20111101_Environmental Assessment_20081030

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0114 County: Henderson
Due Date: 12/03/2008
Date Received: 10/27/2008
Project Description: NC Moving Ahead Project, SR 1006 (Howards Gap RD) from SR 1539 (Jackson Road) s of
Fletcher to US 64 Henderson, #MA14181R in Henderson County
is rojec is being reviewed as indicated oetow
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville ? Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville ? Aquifer Protection Wildlife ? Environmental Health
Raleigh v/ Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resources Other
? Parks & Recreation
Winston-Salem
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT- i
Air Quality

Manager Sign-Off/Region Date In-House Reviewer/Agency

Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed No Comment
insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
fR@t?4)
0613
4- 4 R 08
?s TFR ??

fl
n
1

n

SR 1006
(Howard Gap Road)
From US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Henderson County
WB S Element 38629
North Carolina Moving Ahead Project MA14181R
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT
In compliance with the North Carolina
State Environmental Policy Act OF 1971
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
G

v z
f1% ?0
Q-
FM? Or r'R A?'?'SeO
APPROVED
2
Date Mark Davis, Division 14 Environmental Supervisor

SR 1006
(Howard Gap Road)
From US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Henderson County
WBS Element 38629
North Carolina Moving Ahead Project MA14181R
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT
September 2008
Documentation Prepared by TGS Engineers
David G odli , Jr., Ph6, PE
Planning Engineer
d:WBarite..
CAROL
? ?, eeeefe(e+e(e+eeee .Y
-^?t??T JJ?nA?ee
?G ?

' PROJECT COMMITMENTS
' SR 1006
(Howard Gap Road)
' From US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Henderson County
WBS Element 38629
North Carolina Moving Ahead Project MA14181R
Highway Division 14

t

1

1
In addition to the Nationwide Permit No 14, the General Nationwide Permit Conditions,
Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, 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
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land
Management District If the bridge is replaced along existing alignment, as proposed, an
approval under Section 26a of the TVA Act will not be needed However, TVA will
review final bridge design plans to confirm this determination
The temporary detour to be utilized during the replacement of Bridge No 222 will be
immediately north of and parallel to existing Howard Gap Road
GREEN SHEET
MA14181R ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
September 2008 PAGE 1 OF 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SUMMARY. .. ..... . .
Page
.1
A Type of Action . .. . . . . . .... .... 1
B Proposed Action... .. .. 1
C. Purpose and Need. .. 1
D Project History.. ... 2
E Alternatives Considered .. ...2
F Recommended Alternative .. .. ... 2
G. Summary of Environmental Effects. ... 2
H Permits Required (Actions Required by Other Agencies). .. 4
I Coordination .... ...... .... ........ .. 4
J Additional Information .. ........... .. .. ... .. ... .. ..4
I PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION. . 5
A Introduction. ... .... .. ........ 5
B Project Need .... .. .. ...6
C Purpose of Project. ... .. ... ... 6
D Existing Facility ........ ...... .. . . ........... 6
II ALTERNATIVES ...... .... ... ... ..... ... 8
A No-Build, Mass Transit Alternatives ... . 8
B. Construction Alternatives ... .. .. ..... ..... 9
C Cost Estimates ................... ... ..... ... ...........10
D Capacity .......... .......... .. 10
........... ....
E Recommended Alternative. ... ...... .... .. ....... 10
III COMMUNITY PROFILE......... .. ... .. .. ............ . 1 I
A. Methodology ............ ........ ...... .. .. ......... .... ..11
B Public and Private Facilities .. ...... ... .. 11
C Community Facilities and Services .. ........... ........ 11
D. Demographics ............. ... .. ... ...........12
E Economic Description....... ..... .. ..... 17

1
IV.11UMAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .. 20
A Land Use . .. . ...... .. ... 20
B. Farm Lands ... ... ..... .. ........ .. .. 20
C Relocations.... ..... .. .. . ... 20
D Environmental Justice .. .. . ..... .. 22
E. Historic and Cultural Resources ..... . ................ 23
F Noise and Air Quality.. ... ....... 23
G Community Impacts.... ... ... .... 24
H Indirect and Cumulative Impacts .. .. . .... ...... .. 26
I V. NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....... 27
I

A Methodology .. ...... .. .
B Physical Characteristics ...
C Biotic Resources .... .. ...
D Jurisdictional Topics ..... ..
E. Floodplain .... ....... .
F Hazardous Materials ... .
..... .... ........... .............. 27
.. ...... ... .. .. 28
.. .. . ....... .. ...39
... .. .... . ....... . .... .. 45
.. .. .... .. .... ... 60
.. ..... .. ... 61
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ... .... ... 62
....... . . . .. . . .
' A Comments Solicited . .... ... .. 62
' B Interagency Coordination ...62
C Citizen Information Workshop 62
D. Design Public Hearing . . ... . .... .. . ............ ....... ..... 63
....... . .. ...... . ... .... .... .. .. ....
' VII. REFERENCES 64
' TABLES
' Table S-1. Summary of Potential Impacts .. ........ ... ... 3
Table 1 STIP Projects Complementing SR 1006 Improvements .. 5
Table 2.
Table 3. Existing Facility .. ..... .. ....................... ..
Roadway Design Criteria ... . .. ....................... . . 7
. 9
Table 4 Ethnicity and Race for 2000 .. .. ....................... .... 12
Table 5. Age Distribution for 2000 . . .. .... ............. ..... 13
Table 6 Income Levels and Poverty Status for 1999 ....... .... 14
Table 7
Table 8 Educational Attainment for 2000 ............ ..
Labor Force for 2000 ... .. .... .................. ... 16
17
1 11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 9 Housing Units for 2000. ... .... ... 18
Table 10 Housing Values (Owner Occupied) for 2000 19
Table 11 Soil Types ... ... ...... 30
Table 12 Stream Characteristics ....... .... .. .33
Table 13 Vegetated Wetlands and NCDWQ Ratings 46
Table 14 Federally Protected Species listed for Henderson County .. 51
Table 15 Federal Species of Concern listed for Henderson County .. 60
FIGURES
1. Project Vicinity Map
2A-2B Existing Conditions
3A-3B SCS Soils
4A-4E Jurisdictional Areas
5 Typical Cross Section
APPENDICES
A NRCS Farmland Rating Form
B Cultural Resources Concurrence Forms and Correspondence
C Agency Correspondence
D Citizens Informational Workshop
ni

' SR 1006
(Howard Gap Road)
From US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Henderson County
' WBS Element 38629
North Carolina Moving Ahead Project MA14181R
SUMMARY
1
A. Type of Action
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the purpose of evaluating the
potential impacts of a proposed transportation improvement project This project is
included in the approved North Carolina Moving Ahead Program (Project No
' MA14181R) with right-of-way estimated to be completed in calendar year 2009 and
construction estimated to begin in calendar year 2010
'
B. Proposed Action
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
Division 14, proposes to widen Howard Gap Road (SR1006) in Henderson County from
US 64 to Jackson Road (SR 1539) just south of Fletcher, a distance of 7 15 miles The
' proposed project is to widen the existing 20-foot pavement to 24 feet paved roadway with
2-foot, full depth, paved shoulders The total shoulder width will be 6 feet in cut and 6
feet in fill except where additional width is needed for guardrail The cut ditch will be 8
feet wide Three bridges, Nos 22, 40 and 222, will be replaced as part of the proposed
widening in order to provide a uniform project width In a few selected sections,
' excessively sharp curves will be improved to meet design speed standards (Figure 1)
C. Purpose and Need
' The purpose of the project is to provide an unproved roadway cross section which
provides the traveling public a safe roadway providing access to area schools, e g ,
Fletcher Academy, access to the economic development in the corridor, access to I-26,
' and helps to improve regional connectivity,

1

D. Project History
A Citizen's Informational Workshop was held on December 15, 2005, at the Fletcher
Elementary School to present the proposed project to the public and to generate
comments on possible design alternatives Based on the comments received at the
workshop and from citizens and local officials, the alternative of widening SR 1006 to a
24-foot cross section with usable shoulders was well received Also, based on comments
' received, minor design revisions have been incorporated to minimize impacts to
properties The only build alternative considered is the minor widening of SR 1006
' E. Alternatives Considered
' Only two alternatives were considered The No-Build Alternative would leave SR 1006 a
narrow, heavily traveled, 20-foot roadway with marginal, or nonexistent, shoulders The
Build Alternative is to widen the existing 20-foot pavement to 24 feet paved roadway
' with 2-foot, full depth, paved shoulders The total shoulder width will be 6 feet in cut
and 6 feet in fill except where additional width is needed for guardrail The cut ditch will
be 8 feet wide Three bridges, Nos 22, 40 and 222, will be replaced as part of the
proposed widening in order to provide a uniform project width In three selected
sections, excessively sharp curves will be improved to meet design speed standards
' F. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to widen SR 1006 to a 24-foot paved roadway with
' usable shoulders
G. Summary of Environmental Effects
' Adverse impacts to the human and natural environments were minimized for the
proposed project by slight shifts in the centerline and design considerations to limit
' wetland impacts and impacts to individual properties, e g , septic systems The data
presented in the following table represents resources located between the slope stake lines
unless otherwise noted
FJ

I

Table S-1 Summary of Potential Impacts
Recommended Alternative
Length (mi) 7 15 miles
Railroad Crossings None
Residential Relocations None
Business Relocations None
Mayor Utility Crossings None
Septic Fields Impacted 2
Historic Sites None
Archaeological Sites None
Cemeteries None
Wetland Impacts 0 115 acres
Stream Impacts 3401f
100-year Floodplam Crossings One, Clear Creek
Water Supply Watershed Crossings None
Hazardous Spill Basin Areas None
Trout Waters None per NCWRC
Impacted Noise Receptors None
Federally Protected Species No Impacts
State Listed Species No Impacts
Prime, Unique and Important Farmland NA
Low Income Population Impacts None
Minority Population Impacts None
Construction Cost (nulhons) 11 1
Right of Way Cost (millions) 15
Total Cost (millions) 126
3

1

H. Permits Required (Actions Required by Other Agencies)
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U S C 1344), a permit will be
required from the U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States" The USACE has determined that this
project may be permitted with a Nationwide Permit 14
The TVA must review the structure plans to determine if approval under Section 26a of
the TVA Act is required
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Mayor Water Quality
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit
1. Coordination
Beginning in August 2004, the following federal, state, and local agencies were contacted
to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project
(Note An asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to the initiation to comment )
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Fish and Wildlife Service
*U S Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmmgton District Office
U S Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
*Tennessee Valley Authority
U S Department of Transportation - FHWA - Raleigh
*NC Department of Administration - N C Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Cultural Resources - SHPO
*N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division Water Quality
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Natural Heritage
*NC Wildlife Resources Commission
City of Asheville - Engineering Department
Henderson County EMS
*Henderson County Fire Marshall
Henderson County Public Schools
Henderson County Manager
J. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposed project and this environmental
assessment may be obtained by contacting
Mr Mark Davis
NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Supervisor
253 Webster Road
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
[phone]
4

n

11
SR 1006
(Howard Gap Road)
From US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Henderson County
WBS Element 38629
North Carolina Moving Ahead Project MA14181R
I PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
A Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Division of Highways,
proposes to widen SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson County from US 64 to
Jackson Road (SR 1539) dust south of Fletcher, a distance of 7 15 riles The proposed
project is to widen the existing 20-foot pavement to 24 feet paved roadway with 2-foot,
full depth, paved shoulders The total shoulder width will be 6 feet in cut and 6 feet in
fill except where additional width is needed for guardrail The cut ditch will be 8 feet
wide Three bridges, Nos 22, 40 and 222, will be replaced as part of the proposed
widening in order to provide a uniform project width In three selected sections,
excessively sharp curves will be improved to meet design speed standards (Figure 1)
The proposed project is an approved project in the North Carolina Moving Ahead
Program Right of way is currently estimated to be completed in calendar year 2009 and
construction is scheduled to begin in calendar year 2010
SR 1006 from US 64 in Henderson County to SR 1539 (Jackson Road) dust south of
Fletcher is classified as Urban Collector The improvement of Howard Gap Road to a
standard two-lane roadway as a North Carolina Moving Ahead Program project that will
complement the STIP projects shown in the 2009-2015 STIP below in Table 1
Table 1 STIP Projects Complementing SR 1006 Improvements
I-4400 Widen I-26 for a distance of 13 6 miles Construction Unfunded
R-4430 SR 1783 (Upward Road) Widen and Improve Construction FY 09
B-3662 Replace Bridge No 20 on SR 1006 Let FY 06
B-3664 Replace Bridge No 21 on SR 1520 Let FY 05
B-3665 Replace Bridge No 265 on SR 1791 Let FY 05
B-4145 Replace Bridge No 56 on SR 1006 Construction FY 08
B-4987 Replace Bridge No. 35 on SR 1572 Construction FY 12
B-4988 Replace Bridge No 309 on SR 1528 Construction FY 12
This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in accordance with the requirements set
forth in the North Carolina (State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) The EA is an
5

