trout reproduction.
Sedimentation and Erosion Controls Measures for Protection of High Quality Waters will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
The final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-
year flood elevation, and a copy of the completed environmental document will be forwarded to
TVA for approval.
Green Sheet
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion
December 2000
Henderson County
Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 (S. Mills River Road)
over South Fork Mills River
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1338(2)
State Project No. 8.2951201
T.I.P. No. B-3191
1. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved December 9, 1999. The
recommended alternative (Alternative 2) was to replace Bridge No. 6 on new alignment
approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing bridge. New information is
available that makes another alternative a more reasonable and feasible alternative. The new
recommended alternative (Alternative 3), replacing the bridge in-place with traffic detoured off-
site, was considered and rejected in the Categorical Exclusion because one of the detour roads
was unpaved. The Division has since taken steps to pave the road and work is scheduled to be
complete by the end of 2000.
II. DISCUSSION
The three alternatives considered in the Categorical Exclusion involved a replacement structure
consisting of a bridge 110 feet (33 meters) long and 30 feet (9.2 meters) wide. The replacement
structure will require spill-through abutments at both ends. This structure will provide two 12-
foot (3.6-meter) lanes with a three-foot (1.0-meter) shoulder on each side.
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of approximately 433 feet
(132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the structure. The design speed
is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will be required due to the poor
vertical alignment of the existing roadway. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during
the construction period north (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will
require a 90-foot (27-meter) bridge with a roadway grade approximately five feet (1.5 meters)
lower than the existing bridge deck. The on-site detour will be about 2,180 feet (665 meters) in
length.
Alternative 2 (Preferred in CE) involves replacement of the structure on new roadway
alignment approximately 40 feet (12 meters) downstream (north) of the existing structure. The
new alignment will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour and will be
approximately 1,970 feet (600 meters) in length. The existing structure and approaches will serve
to maintain traffic on-site during the construction period.
Alternative 3 (New preferred) involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of
approximately 433 feet (132 meters) to the west and 361 feet (110 meters) to the east of the
structure. The design speed is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour; however a design exception will
be required due to the poor vertical alignment of the existing roadway. During construction
traffic will be detoured off-site along existing area roads.
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the draft 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $1,330,000, including $80,000 for right-of-way and $1,250,000
for construction.
The table below details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat
type. Impacts to terrestrial plant communities are indicative of the relative abundance of each
community type in the study area. Estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed
right-of-way width. Project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore actual
impacts may be lower.
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and A UATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge No. 6
Replacement
Impacts Man-Dominated
Community
Acres (ha) Aquatic
Community
Acres (ha) Total

Acres (ha)
Alternative 1 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82 (0.32)
Temporary Detour 2.54(l.01) 0.07 (0.03) 2.61 (2.61)
Alternative 2 2.25 (2.25) 0.07 (0.03) 2.32 (2.32)
Alternative 3 0.76 (0.30) 0.06 (0.02) 0.82 (0.32)
NOTES:
• Impacts are based on 60.0 feet (18.3 meters) right-of-way width.
• Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total impact where
alternatives overlapped the existing alignment.
• Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations
were based on the worse case scenario.
One environmental consequence of the studied alternatives has changed since completion of the
Categorical Exclusion. The relocation of one residence is an unavoidable impact of Alternatives
1 and 3. Originally. it was thought that this impact could be avoided during the initial design of

The estimated costs for the three alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
r
Alternative 1. However, after further design work and consideration of Alternative 3, this
relocation is an unavoidable impact for these alternatives.
Other environmental consequences of the alternatives are considered to be approximately equal
and are limited in scope. These impacts are accurately described in the Categorical Exclusion.
Alternative 3 is essentially Alternative I without the on-site detour, therefore impacts attributable
to Alternative 3 are the same as those impacts attributed to the Alternative 1 bridge replacement.
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held for the project on April 24, 2000 at the North and
South Mills Community Center. Approximately 40 local citizens attended the meeting. The
property owner impacted by Alternative 3 was among those in attendance. Citizens support
seemed to be nearly evenly split between the three alternatives. The Division Engineer concurs
with Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. The Haywood County Fire Marshal was contacted
for comments on the detour and its possible effect on emergency response to the affected area.
By letter, dated September 13, 2000, he indicated that the advantages offered by replacement of
the bridge greatly outweigh any temporary inconveniences. [See appendix]
III. RECOMMENDATION
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 6 in-place as described by Alternative 3 above. Traffic will be
detoured along existing area roads during construction (see Figure 1).