n

I

r

informational document intended for use both by decision-makers and the public As such, it
represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the proposed
action This information will be used by the NCDOT and its federal, state and local
environmental partners to determine the "Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative" (LEDPA) for the proposed action
B Project Need
Within Henderson County, SR 1006 functions as a Collector roadway, providing an
alternative travel corridor to I-26 between Hendersonville and Fletcher In addition,
within the studied corridor, there are seven (7) churches, two (2) hospitals, two (2) health
care providers, three (3) schools, and a fire and rescue facility In reality, the Howard
Gap Road corridor is a fully developed linear community Currently a mayor new
subdivision is being constructed across from the Fletcher Elementary School The
improvement of Howard Gap Road to a standard two-lane roadway with usable shoulders
will be in keeping with its function as a Collector roadway and will provide a safer cross
section for the traveling public
The total crash rate on SR 1006 within the project study area is 328 accidents per 100
million vehicular miles (mvm) traveled This crash rate is somewhat lower than the
statewide average of 414 accidents per mvm for secondary roads There were one fatal
crash during the three-year reporting period from July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2008
Of the 147 reported accidents, 27 involved hitting a fixed object, 39 involved rear end
collisions, 23 involved left turns, 24 involved running off the road and 12 involved
sideswipes A wider roadway with usable shoulders should help prevent a portion of the
accident types cited above, particularly the high number or rear end accidents
There are three (3) school facilities in the study corridor The Fletcher Elementary
School is one of the Henderson County Public Schools and relies on school busses to
transport a majority of its students An improved roadway cannot help but benefit school
traffic and contribute to the safety of the community's children
C. Purpose of Project
The purpose of the project is to
• Ensure future safety of the traveling public along Howard Gap Road by
providing a standard two-lane cross section, and
• By providing a safer roadway, support the economic development occurring
and expected to occur in the corridor
D Existing Facility
Within the SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) corridor, there are numerous churches, schools,
and medical facilities The project corridor is not unlike a linear community, residential
land uses abound interspersed with business and service use Several state secondary
6
roads intersect Howard Gap Road and provide access to I-26 Figure 1 provides the
setting of Howard Gap Road in Henderson County
Current travel demand (AADT) on SR 1006 within the project limits ranges between
6,300 and 9,000 vehicles per day and is expected to increase to 12,500 to 17,400 vehicles
per day in 2030 The current two-lane facility is currently operating at a level of service
(LOS) A and B, except at the intersection with SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road), where
the LOS is C Currently, Howard Gap Road contains only two exclusive left turn bays
along the studied 7 15 miles As traffic increases to the design year projections, the need
for exclusive left turn bays will arse With existing geometry, the LOS declines to F at
US 64, F at SR 1528, and D at Naples Road by the year 2025
Based on a detailed traffic analysis, five of the eighteen unsignalized intersections in the
studied corridor were found to warrant an exclusive left turn lane These locations are at
SR 1513 (Nix Road), SR 1622 (North Clear Creek Road), SR 1503 (Clear Creek Road),
SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road) and SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
Table 2 Existing Facility
Length 7 15 miles
Route Classification Urban Collector
Typical Section Two-lane with 10-foot travel lanes and
Horizontal and Vertical Alignment Posted speed limit vanes between 25 and 45 mph
Right of Way No recorded right of way Claimed right of way
will be back of ditches, a prox 37 feet
Access Control None
Speed Linut 25 to 45 mph
Intersections Signalized
US 64 EB, US 64 WB, SR 1528, and
Fletcher Elementary School Drive
Em hteen additional non-signalized intersections
Railroad Crossings None
Airports None
Utilities Water, telephone, power
School Busses 58 per day
Bicycle Facilities None
Sidewalks/Greenwa s None
Hydraulic Structures
Clear Creek Bridge #40, 24' wide b 37' lon
0 13 mi N SR 1583 Bridge # 222, 25' wide b 22' lon
Featherstone Creek B-3662 NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projct
Byers Creek Bridge #22, 25' wide b 26 ' lon
Cushion Branch 2 @ Tx 5' RCBC to remain
7
0
II ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives considered in this EA in addition to the proposed SR 1006 widening
improvements included No-Build, Transportation System Management (TSM) and Mass
Transit Recommendations made during the Public Information Workshop and
comments received as a result of the scoping process were incorporated into the
alternative identification process
A No-Build, Mass Transit Alternatives
' No-Build Alternative
' The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements to SR 1006 (Howard Gap
Road) with the exception of routine maintenance No roadway or intersection
improvements would be performed The No-Build Alternative would avoid any adverse
environmental impacts, in that no wetlands, streams, historic properties, or other cultural
and natural resources would be directly impacted However, this alternative would lead
to a deterioration of traffic service and would not meet the stated purpose of the project,
namely, it would not ensure the future safety of the traveling public and would not
support economic development along Howard Gap Road
' The No-Build alternative was eliminated from consideration because it does not meet the
transportation needs of the region or the objectives of the project However, the No-
Budd Alternative does provide a basis for comparing the adverse impacts and the benefits
of the build options
Transportation System Management Alternatives
Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the
available capacity of the facility within the existing right of way with minimum capital
expenditures and without reconstructing the facility Items such as additional turn lanes,
striping, signing, signalizahon, and minor realignments are examples of TSM
improvements Traffic law enforcement, speed restrictions, access control and signal
tuning changes are examples of TSM operational improvements These types of
improvements were considered, and some elements, such as additional turn lanes, minor
' realignments and signal timing changes, will be incorporated into the design, but TSM
improvements alone would not meet the stated purpose of the project
Therefore, the TSM Alternative as a stand-alone alternative was not considered a
t reasonable and feasible alternative and was eliminated from further consideration
' Mass Transit
There is no existing mass transit serving the Howard Gap Road corridor The study area
' is overall rural in nature although the area immediately adjacent to Howard Gap Road is
densely developed However, due to the relatively high percentage of truck traffic and
1 8

large portion of through traffic, and with the denser development limited to the
immediate roadway corridor, the Mass Transit Alternative was not considered a viable
alternative Mass Transit was eliminated from consideration as it would not effectively
address the purpose and need for the proposed project
' B Construction Alternatives

11

r

1

1

NCDOT is proposing to widen SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson County from
US 64 to Jackson Road (SR 1539) dust south of Fletcher, a distance of 7 15 miles The
proposed project is to widen the existing 20-foot pavement to a 24-foot paved roadway
with 2-foot, full depth, paved shoulders The total shoulder width will be 6 feet in cut
and 6 feet in fill except where additional width is needed for guardrail The cut ditch will
be 8 feet wide Three bridges, Nos 22, 40 and 222, will be replaced as part of the
proposed widening in order to provide a uniform project width In three selected
sections, excessively sharp curves will be improved to meet design speed standards (See
Figures 1, 2A and 2B)
The design criteria utilized during the development of the widening alternative are shown
in Table 3
Table 3 Roadway Design Criteria
Criteria 2-Lane Rural Undivided
Type of Terrain Rolling
Design Vehicle WB-50
Design Speed
Sta 11+12 to Sta 169+95 50 mph
Sta 193+40 to Sta 272+30 40 mph
Sta272+30 to Sta. 301+00 30 mph
Sta 301+00 to Sta 376+40 40 mph
Minimum Radius of Curvature 758 ft., 444 ft, 214 ft, 444 ft
Maximum Grade 9 percent, 10 percent, 10 percent, 10 percent
Number of Lanes Two
Pavement Width 12 feet
Shoulder Width 6 feet
Paved Shoulder Width 2 feet
Right-of-Way Width 60 feet
Access Control None
Level of Service C
1 9

1

C. Cost Estimates
The total cost estimates for the widening of Howard Gap Road are given below The
costs include right of way and construction costs but do not account for any wetland or
stream mitigation costs
Right of Way $ 1,500,000
Construction
Part A 4,800,000
Part B 6,300,000
Total $ 12,600,000
D. Capacity
There are currently four signalized intersections in the study corridor (1) US 64 EB, (2)
US 64 WB, (3) Naples Road, and (4) Fletcher Elementary School Driveway With
existing 2005 traffic, these intersections operate at Level of Service (LOS) A or B With
the exception of Brookside Camp Road, LOS C, the remaining eighteen unsignahzed
intersections operate at LOS A Once SR 1006 is unproved to a standard two-lane cross
section with left-turn lanes at selected intersections, the unsignalized intersection are
expected to operate at LOS A or B with 2025 traffic with the exception of Brookside
Camp Road, LOS F The signalized intersections at US 64 are expected to operate at
LOS F, Naples Road, LOS C, and Fletcher Elementary School Driveway, LOS B With
2025 traffic, turn lanes will be required at US 64 EB and WB, SR 1513 (Nix Road), SR
1622 (North Clear Creek Road), SR 1503 (Clear Creek Road) and SR 1539 (Jackson
Road) Currently Brookside Camp Road is a 4-way stop controlled intersection Future
improvements should include signahzation and appropriate turn lanes
E. Recommended Alternative
The Recommended Alternative is to widen SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson
County from US 64 to Jackson Road (SR 1539) dust south of Fletcher, a distance of 7 15
miles The proposed project is to widen the existing 20-foot pavement to 24 feet paved
roadway with 2-foot, full depth, paved shoulders The total shoulder width will be 6 feet
in cut and 6 feet in fill except where additional width is needed for guardrail The cut
ditch will be 8 feet wide Three bridges, Nos 22, 40 and 222, will be replaced as part of
the proposed widening in order to provide a uniform project width In three selected
sections, excessively sharp curves will be unproved to meet design speed standards
(Figures 1, 2A and 2B)
10

F1

1
III COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. Methodology
United States census data from 1990 and 2000 were used to gather information on the
population and demographics of the project study area, unless otherwise stated The
1990 data was used for comparison purposes only United States Census Tracts 9903,
9904 and 9910 encompass the study corridor for this project and are included in the
tables presented along with North Carolina and Henderson County data
B Public and Private Facilities
Commercial uses are lhnuted and randomly distributed along the Howard Gap Road
corridor The limited number of commercial uses includes convenience stores, a mum-
storage facility, Adventist Health System, APAC Carolina and TDM Corporation
C Community Facilities and Services
1 Schools
Three schools are located in the study corridor They are the Fletcher Elementary
School, near the north end of the project corridor, and Fletcher Academy and Asheville
Agricultural School and Mountain Sanitarium are both centrally located in the project
corridor
2 Emergency Services
The Mountain Home Fire and Rescue facility is located at the intersection of Howard
Gap Road and North Clear Creek Road in the southern portion of the project corridor
3 Churches
There are seven (7) churches located along Howard Gap Road within the project area
They are the Fletcher Seventh-Day Adventist, Blue Ridge Bible Church, Moore's Grove
Methodist Church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Korean Central Baptist Church, Fellowship
Baptist Church, and Mt Sinai Church
At the southern end of the project, two mayor cemeteries associated with the Moore's
Grove and Ebenezer Churches are adjacent to Howard Gap Road Roadway
improvements will be designed to avoid any impacts to these cemeteries No other
church cemeteries are in immediate proximity to Howard Gap Road
11

4 Scenic Byways, Transit, NC Bike Routes
' The portion of Howard Gap Road between SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road) and
SR 1555 (Patty's Chapel Road) is a portion of the North Carolina Bikeway System, in
particular, the Henderson to Fletcher Unsigned Connector Howard Gap Road is not a
part of the Scenic Byways system and does not support a transit system
D Demographics
' According to the United States census data, the populations for North Carolina and
Henderson County experienced growth between 1990 and 2000 Henderson County
population increased from 69,285 in 1990 to 89,173 in 2000, an increase of 19,888
' persons or 28 7 percent from 1990 to 2000 Based on the 2005 population estimate,
Henderson County has increased in population an additional 9 0 percent since the 2000
Census
' Using 2000 census data, a breakdown of the ethnicity and racial characteristics of North
Carolina, Henderson County and Census Tracts 9903,9904 and 9910 is shown in
' Table 4 The percent as part of the population total is shown in parenthesis for each
ethmcrty

1
Table 4 Ethnicity and Race for 2000
Category North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Carolina Count 9903 9904 9910
Total Population 8,049,313 89,173 4,613 4,499 4,772
White 5,804,656 82,505 4,152 4,191 4,287
(721%) (925%) (900%) (932%) (898%)
Black or African 1,737,545 2,725 84 151 136
American (216%) (31%) (18%) (3.4%) (2.8%)
American Indian or 99,551 245 13 11 10
Alaska Native (12%) (03%) (03%) (02%) (02%)
Asian 113,689 546 28 17 38
(14%) (06%) (06%) (04%) (08%)
Native Hswauan or Other 3,983 16 3 0 0
Pacific Islander (005%) 1(00%) (0 1%) (0 0%) (0 0%)
Hispanic or Latino 378,963 4,880 483
1 179 449
(47%) (55%) (105) (4 0%) (3 1%)
U S Census 2000
Note Ethmcity Groupings are from two different census tables and percentages do not
' exactly equal 100
Note The Hispamc Population is incorporated in all other tables

12

According to the United States Census data, the majority of the population is racially
' white within Henderson County and the study corridor There are additional racial groups
reported with the Hispanic population with the Hispanic being the most significant at 5 5
percent in Henderson County
' As shown in Table 5 below, within North Carolina 12 percent of the population is age 65
or older Within Henderson County, 218 percent of the population is 65 or older
' Within the Census Tracts 9903, 9904 and 9910 respectively the percentages of the
population 65 or older are 15 9, 18 1 and 35 8 percent It should be noted that both
Henderson County on the whole and Census Tracts 9903, 9904, and 9910 show a
population of "senior citizens" significantly higher that the state average
Table 5 Age Distribution for 2000

11

Age North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Carolina County 9903 9904 9910
Total Population 8,049,313 89,173 4,613 4,499 4,772
Under 5 years 539,509 5,007 302 264 270
(67%) (56%) (65%) (59%) (57%)
5-9 Years 562,553 5,178 290 286 238
(70%) (58%) (63%) (64%) (50%)
10-14 Years 551,367 5,321 304 282 221
(68%) (60%) (66%) (63%) (46%)
15-19 Years 539,931 4,709 266 292 218
(67%) (53%) (58%) (65%) (46%)
20-24 Years 577,508 4,006 281 172 232
(72%) (45%) (61%) (38%) (49%)
25-34 Years 1,213,415 10,661 658 619 476
(15 1%) (120%) (143%) (138%) (100%)
35-44 Years 1,287,120 12,585 681 670 501
(160%) (141%) (148%) (149%) (105%)
45-54 Years 1,085,150 12,063 618 636 467
(135%) (13.5%) (134%) (141%) (98%)
55-64 Years 723,712 10,302 477 464 438
(90%) (116%) (104%) ((103%) (92%)
65 Years and Over 969,048 19,341 736 814 1,711
(12 0%) (21 8%) (15 9%) (18 1%) (358%)
Median Age 35 3 42 7 1380 1394 502
U S Census 2000
The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) "Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations" in compliance with Executive Order
' 12898 dated February 11, 1994, defines low-income as a household income at or below
the Department of Health and Human Services ((DHHS) poverty guidelines For the
purpose of this analysis, census poverty thresholds were used instead of poverty
guidelines of the DHHS since there is very little difference between the United States
1 13
t
I
Bureau of the Census poverty thresholds (by household size) and the DHHS poverty
guidelines (by household size) , and because the poverty thresholds are updated each year
by the census bureau Associated demographic data were collected and classified into
degrees of poverty according to the United States Bureau of the Census poverty
thresholds The weighted average of poverty threshold for 1999, according to the census,
is an annual income of $17,029 for a family of four
Household income levels within the study area for 1999 can be found in Table 6

1

Table 6 Income Levels and Poverty Status for 1999
Income Level North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Carolina County 9903 9904 9910
Total Number of
Households 3,133,282 37,467 1,893 1,851 1,826
Families Below Poverty 196,423 1,083 86 113 93
Level (63%) (29%) (45%) (61%) (5 1%)
Less than 328,770 3,141 124 209 169
$10,000 (105%) (84%) (66%) (113%) (93%)
$10,000 to 201,123 2,453 159 158 154
$14,999 (64%) (65%) (84%) (85%) (84%)
$15,000 to 431,701 5,588 414 316 299
$24,999 (138%) (149%) (219%) (171%) (164%)
$25,000 to 435,975 5,831 334 249 298
$34,999 (139%) (156%) (176%) (135%) (163%)
$35,000 to 553,041 7,158 383 371 360
$49,999 (177%) (191%) (202%) (200%) (197%)
$50,000 to 608,777 7,223 326 355 386
$74,999 (194%) (193%) (172%) (192%) (211%)
$75,000 to 279,020 3,181 98 125 54
$99,999 (89%) (85%) (52%) (68%) (30%)
$100,000 to 188,621 1,752 36 53 71
$149,999 (60%) (47%) (19%) (29%) (39%)
$150,000 to 50,650 555 5 7 19
$199,999 (16%) (15%) (03%) (04%) (1.0%)
$200,000 or more 55,604 585 14 8 16
(1 8%) (1 6%) (0 7%) (04%) (09%)
Median Household Income $39,184 $38,109 $33,147 $34,675 $34,688
U S Census 2000
' Also shown in Table 6 is the percent of the total number of households each income level
comprises According to the 1999 data, 196,423 families were below the poverty level in
North Carolina, which equates to 6 3 percent of the total number of households

14

The percentage of households below the poverty level in Henderson County is 2 9
percent, which is much better than the state average and the percentages for the Census
Tracts in the study area ranges from 4 5 to 6 1 percent, also better than the state average
The median household incomes within the study corridor are below North Carolina's
median household income ($39,184), below Henderson County's median household
income ($38,109) and range from $33,147 to $34,688 The median household income
figures reflect the less developed industrial economy of the area Construction and
manufacturing make up approximately 26 percent of the employment base whereas retail
trade, health care, educational services, tourism services and administrative services
make up 50 8 percent of the employment base
There is generally a positive correlation between an area's economic growth rate and the
population's educational attainment Statistics have shown that a population's earnings
' increase with higher educational attainment The breakdown of educational attainment at
the state, county and census tract levels is provided in Table 7 Educational attainment
data is shown for persons 25 years or older
The State of North Carolina boasts 78 1 percent of the population 25 years or older as
high school graduates or higher Henderson County enjoys a higher rate at 83 2 percent
' and the study corridor census tracts show rates ranging from 712.4 to 82 5 percent
At the state level, 22 5 percent of the population 25 years or older has a bachelor's degree
or higher Henderson County at 24 1 percent is an anomaly for the study area and
actually exceeds the state percentage for a population with a bachelor's degree or higher
This may be attributable to the "retirement population" attributable to the Hendersonville
area However, the study area, Census Tracts 9903,9904 and 9910, exhibit percentages
' ranging from 10 9, 13 0 to 26 1 percent respectively Educational attainment can be an
indicator of a population's potential income level The median household income of the
study area is substantially below the state average, which correlates to the lower
educational attainment and possibly higher retirement found in the study area
According to the North Carolina Employment Security Commission, the unemployment
' rate in December 2003 for the state was 6 1 percent while the rate for Henderson County
was about half the state average at 3 3 percent
Table 8 shows the total number of persons over the age of 16 that are in the labor force
and the number of those not in the labor force The labor force includes all people
' classified in the civilian labor force plus members of the U S Armed Forces In North
Carolina, 65 7 percent of the population is in the labor force The percentage for
Henderson County is 57 1 percent and for Census Tracts 9903 and 9904, 58 1 and 59 1
percent respectively For Census Tract 9910 the percentage of persons in the labor force
is 46 9 percent However the median age for Census Tract 9910 is 50 2 years and 36
percent of the population is 65 years old or older These rates are likely tied to the lack of
' technical lob opportunities and high retirement rates in the area

15

I
Table 7 Educational Attainment for 2000
Educational North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Attainment Carolina Count 9903 9904 9910
Persons 25 years or older 5,282,994 65,039 3,147 3,217 3,580
Less than 9th Grade
413,495 4,226 366 224 259
9th to 12th Grade, No 741
229 6
729 533 469 368
Diploma , ,
High School Graduate
1,502,978 18,972 1,154 1,061 1,029
Some College, No Degree
1,080,504 14,761 533 763 866
Associate Degree 358,075 4,655 217 281 122
Bachelor's Degree 808,070 10,150 231 229 560
Graduate or Professional 378
643 5
546 113 190 376
Degree , ,
Percent High School 781% 832% 714% 785% 825%
Graduate or Higher
Percent Bachelor's Degree 225% 241% 109% 130% 261%
or Higher
u J census 1,uuu

16

Table 8 Labor Force for 2000
Labor North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Force Carolina County 9903 9904 9910
Status
Persons 16
years and 6,290,618 72,583 3,649 3,635 3,983
over
Not in Labor 2,160,039 31,133 1,528 486
1 2
116
Force , ,
In Labor 4,130,579 41,450 2,121 2,149 1
867
Force ,
Percent in 657 57 1 58 1 591 469
Labor Force
U S Census 2000
E. Econonnc Description
' 1 Economic Base
Henderson County's economic history can be traced back to its settlement in the
eighteenth century by William Mills and his wife Eleanor who made their home in the
Fruitland area, where they reared their family of seven children Each year Mr Mills
' planted hundreds of fruit trees, and seeing them flourish, his neighbors began mutating
him Thus William Mills became the father of the county's apple industry, the forerunner
of the multi-million dollar production of today The county's close ties to agriculture
have also supported its prosperity Henderson County continues to be North Carolina's
largest apple producer
' According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the workforce in Henderson
County is primarily employed in the following industries (1) Health Care and Social
Assistance, 14 3 percent, (2) Retail Trade, 13 2 percent, (3) Accommodation and Food
t Services, 9 1 percent, (4) Educational Services, 7 4 percent, and (5) Administrative and
Waste Services, 6 8 percent The percentages are based on the first quarter 2003
' The largest employers in the county with more than 250 employees are U P M Raflatac,
Inc, Van Wingerden International, Inc, Blue Ridge Community College, Continental
Teves, Inc, Borg Warner Thermal Systems, Wal-Mart Associates, Inc, Ingles Markets,
' Inc, GE Lighting Systems, Inc, Wilsonart International, Inc, Mentor Heavy Vehicle
Systems, Inc , Park Ridge Hospital, County of Henderson, Pinnacle Staffing, Inc.,
Margaret R Pardee Memorial Hospital, Henderson County Board of Public Education
(Source Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, June 2006)
Tourism in Henderson County generated an economic impact of approximately $ 162
' million in 2002, a 50 percent increase over 1990 estimates Over the past 20 years,
17

tourism in Henderson County has grown by more than 300 percent, which equates to
approximately 21 percent annual growth The change in agricultural acreage is also a
measure of change in development and economic patterns Henderson County is second
only to New Hanover County in terms of farmland loss in North Carolina between 1987
' and 1997 If the current rate of annual farmland loss continues, Henderson County
farmland base will decrease by half to approximately 23,000 acres by 2017
2 Housing Costs
According to the 2000 United States Census, occupied housing units comprise from 83 5
' to 89 9 percent of the available housing units throughout the study area These rates
approximate the statewide average of 88 9 percent Table 9 depicts the 2000 census data
breakdown of owner- and renter-occupied housing units at the state, county, and census
' tract levels Owner-occupied rates in the study area range from 67 9 to 81 1 percent,
which are generally higher than the overall state percentage of 69 4 percent
' Also according to the 2000 census data, the median value of homes throughout the
county and the study area is higher than the state median value of $108,300 and ranges
from $106,300 to $116,000 within the study area Table 10 depicts the value of owner-
occupied the value of owner-occupied homes at the state, county and census tract levels

1
1

Table 9 Housing Units for 2000
Housing North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Carolina County 9903 9904 9910
Total Units 3,523,944 42,996 2,258 2,179 2,063
Occupied 3,132,013 37,414 1,886 1,860 1,855
(889%) (870%) (835%) (854%) (899%)
Owner 2,172,355 29,487 1,513 1,508 1,259
Occupied (694%) (788%) (802%) (81 1%) (679%)
Renter 969,658 7,927 373 352 596
Occu led (30 6%) (21 2%) (19 8%) (18 9%) (32 1%)
U S Census 2000
18