142
J? .4 .3
1496
-? C NE M N. \ 4
F.
I 1 9 1443
A
13-:6 g-3191
0 `
9 134© T
1341 19
20
N A L
.9
5 0 r__? \`j ---? .
/ - 2 9 2214
1337
/ 1345 2020 1338 Mills Rivor
3
343\
p 1
OG KNOB az s \ 1339 1 s ti 5 2213 -? ` _
132e
e
1338 1493
t , 'moo % 1332
F `n C`` S 1334
1331
7 1335 0 p
K C n ' .3 10
7 1 26
Z 1333 ? L053
2
BUTTERMILK 1440
200
MTN.
1316
/tn0 y 31r ` GZ` _
!323 X
186
TA IL N._ I1 j l
T N.
1\ ?
LEGEND
5 iiudiod nolour ROU10 -€>- -?--?-
FNtc
FIWp `
` r, ' MOrlntfr Y
:t11E; µo'1^f oMl^.ne
SON
a f ?
FA twr>t14 tEfst flat
dtROnvi Rod
i
er.oso ilf'r?nrf I S
a rM. ;, ,.:,w 2 of
?tlf Fbvw ;cl¦ L.l
:\Iorth Carolina )cpuftinent Of
rvrinaportation
Project DevelopnleuL S
3n n-v iron me.nLal Analysis
HENDERSON v?JUNrf
BRIDGE ,`10.0 ON SR 1338
OVER 30UTH FORK ;MILLS RIVER
3-3191
.? nllos 1.0 ,nlloP 2.0
`?FIGURE I
e.. VAlj
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
James B. Hunt Jr.
GoVER\OR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 07, 1999
Memorandum To:
Attention:
From:
Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Unit
Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Project Manager
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
Environmental Unit
David McCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
Subject: Protected species surveys for proposed replacement of bridge no.
6 over South Mills River on SR 1338; Henderson County;
TIP No. B-3191.
Reference: Natural Resources Technical Report for B-3191, prepared by
Resources Southeast, Ltd., December 1998.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. 6 over the South
Mills River. The referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) gave a
Biological Conclusion of "Unresolved" for the federally Endangered Appalachian elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana). Although this species is not listed by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) as occurring in Henderson County, the Mills River is within the
historic distribution of this species, and other rare mussel species have been recorded in
the river. Because of the high probability that the Appalachian elktoe occurred in the
Mills River at one time, the FWS recommended that NCDOT conduct surveys for mussel
fauna.
The Mills River subbasin was visited on three separate occasions:
1). NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge and Michael Wood visited the
subject project on October 13, 1998. Surveys for mussel fauna were conducted using
mask and snorkel in the vicinity of the bridge. No mussels were found in 2 man- hours of
surveying.
2). On December 11, 1998, various locations in the Mills River Subasin were
visited by Tim Savidge, NCDOT Specialist Shannon Simpson, US Fish and wildlife
Biologists Mark Cantrell and John Fridell, and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Biologist Scott Marsh. Mussel surveys were conducted at various locations including the
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
South Fork Mills River at SR 1338 (subject project area), North Fork Mills River SR
1345 and SR 1343, and Mills River at NC 191/280 and SR 1353. Surveys were
conducted by wading using view buckets. The slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis)
was found in the Mills River at NC 191/280 (27) and SR 1353 (7). No mussel Fauna was
found at the subject project area.
The slippershell mussel is considered Endangered* in North Carolina. Plants or
animals with state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC), are given some protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. However the level of protection given to state listed species does not apply
to NCDOT activities.
3). On May 25, 1999 Tim Savidge, NCDOT Environmental Specialist Logan
Williams and John Fridell canoed from the SR 1337 crossing of the South Mills River,
into the Mills River and then into the French Broad River, taking out at SR 1345. Mussel
surveys were conducted at various areas along this stretch of river. The slippershell
mussel was the only species found. This species appears to be distributed in the Mills
River from a short distance above NC 191/280 to below SR 1353. The hellbender
(Crytobranchus alleganiensis) a large aquatic salamander that is a Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) and the American brook lamprey (Lampetra appendix) (considered
Threatened in North Carolina) were also observed to be common in the South Mills
River.
Biological Conclusion (Appalachian elktoe): No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that the Appalachian elktoe does not occur
in the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this
species.
Recommendations: Because of the presence of the hellbender a FSC, the slippershell
mussel (Endangered in NC) and the American brook lamprey (Threatened in NC), as well
as the diverse aquatic fauna observed, the following recommendations are made: 1).
Erosion control methods that go beyond standard BMPs should be adhered to and should
be in place prior to clearing and grubbing activities if possible. 2). If possible, project
letting should be scheduled so that clearing and grubbing be restricted between
November 15 to April 01. 3). Precaution should be taken to avoid substrate disturbance,
introduction of toxic compounds (hydraulic fluids, bridge runoff etc) and alteration of
flow.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
File: B-3191
o µ STArt a
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Janus B. Bunt Jr, Governor
Bcnc kae MX.u11. Secrctar,
October 11, 1999
William D. Gilmore, PE. Nlanagk:r
Project Development and En%ironni.ata 1 Anal%s!s Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
1535 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC ?7699-1545
Diviswn cf Ar:hive, and linter.
Je1&as J. Crow. DLr-:t•:r
Re: Bridzc'6 on SR 133S over South Mills Ri-?er, B-5191, Henderson County. ER 99-7117
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for ; our letter of September 7, 1999 transmitting the archacoloaical survey report by Wak. Forest
University Laboratories concerning the above prgJQCt.
During di. course of the surrey two arclia.olo_ical sites were lccat.d ;within the project area. The authors have
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur
with this recommendation since this proicct wIli not involy. significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
500, and to Executive Order 11593, " Prot.ction and Enhancement of die Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If }ou have questions concerning the above comments. please
contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919;733-4763.
Sincerely,
Da' id-Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:bjs
cc: Kenneth W. Robinson, WFU
Roy Shelton, FhwA
Gail Grimes, PE, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location Ma ai- Address Telephone/Fa%
ADMINISTILMON 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh INC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-1617 (919)7334763733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail service Center, Raleigh NC 2 76 9 9-16 1 9 [phone];715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27G99-4613 [phone]x715.4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail S.n ice Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone]%715-4801