Table 10 Housing Values (Owner Occupied) for 2000
Housing North Henderson Tract Tract Tract
Values Carolina County 9903 9904 9910
Specified Owner- 1,615,713 21,333 798 735 855
Occupied Units
Less than 140,292 856 31 15 48
$50,000 (87%) (40%) (39%) (20%) (56%)
$50,000 to 591,362 5,765 332 257 288
$99,999 (366%) (270%) (416%) (350%) (337%)
$100,000 to 421,786 6,787 238 278 339
$149,999 (261%) (318%) (298%) (378%) (396%)
$150,000 to 219,174 4,123 133 113 112
$199,999 (136%) (193%) (167%) (154%) (13 1%)
$200,000 to 152,531 2,565 37 72 49
$299,000 (94%) (120%) (46%) (98%) (57%)
$300,000 to 66,292 996 21 0 19
$499,999 (41%) (47%) (26%) (22%)
$500,000 to 20,265 234 6 0 0
$999,999 (13%) (1 1%) (08%)
$1,000,000 or more 4,011 7 0 0 0
(02%) (00%)
Median Value $108,300 $130,100 $106,300 $116,000 $110,000
U S Census 2000

i

19

IV. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A Land Use
' Land use in the project study area consists primarily of residential, public service,
agricultural and forestry uses Commercial and industrial uses are sparsely scattered
along the project corridor The Asheville Agricultural School and Mountain Sanitarium
' is the largest single landholder in the corridor
' B Farm Lands
The Farmland Policy Protection Act (FPPA) of 1981 (7 CFR 658) requires all federal
' agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils, as designated by the United States Soil Conservation
Service Form NRCS-CPA-106 (for corridor projects) has been completed for the
proposed project and is included in Appendix A Since this project received a total point
value of less than 160 points, the project will receive no further consideration for
farmland protection No other alternatives other than the one already discussed in tins
' document will be considered without a re-evaluation of the project's potential impacts
upon farmland This project will not have a significant impact to farmland
' Based on review of aerial photography, the proposed project will not impact farm
operations The project will not split any farm operations or displace any facilities used
for farming operations Acquisitions will occur contiguous to existing claimed right of
way Acquisitions will occur on the edges of farm properties, and owners will be
compensated for any losses Access to fanning operations will not be permanently
impacted
' C Relocations
The project as planned is anticipated to create no relocatees
' However, if for unforeseen circumstances the widening of Howard Gap Road creates a
displacee, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing
would be available prior to construction of highway projects Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocations
Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
' With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to
assist displacees with information such as availability and paces of homes, mobile
homes, or businesses for sale or rent, and financing or other housing programs The
20

relocations Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
' Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify, and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify
' The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5
' through 133-18) The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business At least one relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin The
NCDOT will so schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
' sanitary standards The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT
purchases the property Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas not
generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities Rent and
' sale prices or replacement housing offered will be within the financial means of the
families and individuals displaced, and be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property
' All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental or replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible) The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location
' The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the
costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and
farm operations acquired for a highway project Under the Replacement Program for
' Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs
and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
' dwellings Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments,
increased interest payments, and mcidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision
21

A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
' replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's construction
projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement housing has been offered or
' provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal
law
' Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the state legal limitation The purpose of the program is to
' allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided It is not felt that this program will be
necessary on this project since there appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation
within the area
D. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
' Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs all federal agencies to identify and
address "disproportionately high and adverse" impacts of transportation programs,
policies, and activities on low-income and minority populations It also directs agencies
to engage low-income and minority populations in the transportation decision-making
process
' This project is a minor widening project, generally about the centerline of the existing
roadway. There are no anticipated relocatees There are no recorded right of ways along
the proposed project, however, NCDOT will claim back-to-back of existing maintained
1 ditches The proposed right of way is 60 feet. The owners of the minor right of way
needed along each side of Howard Gap Road will be compensated
' An important principle of environmental justice is keeping area citizens and public
officials informed of the proposed project A Citizens Informational Workshop was held
on December 15, 2005, in the Fletcher Elementary School The public was notified of
' the meeting via flyers and the news media The prep mnary design plans for the
proposed project were presented and discussed
' The project as proposed will not generate environmental justice issues This project is
anticipated to create no relocatees No low-income or minority populations are being
affected by disproportionately high or adverse impacts
1 22

E Historic and Cultural Resources
i This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR
Part 800 Section 106 requires Federal agencies, in this case the U S Army Corps of
' Engineers, 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 (NRHP) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable
i opportunity to continent on such undertakings
E.1. Historic Architecture
' During the first week of March 2008, NCDOT staff from the Office of Human
Environment visited the project area The project is a state funded project with several
i USACE permits along its length Section 106, in this case, applies to permit areas only
and there are no historic buildings within the permit areas, or view shed of the permit
areas NCDOT staff recommended a finding of "No historic properties affected" be
issued In an email dated, March 10, 2008, the State Historic Preservation Office
indicated its concurrence with this finding
E.2. Archaeology
Based on a survey by NCDOT Archaeologist Scott Halvorsen during September 2007,
i two archaeological sites were recorded within the area of potential effect (APE) but the
sites did not merit inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places Based on this
survey, no further archaeological work in conjunction with the project is recommended
i and no known historic properties will be affected In a letter dated, January 8, 2008, the
State Historic Preservation Office concurred
F. Noise and Air Quality
The project is located in Henderson County, which has been determined to comply with
i the National Ambient Air Quality Standards The proposed project is located in an
attainment area, therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable Tlus project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area
' The purpose of the project is to improve safety along SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from
US 64 near Hendersonville to SR 1539 (Jackson Road) south of Fletcher No substantial
changes in the vertical or horizontal alignments are planned for SR 1006 The noise
transmission loss provided by the building structures of the area should be sufficient to
moderate any intrusive traffic noise Furthermore, the project will not increase traffic
i volumes along SR 1006, therefore, the project's impact on noise and air quality will not
be significant
i
1 23

If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
' applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D 0520 This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
' Part 772, and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary
G. Community Impacts
' 1 Social and Psychological Aspects
Social and psychological impacts can result from changes in population, community
' cohesion, social values, or the quality of life of the residents in the project study area as a
result of the proposed project Overall, the project is expected to have a positive impact
on the quality of life in Henderson County, and in particular in the Howard Gap Road
' corridor, by providing a safer roadway and a more efficient means to reach and be
reached by community services In addition an unproved roadway would be an incentive
to continued growth in the corridor
' 2 Physical Aspects
Physical impacts can result from the construction of a barrier wall, increased noise,
vibration, or air pollution in the project study area Any impacts that may occur due to
noise, vibration, and air pollution would be most notable in the proximity to existing
' development General construction noise impacts, such temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected
particularly from earth moving equipment during grading operations and from paving
' operations
3 Visual Impacts
Visual impacts can affect a community from both the view of the road and the view from
the road The view of the road by the residents contributes to the feeling of community
' pride and value The view from the road is from the user's perspective and leaves an
impression of the community on the driver as well as the residents The overall character
of the study area will be affected because the existing narrow two lane roadway will be
' unproved to a standard two lane roadway with functioning shoulders The view of the
road will be altered
4 Economic Conditions
Overall the unproved roadway may have a positive impact on economic growth in
Henderson County A good transportation network is often a criterion for new
development to locate in an area An improved roadway will also facilitate commutes to
and from work locations, a major function of Howard Gap Road With a decreasing
24

agricultural base, an improved Howard Gap Road may stimulate the development of
more housing and commercial growth as farmland is parcelized
5 Mobility and Access
The widened roadway and intersections upgraded with left turn lanes will provide safer
travel No impacts resulting in decreased mobility are anticipated
There are several hospitals and health care facilities in the project corridor Due to the
nature of the project, e g widening the existing roadway, lane restrictions may create
short-term impacts during construction There are not fixed bus routes in the area,
however, school busses use Howard Gap Road to access local schools Again, short-term
impacts may occur The NCDOT plans to limit lane closures during the times when
school busses are expected to use Howard Gap Road
The potential for bicycle traffic in most of the corridor is low, however, Howard Gap
Road from Brookside Camp Road to Patty's Chapel Road is a portion of the
Hendersonville to Fletcher Unsigned Corridor The widened travelway and 2-foot paved
shoulders will provide a safer cycling environment compared to the existing cross
' section
6 Provision of Public Services
There are three schools, two hospitals, two health care providers, seven churches and one
fire and rescue facility in the project corridor There are no parks or other publicly
owned recreational facilities within the corridor
The acquired right of way is expected to be approximately 10 to 15 feet on each with
shifts made to avoid existing structures, cemeteries and septic fields to the extent
possible Approximately 2 septic fields are anticipated to be impacted The NCDOT will
either replace the septic field or provide hookup to the county sewer system No
relocatees are anticipated as a result of the proposed widening of Howard Gap Road
Any impacts to public services are anticipated to be positive
7 Safety
Overall the widening of Howard Gap Road to a standard two-lane roadway is expected to
improve safety by providing a facility that adequately accommodates both the existing
and projected future traffic The wider roadway, functioning shoulders and improved
horizontal curvature in three locations will provide a safer roadway The improved
roadway will enhance delivery of emergency medical facilities that are provided on a
regional basis and provide a safer environment for the school busses delivering children
to the several schools in the corridor

1 25

8 Utilities
The proposed widening of Howard Gap Road is expected to require the relocation and/or
adjustment of local utility service lines Current right-of-way cost estimates incorporate
' the relocation of power and telephone lines as well as county-owned water and sewer
lines that are affected by the widening of Howard Gap Road
H Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Overall, the widening of Howard Gap Road from the existing 18-foot paved roadway
' with limited or no shoulder to a 24-foot paved roadway with 2-foot paved shoulders
within an overall 6-foot shoulder should provide an incentive for continued growth in the
corridor The improved roadway, resulting in improved access, should also provide a
' regional incentive to attract housing development and employment opportunities
With the anticipated loss of farm acreage to alternative development, new and different
industries and commercial development are expected to create demand for additional
housing As the population increases, the demand for additional retail services will
increase Over time, the development along the corridor will change the character of the
' area from a semi-rural setting to a more suburban setting linking Hendersonville and
Fletcher
' According to the Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 06, 2004,
residential and non-residential land uses have increased dramatically over the past thirty
years while open space, including agriculture, has considerably decreased The most
significant period of change was between 1003 and 2003 when open space declined by
more than 50,000 acres, or approximately 22 percent Conversely, during the same
period, urban non-residential and residential land uses increased by 4 7 percent and 12 0
percent respectively
' The widening and improvement of intersections along Howard Gap Road is consistent
with the Henderson County 2020 Comprehensive Plan and with observed historical
trends in Henderson County As these changes occur, the median family income is
' expected to increase In addition, poverty rates should decrease throughout the County as
the traditional agricultural employment base is converted to a technological base

1
26

V NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
' This chapter discusses the specific beneficial and/or adverse impacts to the natural
environment associated with the proposed project A Natural Resources Technical
' Report was prepared by EcoScience Corporation for this proposed project
A. METHODOLOGY
' The natural resources project study area is approximately 7 0 miles long and generally 70
feet wide, including the existing road and 25-foot margins In three locations, curves in
' the existing road are proposed for alignment corrections and additional width was added
The project study area includes portions of Clear Creek, Featherstone Creek, Byers
Creek, Cushion Branch, and associated tributaries and wetlands The report describes
' natural features within the project study area including soils, water resources, plant
communities, wildlife, Section 404 jurisdictional areas, and pertinent protected species
issues The report provides a preliminary evaluation of permit needs
Materials and research data in support of this investigation were derived before field
investigations from a number of sources including the Natural Resource Conservation
' Service, (formerly the Soil Conservation Service [SCS]) Henderson County soil survey
(SCS 1980), U S Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Henderson [1997]
and Fruitland [1997], NC 7 5-minute quadrangles), US Fish and Wildlife Service
' (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, NCDWQ documents, and
recent aerial photography
' Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al (1968), with
adjustments for updated nomenclature (Yartesz 1998) Wildlife and aquatic life
distribution and habitat use were determined through field observations, evaluation of
habitat type distributions, and available supportive documentation (Martof et al 1980,
Potter et al 1980, Webster et al 1985, Menhmick 1991, Hamel 1992, Rohde et al 1994,
and Palmer and Braswell 1995)
' Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following
USACE delineation guidelines (DOA 1987) Wetland jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al (1979)
USACE and NCDWQ forms were utilized to document evidence of jurisdictional status
' and jurisdictional area characteristics The completed data forms are available in
Appendix B
' A list of federally protected species whose ranges extend into Henderson County was
obtained from the USFWS (dated February 24, 2003) In addition, files maintained by
the N C Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) were reviewed for documented sightings of
state or federally listed species and documented locations of significant natural areas
Field surveys for protected species focused on identification of potential habitat areas and
detailed searches of those areas
27