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 16. 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: WilliLun D. Gilmore, P.E., Ivlana,,er
Project Development' and Environmental Analvsis Bran
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook '`?;"?
Deput?r State kistoric Preservation Otficer
SUBJECT: Scope of work and two addenda, Archaeological
Survey, Bridge Replacement Projects, Multicounty,
ER 99-8971
Division of Archives and Ifistorv
Jeffrey J. Crow, Directcr
l 1
curt
;?. ?
-1 f,9?
n?
c^??A VCyL0 !L ?J
Thank you for vour memorandum of May 27, 1999, transmitting the Scope of Work for
project B-3046yand the two addenda for additional archaeological survey.
We have reviewed the Scope of Work and find it to be complete and appropriate for the
proposed bridge replacement projects. These projects include the following:
B-3071 (Wilkes Co.), B-3334 (Gaston Co.), B-3063 (Watauga Co.)
B-3248 (Surrv Co.l, B-3191 (Henderson Co.), B-3187 (Hav,,vood Co.
B-3480 (Jackson Co.), B-3483 (Macon Co.) and B-3318 (Transylvania Co.)
We look forward to receipt of the resulting archaeological survey reports.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-,a.tion's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Lee Novick, NCDOT
n? ,
d,. SU7F . _
.t
5 OCT 0 a 1
99
r 0
HIGH!,',,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
October 6, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
V
FROM: David Brook \ `•'? j? ?,
Deputy State Hsto-ric`Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge 6 on SR 1338 over South Mills
River, Henderson County, B-3191, ER 99-7417
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of July 17, 1998, concerning the above project. We apologize
for the delay in responding.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structure
of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project:
Bridge 6. This bridge has been determined ineligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project area so
we can make our survey recommendation.
Numerous archaeological sites are recorded along the South Mills River. We recommend
that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted if a change of bridge location or
alignment is anticipated.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 51

l l l [tt.??7 " l IJR?I - '0T Cam. ,i:Ji
77
tit i 15 1 V e-y
Nov. JJE?,
1
Carciina DC -.:+i C:iC 0F 1 r±:.s?.on:c.'Ct: ?NCDO i `r
..:Car Fri v.-A)
??+Gl.il 1. ?iv1li.. ?- 5: :CS . ,::.:Cr, C'- cc

11I?.:

?i?.:...-..... Si.,.._ i?.s ...=? ... r.. it _::? :IC ',\;i.?...".. .. ?...._?.._.:_ .? ...__. _..._..:..
C C: C.
% .......... ...CS CSC. 7S i.: :S' , ..........? :? ,. ?...... . __. :i v .:C:.....:i .. _.:...
P'roce rhes
Crr 4,z .. .. .. ? sic. c... -:o Z71 _...:s
C?OT_._
f OG? ?? f l (s5?f?
Divlsiori
Tl ? ?, ?U ?tll?l
R?orescRC?ci?c, 'PO Dc'c
J..".I? IlISCCr:C PrCi ..:ClCR o" .' ? ` / n•
ci'6)