The project study area was visited on July 13-15, August 25-27, and August 31-
September 2, 2004 The project study area was walked and visually evaluated for
significant environmental features Stream and wetland determinations were made and
jurisdictional boundaries were flagged with sequentially numbered flagging tape These
' jurisdictional boundaries were subsequently mapped using Trimble XRS Differential
Global Positioning System (DGPS) technology with reported sub-meter accuracy The
data were later corrected using Pathfinder software and exported in MicroStation format

1
u

Definitions for terms used in this chapter are as follows The Project Study Area
describes a generally linear area 70 feet wide, centered on Howard Gap Road In three
areas (near SR 1583 [Zeb Cord Road], SR 1622 [Clear Creek Road], and SR 1556 [Hutch
Mountain Road]), the project study area widens to 200-500 feet to accommodate
proposed alignment modifications The project study area is approximately 7 0 miles
long and encompasses approximately 75 6 acres The Project Vicinity describes an area
extending 0 5 mile on all sides of the project study area The Project Region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7 5-mmute USGS topographic quadrangle map
with the project occupying the central position, an area of approximately 61 square miles
B. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
B.1. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The project study area is situated in the Blue Ridge Ecoregion, extending across the
Broad Basins sub-region in the southern half and into the Southern Crystalline Ridges
and Mountains sub-region in the northern half The Broad Basins sub-region is typified
by intermountain basins with low mountains, rolling foothills, and moderately broad
mountain valleys Underlying the region are deep, well-dramed soils supporting a plant
community containing a mix of oaks and pines more similar to the Piedmont Hydrology
is characterized by moderate-gradient streams with cobble and boulder substrates, and
low- to moderate-gradient rivers with sand and bedrock substrates Overall, this rolling
foothill region has more cropland, industrial land uses, and human settlement than other
Blue Ridge ecoregions The Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains sub-region has
higher rainfall, higher elevations, and more relief than the Broad Basins sub-region This
sub-region is comprised of low to high mountains with moderate to steep slopes and
narrow valleys Streams are typically cool and clear with high gradients and bedrock and
boulder substrates The sub-region is underlain by pre-Cambnan igneous and
metamorphic rocks such as gneiss and schist, covered by well-drained, acidic, loamy
soils The region is mostly forested with small areas of pasture, apple orchards,
Christmas tree farms, or minor cropland (Griffith et al 2002)
Elevations within the project study area range from a low of 2040 feet above sea level
near Cushion Branch to 2200 feet near Hutch Mountain Road (Hendersonville and
Fruitland, NC 7 5-minute quadrangles) Land use within the project region is
characterized by residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial development, and by
forestland The steeper slopes tend to be forested, whereas agricultural, commercial, and
industrial development are concentrated in valleys and level floodplams Residential lots
28
u

I

are more concentrated near the urban center of Hendersonville The project study area
traverses developed areas dominated by maintained rights-of-way and heavily disturbed
plant communities, as well as less developed and disturbed communities Generally,
development reduces in intensity in the more northerly sections of the project study area
(Figures 2A-2B)
B.2. Geology and Soils
The project study area is located within the Inner Piedmont geologic belt This intensely
deformed and metamorphosed belt is underlain by 500- to 750-million-year old gneisses
and schists that have been intruded by younger granitic rocks The northeast-trending
Brevard fault zone forms much of the boundary between the Blue Ridge and Inner
Piedmont belts (NCGS 1991)
The Broad Basins and the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains ecoregions
roughly correspond to the Broad Basins, River Terraces, and Floodplains soil system and
the Low and Intermediate Mountains soil system, respectively Both of these soil
systems are within the Mountain Soil Region (Daniels et al 1999) Sharp mountain
ridges and steep valleys, broad basins with low ridges, and river terraces and floodplains
comprise three general topographic classes The Mountain Soil Region encompasses
both the highest and lowest rainfall areas in North Carolina This region also has a
distinctly shorter frost-free period than other sections of the state Soil characteristics are
influenced by all of these factors, as well as by the forest cover On steep mountain
slopes, soils formed from residuum are small in area, and are often overlaid by
colluvium Thick colluvial deposits may occur on foot slopes, coves, and drainageways,
while saprohte and shallow bedrock are located on middle convex slopes More water is
available in concave positions than on middle and upper slopes Seeps are common in
colluvial material (Daniels et al 1999)
The project study area extends through nine mapped soil series (SCS 1980) (Figures 3A
and 3B) The Hayesville loam series (Typic Hapludults), including three map units based
on slope, has the greatest coverage within the project study area (51 percent) This non-
hydnc soil typically occurs on broad, smooth ridges at lower elevations, and is
interspersed throughout interstream locations throughout the project study area Another
41 percent of the project study area is occupied by five other non-hydric series Bradson
(Typic Hapludults), Comus (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Edneyville (Typic Hapludults),
Evard (Typic Hapludults), and Tate (Typic Hapludults) soils The Codorus (Fluvaquentic
Dystrochrepts) and Delanco (Aquic Hapludults) comprise two non-hydric soil series
which may contain hydric inclusions These two series underlie seven percent of the
project study area, under the channels and banks of included streams Only one percent
of the project study area is located on hydric soils of the Hatboro series (Typic
Fluvaquents) This series is represented in one map unit in the channel of Stream 1
(unnamed tributary [UT] to Clear Creek (Figures 3A and 4A)
The project study area contains nine soil series according to county soils mapping (SCS
1980) Two series are represented by minor inclusions Including phases and slopes, a
29

1
total of fourteen soil mapping units occur in the project study area (Figures 3A and 3B)
' The following table summarizes these mapping units

1
1
Table 11 Soil Types
Map Percentage
Unit of Project Acres Hydric Taxonomy
Symb Study Status
of Series and Phase Area
BaB Bradson gravelly loam, 2-7% 18 141 Upland soil Typic
slopes Ha ludults
BaC Bradson gravelly loam, 7-15% 0 0 3 Upland soil Typic
slopes Ha ludults

3 Hydric Class Fluvaquentic
Co Codorus loam 4 1 B** Dystrochrept
s
Fluvaquentic
Cu Comus fine sandy loam 1 06 Upland soil Dystrochrept
s
DeA Delanco loam, 0-2% slopes 3 2 5 Hydric Class Aquic
B Ha ludults
EdE Edneyville fine sandy loam, 15- 3 20 Upland soil Typic
25% slopes Ha ludults
EwE Evard soils, 15-25% slopes 1 04 Upland soil Typic
Ha ludults
EwF Evard soils, 25-45% slopes 3 21 Upland soil Typic
Ha ludults
Ha Hatboro loam 1 0 5 Hydnc Class Typic
A* Fluva uents
HyB Hayesville loam, 2-7% slopes 11 8 7 Upland soil Typic
Ha ludults
HyC Hayesville loam, 7-15% slopes 27 20 6 Upland soil Typic
Ha ludults
HyE Hayesville loam, 15-25% slopes 13 102 Upland soil Typic
Ha ludults
TeB Tate fine sandy loam, 2-7% 12 9 6 Upland soil Typic
slopes Ha ludults
TeC Tate fine sandy loam, 7-15% 3 26 Upland soil Typic
slopes Ha ludults
ITOTAL 1 100 1756
* Soils considered hydric in Henderson County
** Non-hydric soils that may contain hydric inclusions in Henderson County
30

The Bradson series consists of well-dramed, moderately permeable, gently to strongly
' sloping soils formed in colluvium and alluvium derived dominantly from a mixture of
crystalline rocks They are on broad, smooth, high stream terraces, on the more level
pedons, gravel covers 5 to 25 percent of the surface In the project study area the
Bradson series occurs on high terraces and on the side slopes of Byers Creek In these
soils, surface runoff is moderately rapid The depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches
' The Codorus loam series consists of moderately well-drained to somewhat poorly
drained, moderately permeable soils Codurus loam is nearly level and was formed from
mica-rich alluvium It occurs in slightly depressional areas on floodplains In the project
study area, it is located in the Clear Creek and Byers Creek channels Surface runoff is
slow The seasonal high water table is at a depth of 1 to 2 feet for 2 to 6 months in most
years The soil is subject to frequent flooding Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches
' This soil is considered non-hydric in Henderson County, but may contain hydric
inclusions of Hatboro soils
' Comus fine sandy loam is a well-drained, moderately permeable, nearly level series
formed in recent alluvium containing mica. These soils are typically found in slightly
elevated positions, commonly adjacent to streams on wide floodplains In the project
study area the series is found only in the Featherstone Creek channel Surface runoff is
slow The seasonal high water table is at a depth of about 30 inches for 2 to 6 months in
most years This soil is subject to frequent, brief flooding Depth to bedrock is more
' than 72 inches
Delanco loam is a moderately well-dramed, moderately permeable, nearly level series
formed in old alluvium containing moderate to large amounts of mica These soils are
typically found on low to somewhat elevated stream terraces and at the heads of small
' dramageways In the project study area Delanco loam is found only in the Cushion
Branch channel and floodplam Surface runoff is slow to medium The seasonal high
water table is at a depth of about 30 inches for 2 to 3 months in most years This soil is
' subject to occasional, very brief flooding in low-lying areas Depth to bedrock is more
than 72 inches This soil is considered non-hydric in Henderson County, but may contain
hydnc inclusions
Edneyville fine sandy loam is a well-drained, moderately permeable, moderately sloping
to steep series that formed in residuum weathered from granite and gneiss The soils are
' found on ridgetops and mountainsides In the project study area, two small inclusions of
Edneyville soils are located on side slopes of the Mud Creek and Clear Creek watersheds
Surface runoff is low, but in the 15 to 25 percent slope category, the risk of soil erosion is
' very severe where the surface layer has been cultivated Depth to bedrock is more than
40 inches The seasonal high water table is more than 6 feet deep.
' Evard soils are well-drained, moderately permeable, moderately sloping to very steep
soils formed in residuum weathered from granite and gneiss These soils are typically
found on ndgetops and mountainsides In the project study area the series is found in an
interstream divide area between Byers Creek and Cushion Branch Surface runoff is
31

medium The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet Depth to
' bedrock is more than 48 inches
Hatboro loam is a poorly-drained, moderately permeable, nearly level series formed in
' alluvium from schist, gneiss, and other metamorphic and crystalline rocks These soils
are typically found in depressional areas on stream floodplains In the project study area
Hatboro loam comprises one inclusion in the Clear Creek floodplain Surface runoff is
high or very high The seasonal lugh water table is at or near the surface These soils are
subject to periodic stream overflow, which usually occurs during the winter and spring
months Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches This soil is considered hydnc in
' Henderson County
The Hayesville loam series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable, gently
sloping to moderately steep soils formed in residuum weathered from granite, schist, and
gneiss These soils are typically found on broad, smooth ridges at lower elevations The
series is located in interstream areas throughout the project study area Surface runoff is
' low to high depending on slope The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than
6 feet Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches
' Tate fine sandy loams are well-drained, moderately permeable, gently to strongly sloping
soils formed in colluvium from gramte and gneiss These soils are typically found on
smooth foot slopes and lower coves The series is found throughout the project study
area in interstream areas Surface runoff is negligible to medium The seasonal lugh
water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches
' B.3. Water Resources
The French Broad River Basin is located west of the Eastern Continental Divide and
covers approximately 2842 square miles in the mountains of North Carolina Three main
subbasin sections are denoted within the French Broad River Basin the French Broad
' River, the Pigeon River, and the Nohchucky River Drainage from this basin travels
through the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico The project
study area hes within the French Broad River subbasin (USGS Hydrologic Unit
' #06010105, NCDWQ subbasm 04-03-02) within the French Broad River section
(NCDWQ 2000) The project study area crosses tributaries of Mud Creek and Cane
Creek within the subbasin, including Clear Creek (DWQ Index 6-55-11-[5]),
' Featherstone Creek (6-55-12), Byers Creek (6-55-13), and Cushion Branch (6-57-20)
(NCDWQ 2004a) Featherstone Creek is described in a separate document pertaining to
the replacement of Bridge No 20 (NCDOT TIP No B-3662) Besides the four named
streams, the project study area crosses four UTs of Clear Creek, two UTs of Mud Creek,
seven UTs of Byers Creek, and two UTs of Cushion Branch
B.3.a. Stream Characteristics
A total of 2710 feet of jurisdictional streams exists within the project study area Project
study area streams are depicted in yellow on Figures 4A through 4E and summarized in
32

Table 12 A detailed description of each stream is provided below Stream
' classifications are defined based on gwdelmes provided by Cowardm et al (1979)
Table 12 Stream Characteristics
1
11

Length in Drainage
Avg Avg

System
Name Cowardm Project Area On On Sod
Substrate
Width Water USACE NCDWQ
Classification Study (square Quad' Survey2 Depth Score3 ScorO
Area feet miles (feet) inches
Stream UT5 to Clear R3UB2/3 84 013 yes yes sand, silt 6 18 56 275
1 Creek
Stream Clear Creek R2UB2/1 74 416 yes yes sand, gravel, 28 20 72 45 5
2 cobble
Stream UT to Clear R3UB2/1 561 0 69 yes yes sand, gravel, 8 4 65 29
3 Creek bedrock
Stream UT to Clear R3UB2/3 153 0 22 yes yes sand, silt 5 2 57 235
4 Creek
Stream UT to Clear R4UB2/3 22 01 no yes sand, silt 3 1 43 185
5 Creek
Stream UT to Mud R3UB2/1 84 0 05 no yes sand, gravel 10 3 52 24
6 Creek
Stream UT to Mud R4UB2/3 21 0 03 yes yes sand, silt, 1 1 35 13
7 Creek gravel
Stream UT to Byers R3UB2/3 66 019 yes yes sand, silt, 3 3 51 2475
8 Creek gravel
Stream UT to Byers R3UB2/1 139 011 yes yes sand, gravel, 3 2 32 205
9 Creek Silt
Stream Byers Creek R2UB2/1 86 1 96 yes yes sand, gravel 20 12 57 325
10
Stream UT to Byers R3UB2/1 369 0 04 no yes sand, gravel 4 3 81 37
11 Creek
Stream UT to Byers R4UB2/1 640 0 02 no yes sand, gravel 3 2 63 275
12 Creek
Stream UT to Byers R4UB2/1 104 0 006 no no sand, gravel 1 1 55 19
13 Creek
Stream UT to Byers R4U132/1 52 00007 no no sand, gravel 2 1 56 16
14 Creek
Stream UT to Byers R4UB211 110 0 002 no no sand, gravel 2 1 49 165
15 Creek
Stream UT to Cushion R4UB3/2 6 002 no yes silt, sand, 3 3 58 275
16 Branch gravel
Stream UT to Cushion R4UB3 19 0 04 no yes
I clay 4 6 34 185
17 Branch i --
Stream Cushion R2UB2/1 120
-] 0 79 yes yes gravel, sand 8 24 60 335
18 Branch
Stream represented on the USGS 7 5-minute topographic quadrangle (Fruitland and Hendersonville, NC USGS quadrangles)
' 2 Stream represented in the SCS Sod Survey of Henderson County, North Carolina (1980)
3 per the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet, version 06/03
4 per the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form (NCDWQ 1999)
5 "UT" represents an unnamed tributary

33

Streams 1 and 2
' Stream 1 is a small, perennial, unnamed tributary to Clear Creek that has been
straightened in the vicinity of Howard Gap Road (Figure 4A) It flows east to west under
Howard Gap Road through a 30-inch diameter metal culvert The streamflow is
somewhat restricted by the culvert, and a large pool has formed in the stream channel
upstream of the road Stream 1 supports an adjacent wetland (Wetland 1) on the
upstream side (east) of Howard Gap Road Stream 1 drams into Clear Creek
approximately 1100 feet downstream of the project study area Clear Creek (Stream 2) is
a large, briskly-flowing perennial stream bridged by Howard Gap Road (Figure 4A)
Agricultural fields, some in scrub-shrub stages of succession, he adjacent to both streams
in the project vicinity Forested riparian buffers range from 10 to over 50 feet in width
Vegetation characteristic of riparian buffer areas of the two streams and adjacent wetland
includes black walnut (Juglans nagra), ironwood (Carpanus carolmaana), silky dogwood
' (Cornus amomum), river birch (Betula nagra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), cutleaf
coneflower (Rudbeckaa lacanaata), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardanalas), tearthumb
(Polygonum sagattatum), wingstem (Verbesana alternifolia), grape (Vitas sp ), and oriental
bittersweet (Celastrus orbaculatus)
Stream 3
' Stream 3 is another unnamed tributary to Clear Creek that flows south, roughly parallel to
Howard Gap Road (Figure 4A) The stream is located at a bend of Howard Gap Road
which is proposed for realignment Over 500 feet of the length of this stream lies within
the project study area, where it crosses under residential roads via two 6-foot steel
culverts, and is bridged by Howard Gap Road The stream is bounded by wooded
' residential lots and small agricultural fields Riparian buffer widths, as with Streams 1
and 2, range from 10 to over 50 feet The stream appears relatively stable, and maintains
a diverse substrate structure Stream 3 joins Clear Creek approximately 1300 feet south
of the point where it exits the project study area Typical vegetation of the riparian buffer
areas includes black willow (Salax nigra), black walnut, white pme (Panus strobus), black
gum (Nyssa sylvataca), red maple (Acer rubrum), Chinese privet (Lagustrum sanense),
American hazelnut (Corylus ameracana), multiflora rose (Rosa multaflora), yellowroot
(Xanthorhiza samplacassama), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cusps datum), grape, poison
ivy (Toxacodendron radacans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocassus quanquefolaa), clearweed
' (Palea pumila), Japanese stilt grass (Mccrostegaum vimaneum), Christmas fern
(Polystachum acrostachoades), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensas)
' Streams 4 and 5
The intersection of Clear Creek Road (SR 1622) with Howard Gap Road is proposed for
realignment, and the project study area extends for approximately 800 feet east along
' Clear Creek Road Stream 4 flows southeast and crosses Clear Creek Road through a 4-
foot concrete culvert approximately 600 feet east of its intersection with Howard Gap
Road (Figure 4B) Stream 5 flows into Stream 4 just upstream of Clear Creek Road
Stream 4 is the same unnamed tributary of Clear Creek as Stream 3 Located in a
residential neighborhood, Streams 4 and 5 are moderately disturbed, with mcised
channels and large amounts of sediment eroding from nearby roadways Flow at this
point in the stream channel seems very low for the drainage basin size (0 22 square
_4 34

miles) Japanese knotweed has established a near-monoculture at the upstream side of
' Clear Creek Road Downstream, the riparian buffer is poorly developed and 10 feet or
less in width Riparian species besides Japanese knotweed include silky dogwood,
multiflora rose, blackberry (Rubus argutus), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), grape,
' greenbrier (Smilax rotundtfolta), and jewelweed
Stream 6
' Stream 6 is an unnamed tributary to Mud Creek with moderate gradient (Figure 4B) It
flows through an industrial section, and is partially riprapped upstream (north) of Howard
Gap Road A 4-foot diameter steel culvert conveys the stream southwest under Howard
' Gap Road The upstream part of Stream 6 is nearly without riparian buffers The
downstream reach is well-vegetated, with riparian canopy coverage 50 to 80 feet wide
Riparian species include river birch, red maple, tulip poplar (Ltrtodendron tultptfera), tag
' alder, multiflora rose, blackberry, Oriental bittersweet, greenbrier, and jewelweed
Stream 7
' Stream 7 is a small, intermittent tributary of Mud Creek that flows southwest through a
pasture (Figure 4B) It appears to collect flow from slopes upstream from Howard Gap
' Road, which is conveyed through a culvert under the road Additional flow comes from
seeps which form wetlands (Wetlands 2 and 3) adjacent to the stream Stream 7 is
bordered by pasture grasses and a few wetland species such as soft rush (Juncus effusus),
jewelweed, smartweed (Polygonum sp ), seedbox (Ludwtgta alterntfolta), and beaksedge
(Rhynchospora sp )
' Streams 8 and 9
These two streams flow to the southwest through culverts under Howard Gap Road
(Figure 4C) Stream 9 flows into Stream 8 just downstream of Howard Gap Road A
' small wetland (Wetland 4) occurs at the junction of the two streams Stream 8 joins
Byers Creek approximately 1500 feet to the west The streams are located in a residential
area along a section of Howard Gap Road which has undergone recent utility
development Disturbed soils from utility work and residential lots contribute sediment
to the stream reaches The streams maintain no wooded riparian buffers upstream of
Howard Gap Road, and these reaches are partially rip-rapped Downstream, wooded
' buffers are 10 to 20 feet wide Vegetation includes green ash (Fraxtnus pennsylvanica),
red maple, multiflora rose, soft rush, and jewelweed
' Stream 10
Stream 10 is Byers Creek, a large low-gradient stream that flows south under Howard
Gap Road via a bridge (Figure 4C) Adjacent land uses are residential and agricultural
Upstream of the road, Stream 10 has been straightened and lacks a riparian buffer A
maintained grassy bankfull bench is situated on the stream's left bank Downstream of
the road, the stream is characterized by moderate sinuosity and riparian buffer widths of
' 20-35 feet Vegetation in the riparian buffer areas includes tulip poplar, black walnut, red
maple, tag alder, silky dogwood, multiflora rose, tearthumb, yellowroot, grape, hog
peanut (Amphtcarpa bracteata), clearweed, jewelweed, Christmas fern, and panic grass
' (Pantcum sp )
35

Streams 11 through 15
These streams join to form a complex which flows southeast into Byers Creek (Figure
4D) The main stem of the complex is Stream 11 Its major branch is Stream 12, which
' has three tributaries, Streams 13-15 The complex flows through a steep, wooded cove
east of Howard Gap Road Flow is received from Howard Gap Road and the slopes
above, which flows through two eighteen-inch steel culverts under the road Seeps along
' the stream complex also contribute flow and form wetlands along the stream banks
(Wetlands 5 through 9) Sediment from the roadway above and high-energy flows from
the steep slopes cause scour and incision throughout the stream complex, but the streams
' maintain sinuosity and nearly complete canopy cover In some sections, Streams 11, 12,
and 15 disappear underground and emerge farther downstream Vegetation on the
wooded slope includes mockernut hickory (Carya alba), red maple, tulip poplar,
' flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), multiflora rose, Chinese privet, rosebay
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), hobblebush (Viburnum alnifolzum), greenbrier,
poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), oriental bittersweet, hog peanut,
Christmas fern, jewelweed, Japanese stilt grass, cardinal flower, and bedstraw (Galium
sp ) Some areas on the slope are dommated by kudzu (Pueraria lobata)
' Streams 16 and 17
Streams 16 and 17 receive runoff from residential lots on slopes south of Howard Gap
Road, flow north through culverts under the road, and enter a wooded area (Figure 4D)
The two streams join north of Howard Gap Road and flow into Cushion Branch Only
small sections of the streams north of the road are included in the project study area A
small wetland (Wetland 10) occurs south of Howard Gap Road where runoff collects in a
' pool at a culvert entrance The two streams form deep gullies with collapsing banks and
sand to clay substrates Vegetation along the downstream wooded stream banks includes
green ash, boxelder (Acer negundo), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), silky
dogwood, Chinese privet, Christmas fern, and Japan ese stilt grass
' Stream 18
Stream 18 is Cushion Branch, which flows north to converge with Cane Creek
approximately 1000 feet north of the project study area (Figure 4E) Stream 18 is a large,
' low-gradient perennial stream with gravel and sand substrate The stream is bridged by
Howard Gap Road A network of ditches extends from Cushion Branch along Howard
Gap Road and along adjoining roads Two sections of these ditches, south of Cushion
' Branch and on each side of Howard Gap Road, are included as segments of Stream 18
The extent of the ditches to be included as streams was determined by the normal high
water mark of Cushion Branch Stream 18 is bordered by narrow riparian buffers and
' flows through agricultural fields and industrial areas Vegetation bordering the stream
includes green ash, boxelder, sycamore, red maple, silky dogwood, ironweed (Vernonia
noveboracensts), and tearthumb