MAY 6o - 1999

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
i\lE`IORANDI`,\t
T0: William D Gilmore. P.L. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT.
FRO%, f: Mark S. Davis, Mountain Region Coordinator ???. L?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 24. 1999
SUBJECT.' Comments on Group XV Bridge Replacement Projects in Haywood, Henderson. Jackson
and Madison Counties.
This memorandum responds to .our request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and
wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina (listed
below). Constriction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance
in the streambed and surrounding floodplain areas. We prefer bridge designs that do not alter the natural
stream morphology or impede fish passage. Bridge designs should also include provisions for the deck
drainage to flow through a vegetated upland buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. We are
also concerned about impacts to designated Public 1lountain Trout Waters (PMTW) and environmental
documentation for these projects should include description of any streams or wetlands on the project site
and surveys for any threatened or endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-2583 - Madison County, Bridge No. 328 on SR 1001 over French Broad River
We have not identified any special concerns associated with this project.
B-3187 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1112 over West Fork Pigeon River
The West Fork Pigeon River is designated Hatchery Supported PN1TW. The river also supports a
wild trout population in the project area. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with
another spanning structure. In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required
by NCWRC should read instream work should not be conducted between November I and April
15.
Group XV Bridges Page 2 May 24, 1999
B-3191 - Henderson County, Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over South Mills River
The South Mills River is not designated PMTW at the project site, however, the stream supports a
wild trout population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning
structure. In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required by NCWRC
should read instream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
B-3196 - Jackson County, Bridge No. 193 on SR 1157 over Thorpe Dam Spillway
We ha,,e riot identified any special concerns associated with this project.
B-3660 - Haywood County, Bridge No. 204 on SR 1334 over Fines Creek
Fines Creek is not designated PMTW at the project site; however, the stream supports a wild trout
population. We would prefer that the existing bridge be replaced with another spanning structure.
In reference to the Bridge Demolition Form, the moratorium required by NCWRC should read
instream work should not be conducted between November 1 and April 15.
Because all of the above counties are recognized as "trout water counties" by the Corps of
Engineers (COE), the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed
projects. The following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on
the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Structures should be
inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil within 15
days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags,
rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
4. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area must be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality and
is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be retained if
possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and wildlife.
In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout spawning period of
November 1 to April 15 to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts are utilized, they should be designed so that all
water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow conditions. This could
be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that will
divert low flows to another cell. This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
Group XV Bridges Page 3 May 24, 1999
9. Notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot intervals to
allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities, and to provide
resting places for fish moving through the structure.
10. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and should be
removed without excessive disturbance of the natural river bottom when construction is
completed.
l l . During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these projects. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-246.
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Mr. Kevin Austin, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., Raleigh
M
Solard of Public Education
Linda R. Hawk. Chairman
Jackle H. Homsby, Vice Chairman
Ervin W. Bazzle
Brenda O. Brock
Allen A. Combs
Thomas E. Orr
Thomas B. Pryor
4111, 27. 100S
4 ? oft-imm.
A
HENDERSON COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
,I I ?iert Belp-lrs
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. F., N/lana-ei-
Planning and Environmental F3ranch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5210t
RE: Replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 11338 over the Sollth INfills River.
Henderson Countv. TIP No. B-3191
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Dan G. Lunsford, Ed. D.
Superintendent
414 Fourth Avenue West
Hendersonville, N. C. 28739-4261
Phone [phone]
FAX [phone] or 697-4738
GEIV?Q
? JUL 3 0 1998 -7:
r
4
y?4
k? if?l G
In response to V ur l?t:er of Jule 17, 191-6' rcgardina the above-referenced bridge, the
Henderson Countv P ibli,_ S v.,a:m his 1. ()',!1 -!4) braes that cross this bridge on a daily.- basis.
Thank you.
Si cergly
Dan G. L nsford, Ed. D.
Superintendent
DGL:cmb
c: Dr. Kohlan J. Flynn
Mr. Jerry Cunningham
,.The Henderson Counnt'ubli, 5,:hool, n in cyu.rl (,pnorLill ir. cn:ploccr and dues nor di;criminirc
on the race. color, rrL,iun .rt. ,-.. Jn,rhdw, ,r narional uriuin.
hEIVdERSON COUNTY
PIANNINq dEPARTMENT
101 East Alien Street • Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
y ..v Q
August 5. 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
,yga

Re Replacement of Bridge No. 6 on SR 1338 over the South Mills River,
Henderson County, TIP No. B-3191
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Pursuant to your request for comments regarding the above referenced project,
we offer no specific comments other than the fact that the replacement bridge is
located in a WS II Watershed. Such replacement, however, is not inconsistent
with the provisions of the Henderson County Water Supply Watershed
Ordinance. We see no adverse impact of this project and we feel that the bridge
replacement will be a benefit to the community.
Very truly yours,
kq<u?Rt-Scs--
Matt Matteson,
Planning Director
MM/krs
cc: David Nicholson, County Manager