36

1

B.3.b. Best Usage Classifications
All stream reaches contained within the project study area have been issued a Best Usage
Classification of C (NCDWQ 2004a) In 2000, a Use Support Rating of Fully Supporting
was assigned to Cushion Branch and its tributaries Featherstone Creek and Byers Creek
are Not Rated as to their Use Support Clear Creek was rated as Not Supporting
(NCDWQ 2000) Class C uses include freshwaters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, other uses not involving human body contact with
water, and activities involving human body contact with water where such activities take
place on an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental basis
NCDWQ's Basinwide Assessment Reports address long-term trends in water quality at
fixed monitoring stations through chemical monitoring and sampling for benthic
macromvertebrates and fish communities Benthic macromvertebrates were monitored in
1997 in Clear Creek at SR 1513, approximately 2000 feet downstream of Howard Gap
Road The samples returned a Poor water quality rating The section of Mud Creek that
receives flow from Cane Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek was also sampled
and received a Good-Fair rating Benthic macromvertebrates were also monitored in
1997 at Cane Creek, into which Cushion Branch flows, at Howard Gap Road
approximately 1000 feet north of the northern terminus of the project study area The
tests returned a Good-Fair rating
No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW),
Trout Waters (Tr), Water Supply I waters (WS-1), Water Supply II waters (WS-II), or
Watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 10 mile of the project study area
There are 83 dischargers in this subbasm, but only six facilities have a permitted flow
greater than 0 5 million gallons per day (MGD) Clear Creek receives effluent from four
dischargers with a total permitted flow of 0 073 MGD Featherstone Creek has one
discharger with a 0 005-MGD permitted flow One discharger is located on Byers Creek
with a permitted flow of 0 1 MGD Cushion Branch has no dischargers, but Cane Creek
has four dischargers with a total permitted flow of 0 077 MGD Mud Creek has four
dischargers with a total permitted flow of 3 63 MGD
Clear Creek, from Lewis Creek to Mud Creek (Assessment Unit 6-55-11-(5)), has been
listed as impaired on the NCDWQ 2002 and draft 2004 303(d) lists The stream reach is
listed under Category 6 (unpaired due to biological data) due to habitat degradation
Specialty crop production (apples) was listed as a potential source of degradation Mud
Creek, from its source to Byers Creek (Assessment Unit 6-55a), has been hsted as
impaired on the NCDWQ 2002 and draft 2004 303(d) hsts This section of Mud Creek
receives flow from Clear Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Byers Creek Thus reach of
Mud Creek has been listed under Category 5 (waters for which Total Maximum Daily
Loads are required) due to turbidity, with potential sources being agriculture and urban
runoff or storm sewers Mud Creek was also listed under Category 6 (impaired due to
biological data) from the same potential sources (NCDWQ 2002, 2004b)
37

According to the 2000 NCDWQ French Broad Raver Basin Water Quality Management
' Plan, Clear Creek is impaired due to nonpoint sources of pollution Habitat degradation
is the cause of impairment, and pesticides associated with apple production along the
creek may also be a cause of the impaired aquatic community Land use is primarily
' forested and agriculture (apple orchards) NCDWQ recommends the establishment and
enhancement of buffers along riparian edges and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs)
Mud Creek is listed as impaired due to habitat degradation Potential sources of impacts
are both point (Hendersonville WWTP) and nonpoint (agriculture and urban to nonurban
' land uses) Much of the land along Mud Creek is in row crops (tomatoes or corn) or
pasture and hay Mud Creek is the most developed watershed in Henderson County
Approximately 4-5 rules of the stream flows through the City of Hendersonville
Therefore, urban runoff is also of great concern for the water quality of the creek
Henderson County is listed by the N C Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as a
' trout county However, stream reaches within the project study area are not listed as
Public Mountain Trout waters The nearest designated trout waters are located in Clear
Creek approximately 5 stream miles upstream of the project study area Based on a letter
' from NCWRC (dated September 7, 2004), no need for a moratorium on project work due
to fish resources is anticipated
' B.3.c. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated
' with project construction Activities that would result in unpacts are clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, m-stream construction, fertilizers and
' pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation The following impacts
to surface water resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above
' • Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of road crossings and increased
erosion in the project study area
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
' groundwater drainage patterns
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal
' • Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction
' • Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
' construction equipment and other vehicles

1 38

I
It is estimated that a total of 340 linear feet of streambank will be impacted by the
' proposed project In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters
should be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project
Long-term impacts to streams along the corridor will be limited to stream reaches within
the road facility footprint only Impacts to stream reaches adjacent to the facility
' footprint will be temporary and localized during construction Long-term impacts to
adjacent reaches resulting from construction are expected to be negligible Impacts due
to stream realignment will be minimized through the transfer of the existing streambed to
the constructed stream and stabilization of the new stream bank through a combination of
hardened structures and vegetation plantings
' C. BIOTIC RESOURCES
C.1. Terrestrial Communities
' The project study area is located in a region of low-density residential, agricultural,
commercial, industrial, and forested land use Impervious surfaces such as road
' pavement, driveways, and building footprints occupy approximately 31 percent of the
75 6-acre project study area Within the remainder of project study area, five
classifications of plant communities are recognized In order of their predominance
' within the project study area, they are Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest (18 3 acres),
residential disturbed land (181 acres), agricultural land (119 acres),
commercial/industrial disturbed land (3 4 acres), and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
' Forest (0 7 acre)
Due to the highly developed nature of most of the project study area, various types of
' disturbed land constitute the dominant land use Although forested land occupies a large
percentage of the project study area, it occurs in small, fragmented pockets No obvious
pattern of topography or land use is apparent in forest distribution within the project
study area Some streams maintain a functional riparian buffer, but others have no
buffer Residential lots are likewise scattered throughout the project study area, but are
' slightly more concentrated toward the urban center of Hendersonville Plant
communities and associated wildlife are described briefly below Wildlife directly
observed in a plant community or determined to be present through evidence (tracks,
scat) during field investigations are indicated with an asterisk (*)
Dry-Mesic Oak--Iffickory Forest - This plant community category, as mentioned,
occurs in scattered, small blocks throughout the project study area Due to the linear
nature of the project study area, most of the included forested area is at the roadside on
the edges of wooded tracts, and is therefore subject to at least minor levels of disturbance
' Different patches of this forestland also occur at differing elevations, exposures, and
moisture regimes Therefore, the designation Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest is an
approximate characterization which describes the dominant vegetation assemblages and
dynamics of the various pockets of forest Schafale and Weakley (1990) describe this
39

plant community as occurring on mid slopes, low ridges, upland flats, and other dry-
mesic upland areas on acidic soils Undisturbed forests would be dominated by uneven-
aged hardwoods, but more disturbed areas would have increased amounts of pines and
weedy hardwoods such as red maple and tulip poplar In the project study area, Dry-
Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest maintains a canopy of red maple, mockernut hickory, tulip
poplar, white pine, and white oak (Quercus alba) The shrub and subcanopy layers are
well-developed, especially at roadside edges, and include saplings of red maple, wild
' azalea (Azalea sp ), ironwood, silky dogwood, flowering dogwood, Chinese pnvet,
saplings of tulip poplar and black cherry (Prunus serotina), rosebay rhododendron, and
blackberry Vines are likewise well-represented, and include hog peanut, oriental
' bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper, kudzu,
greenbner, poison ivy, and grape The herb layer is also diverse and vanes with sun
exposure and moisture conditions Herb species include giant ragweed (Ambrosia
trifida), frost aster (Aster pilosus), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), Joe Pye weed
(Eupatorium fistulosum), Appalachian sunflower (Helianthus atrorubens), cardinal
flower, Christmas fern, heal-all (Prunella vulgaris), and cutleaf coneflower
Although fragmented, this community type provides connecting corridors and island
refuges of habitat for wildlife The layered structure and abundance of food and cover
' provide higher-quality habitat than adjacent disturbed areas Mammals that may be
expected to occur include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), northern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern
' chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck (Mannota monax), southern flying squirrel
(Glaucomys volans), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), golden mouse*
(Ochrotomys nuttalli), eastern woodrat (Neotoma floridana), gray fox (Urocyon
' cinereoargenteus), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)* Although these forest patches are
fragmented, some forest-adapted bird species might be expected to find adequate habitat
' in them Some of these species include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), yellow-
bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus), tufted titmouse* (Baeolophus bicolor),
Carolina chickadee* (Poecile carolinensis), American robin (Turdus migratonus), wood
thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), gray catbird* (Dumetella carolinensis), brown thrasher
' (Toxostoma ruf im), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), eastern towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Herptile elements may
' include American toad (Bufo amencanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), spring
peeper (Pseudacns crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacns triseriata), eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), and black racer
(Coluber constritor)
Residential disturbed land - Residential land occupies large contiguous sections along
' the project study area These residential areas are low in density, and contain large areas
of maintained lawns or grasslands However, some lots contain pockets of relict species,
usually canopy trees, which reflect their historic assemblages The overall structure of
residential disturbed land is predominantly herbaceous, with a few ornamental shrubs and
40

t

1

trees and a few relict canopy trees Common herbaceous plants in residential disturbed
land include planted and opportunistic grasses, including broomsedge (Andropogon
vtrgtntcus) and fescue (Festuca sp ), as well as forbs such as ragweed (Ambrosia
artemtsn lta), aster (Aster sp ), chicory (Ctchortum tntybus), sencea lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), common plantain (Plantago mayor), Cuban lute (Stda rhombtfolta),
common dandelion (Taraxacum oflictnale), and vetch (Victa sp ) Besides planted
species, shrubs include blackberry, Chinese privet, white pine, red maple, black locust
(Robtnta pseudoacacta), and flowering dogwood Relict canopy trees might include tulip
poplar, white oak, sycamore, hickory (Carya sp ), and black walnut
Mammalian and avian diversity is expected to be much lower in these residential
neighborhoods, but shrubbery and canopy tree patches may afford roosting, nestmg, and
feeding habitat, as well as shelter from predators Animal habitats are fragmented,
however, and resident species must be adapted to such fragmentation and edge effects
Mammals that might be found in residential areas in the project study corridor include
Virginia opossum, southeastern shrew (Sorex longtrostrts), eastern mole (Scalopus
aquattcus), red bat (Lasturus borealis), eastern cottontail (Sylvtlagus flortdanus), gray
squirrel (Scturus caroltnensts), meadow dumping mouse (Zapus hudsontus), and raccoon
Some bird species expected to occur in this plant community include red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamatcensts), mourning dove* (Zenatda macroura), ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubrts), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Carolina chickadee, tufted
titmouse, white-breasted nuthatch (Sttta caroltnensts), house wren (Troglodytes aedon),
Carolina wren, northern mockingbird (Mtmus polyglonos), brown thrasher, American
robm, northern cardinal* (Cardtnalts cardtnalts), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus
calendula), loggerhead shrike (Lantus ludovtctanus), American goldfinch (Carduelts
trtstts), eastern towhee, dark-eyed bunco (Junco hyemalts), chipping sparrow (Sptzella
passertna), and song sparrow Reptiles and amphibians might include worm snake
(Carphophts amoenus), brown snake (Storerta dekayt), redbelly snake (Storena
occtpttomaculata), eastern garter snake (Thamnophts strtalts), rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltts getulus), American toad, Fowler's toad, and
eastern fence lizard
Agricultural land - Agricultural land occurs in patches and large blocks throughout the
project study area This plant community is composed of only one stratum, the
herbaceous layer Planted grasses such as fescue are the dominant vegetative species, but
opportunistic herbs such as wild onion (Alltum canadense), ragweed, aster, chicory,
fireweed (Erechtttes hteractfolta), Chinese silvergrass (Mtscanthus stnensts), foxtatl grass
(Setana sp ), horse nettle (Solanum caroltntanum), goldenrod (Soltdago sp ), and
wingstem are also common
Open fields present a specialized habitat of possibly abundant food resources, but little
cover Some mammal species which can adapt to these conditions include least shrew
(Cryptotts parva), eastern mole, eastern cottontail, and meadow dumping mouse, and bats
such as the little brown myotis (Myotts luctfugus) and red bat Birds which may frequent
these open-field areas include such grassland species as common grackle (Qutscalus
qutscula), mourning dove, eastern bluebird (Stalta stalls), European starling (Stumus
41

vulgans), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius
' phoeniceus), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) Birds which may
frequent the edges of such open habitats include turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), ruby-
throated hummingbird, blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird, yellow-
breasted chat (Icteria virens), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), and song sparrow
Reptiles and amphibians typical of agricultural lands in the project region include rat
snake, eastern kingsnake, eastern milk snake (scarlet kingsnake) (Lampropeltis
' triangulum), American toad, broadhead skink, and corn snake (Elaphe guttata)
Commercial/industrial disturbed land - This category includes commercial
' establishments such as automotive garages, convenience stores, and realty offices, as well
as quarries, manufacturers, and other industrial uses Commercial/industrial disturbed
land is perhaps the most highly disturbed plant community category within the project
study area Habitats for plant communities are often harsh and marginally maintained,
and the diversity of plant species reflects this fact Commercial/industnal disturbed land
supports planted or volunteer grasses such as ryegrass (Lolium sp ), foxtail grass, and
' fescue, as well as tough, weedy species such as ragweed, clucory, sencea lespedeza,
biennial evening primrose (Oenothera biennis), common plantain, goldenrod, and horse
nettle Woody species are infrequently represented, but might include mowed or stunted
1 specimens of black cherry, blackberry, red maple, silky dogwood, black locust, or tulip
poplar
' The diversity of faunal species utilizing this plant community is low, as little foraging,
resting, or breeding habitat is present Mammalian species are expected to be especially
scarce, but may include such adaptable species as raccoon or Norway rat (Rattus
' norvegicus), and bat species such as little brown myotis and eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus) may find foraging habitat in these areas Some bird species are
adapted to disturbed land, including killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), European starling,
t rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis), common grackle, and house sparrow
(Passer domesticus)* Reptile and amphibian elements might include worm snake,
brown snake, and visitors from adjacent woods such as eastern garter snake, rat snake,
American toad, and broadhead skink
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - Schafale and Weakley (1990) describe this
plant community as maintaining a canopy of bottomland and mesophytic trees, in river
and stream floodplains Flood-carried sediment provides nutrients and a source of
disturbance In the project study area, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest occurs
only along stream channels such as Byers Creek, Cushion Branch, and unnamed
tributaries A variety of moisture-loving trees and shrubs occur in this community,
t including red maple, green ash, black walnut, tulip poplar, black gum, American
sycamore, white pine, boxelder, tag alder, river birch, ironwood, silky dogwood, Chinese
privet, black willow, elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), multiflora rose, and yellowroot
' Vines include hog peanut, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese honeysuckle, Virginia creeper,
greenbner, poison ivy, and grape The herb layer is well-developed, and includes
jewelweed, cardinal flower, Japanese stilt grass, panic grass, clearweed, tearthumb,
Christmas fern, cutleaf coneflower, and wingstem
42

Mammals that would find suitable habitat in these moist forested areas include many of
' the mammals of the Dry-Mesic Oak/Hickory Forest Others which are adapted to moist
areas as well as forested cover include cinereus or masked shrew (Sorex ctnereus), golden
mouse, beaver (Castor canadensts), and mink (Mustela vtson) The richness of the plant
' community in this alluvial community is reflected in the avian diversity in the area
Many birds typical of the Dry-Mesic Oak/Hickory Forest aught be expected to also occur
in riparian forestlands Bird species which have some degree of specialization for moist
' habitats include Cooper's hawk, belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), American woodcock
(Scolopax manor), eastern phoebe* (Sayornts phoebe), Louisiana waterthrush (Seturus
motactlla), chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroaca pensylvantca), and American redstart
(Setophaga ruttctlla) A vaned herptile element is expected, and might include eastern
newt (Notophthalmus varadescens), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), seal
salamander (Desmognathus montacola), two-lined salamander (Eurycea baslmeata), slimy
salamander (Plethodon gluttnosus), Jordan's salamander (Plethodon jordana), red
salamander (Pseudotrtton ruber), gray treefrog (Hyla versacolor), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carohna), coal skink (Eumeces anthractnus), nngneck snake (Dtadophts
' punctatus), corn snake, rough green snake (Opheodrys aesttvus), queen snake* (Regina
septemvtttata), eastern garter snake, and copperhead (Agktstrodon contortrtx)
' C.2. Aquatic Communities
Streams of various sizes occur within the project study area and provide adequate habitat
' for a variety of aquatic wildlife The stream banks and over-stream air space also act as
travel corridors for non-aquatic species Aquatic wildlife expected to occur within the
' project study area include muskrat (Ondatra ztbethacus), beaver, muck, belted kingfisher,
great blue heron, mallard, shovelnose salamander (Leurognathus marmoratus), eastern
newt, snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentana), painted turtle (Chrysemys ptcta), northern
water snake (Nerodta stpedon), queen snake*, bullfrog (Rana catesbetana), green frog
(Rana clamttans), pickerel frog (Rana palustrts), wood frog (Rana sylvattca), blackbelly
salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus), and two-heed salamander
' The larger streams, such as Clear Creek, Featherstone Creek, and Cushion Branch, are
expected to support a more diverse fishery than smaller tributaries Game fish that may
occur within large streams within the project region include muskellunge (Esox
masquinongy), redbreast sunfish (Lepomts aurttus), and smallmouth bass (Macropterus
dolomteu) Other fish species possibly occurring in larger streams within the project
' study area include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), flathead catfish (Pylodactas
olavarts), mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyt), central stoneroller
(Campostoma anomalum), rosyside dace (Clmostomus fundulotdes), whitetail shiner
' (Cypranella galactura), warpamt shiner (Luxalus coccogenas), creek chub (Semotalus
atromaculatus), longnose dace (Rhantchthys cataractae), white sucker (Catostomus
commersont), northern hog sucker (Hypentehum nagrtcans), shorthead redhorse
' (Moxostoma macrolepadotum), silver redhorse (Moxostoma antsurum), mottled sculpm
(Cottus baarda), rock bass (Ambloplates rupestrts), greenfin shiner (Cypranella chlorastaa),
and tangerine darter (Perctna auranttaca) The smaller tributaries would support a
largely different suite of species These may include rosyside dace, spotfin shiner
43

(Cyprinella spiloptera), river chub (Nocomis micropogon), mirror shiner (Notropis
' spectrunculus), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), brook trout, rock bass, green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), greenside darter (Etheostoma blennioides), banded darter
(Etheostoma zonale), and greenfin shiner
C.3. Rare and Unique Natural Areas
' No designated rare or unique natural areas have been identified within the project study
area, according to NCNHP records No water bodies are deserving of special attention as
denoted under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Pub L No 90-542, 82
' Stat 906, codified and amended at 16 U S C 1217-1287 (1982)) or under the Natural and
Scenic Rivers Act of 1971 (G S 113A-30) Because rare or unique resources have not
been identified within the project study area, no adverse impacts are anticipated
' CA. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
' CA.a. Anticipated Plant Community Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities resulting from highway construction reflect the
relative abundance of communities within the project study area Much of the project
study area is within residential and commercial/industrial regions of Henderson County
and, as such, disturbed land comprises the majority of mapped plant community acreage
Areas mapped as Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory Forest and Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest are considered to be the only natural areas present within the project study area
Impacts to plant communities are expected to be limited to cut-fill and clearing limits
' Since this project involves improvements to existing roadways, no fragmentation of plant
communities is expected
' C.41. Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Fragmentation and loss of wildlife habitat is an unavoidable consequence of highway
development However, the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts
to wildlife due to the existing urbanized nature of the project study area Short-term
' displacement of local wildlife populations will occur during initial construction Most
local species are habituated to anthropogenic disturbances and are expected to move back
into the vicinity of the construction area Movement through the area will become more
' dangerous for many transient species due to the increase in width of the new facility. No
economically important game species are expected to be adversely affected by the project
due to the primarily urban and suburban setting
' Some wildlife species which occur within the project study area may be displaced
through a permanent change in location of community boundaries Local large mammal
' populations, such as deer, fox, and raccoon may experience disruptions in mating,
feeding, or migratory patterns as a result of construction Increased urbanization has
already resulted in diminished habitat opportunities as woodlands and adjacent
agricultural lands are committed to development Migratory and resident bird species
1 44

which require forest interiors for nesting may be displaced by reduction in community
' tract size
D. JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
' D.1. Waters of the United States
' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires regulation of discharge into "waters
of the United States " Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the
U S Environmental Protection Agency, the USACE has major responsibility for
' implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the CWA The USACE
regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR parts 320-330
' Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered
' "waters of the United States " Wetlands are described by (33 CFR 328 3(b) [1986]) as
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas
Wetlands are defined by the presence of three criteria hydrophytic vegetation, hydnc
soils, and evidence of wetland hydrology during the growing season (DOA 1987) Open
water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment and consideration with respect to
Section 404 review
' Jurisdictional areas within the project study area were delineated and located using
Global Positioning System (GPS) technology during the period of August 25-27 and
August 31-September 2, 2004 The delmeation was reviewed for USACE concurrence
' by Ms Angie Pennock of the Asheville Regulatory Field Office on January 4, 2005 The
locations of jurisdictional areas within the project study area are indicated in Figures 4A
through 4E Characteristics of stream systems are shown in Table 12 Characteristics of
' vegetated wetlands are given below in Table 13
Rivers and large streams within the project study area are considered nvenne systems, as
' defined by Cowardm et al (1979) Riverme systems include Clear Creek and four UTs
to Clear Creek, two UTs to Mud Creek, Byers Creek and seven UTs to Byers Creek, and
Cushion Branch and two UTs to Cushion Branch Featherstone Creek has been described
' in a separate document concerning the replacement of Bridge No 20 (B-3662) The three
large named systems are classified as riverine, lower perennial, permanently flooded
systems with unconsolidated, sand and cobble-gravel substrates (R2UB2/1) Of the 15
I UTs, seven are described as upper perennial and eight as intermittent Substrates range
from mud to cobble (Table 1)

45

Project study area wetlands are considered palustrine systems, as defined by Cowardin et
' al (1979) These palustrine systems occur in low depressions or floodplains adjacent to
streams and vary in plant community composition as a result of disturbance All of the
palustrine wetlands within the project study area have received some degree of
disturbance due to human development
Jurisdictional wetlands in the project study area total 0 115 acres as shown in Table 14
' below This total would be the maximum wetland acreage to be impacted by the
proposed project Wetland characteristics are listed in Table 13 and are described
following the table
Table 13 Vegetated Wetlands and NCDWQ Ratings
0

Wetland NCDWQ
S stem Associated Stream Acres Square Feet T e Score*
Wetland 1 Stream 1 (UT to Clear 0 002 84 PSSIA 28
Creek)
Wetland 2 Stream 7 (UT to Mud 0 044 1930 PSS 1A 17
Creek)
Wetland 3 Stream 7 (UT to Mud 0 003 119 PSS lA 17
Creek)
Wetland 4 Streams 8 & 9 (UT to 0 000 7 PF01C 38
Byers Creek)
Wetland 5 Stream 11 (UT to Byers 0 010 370 PFO1C 46
Creek)
Wetland 6 Stream 12 (UT to Byers 0 027 1195 PFO1B 50
Creek)
Wetland 7 Stream 12 (UT to Byers 0 001 52 PFO1B 46
Creek)
Wetland 8 Stream 13 (UT to Byers 0 025 1080 PFO1B 50
Creek)
Stream 12 (UT to Byers
Wetland 9
Creek) 0 002 108 PFO1B 46
Wetland 10 Stream 17 (UT to Cushion 0 001 51 PSSIA 18
Branch)
TOTAL 0 115
* per the NCDEM Wetland Rating Worksheet (NCDEM 1995)
Wetland 1
Wetland 1 is a ditch extension adjacent to Stream 1 (Figure 4A) Wetlands in the Clear
' Creek floodplain area may have historically been more extensive, but agricultural
practices have resulted in extensive ditching Standing water in the ditch is due only to
pooling in the adjacent Stream 1. The field adjacent to Wetland 1 is in a scrub-shrub
' state of succession, and many stunted woody plants occur in the maintained roadside
46

ditch Vegetation includes tag alder, silky dogwood, multiflora rose, virgins bower
' (Clematis virginiana), soft rush, ironweed, and cardinal flower
Wetlands 2 and 3
' Wetlands 2 and 3 occur at the headwaters of a small tributary to Mud Creek (Figure 4B)
Hydrology appears to be derived from runoff from Howard Gap Road and the slopes
upstream, and possibly also from seeps in the area The wetlands are contiguous with a
' culvert under the road, at which the only standing water in the wetland is located
Wetlands 2 and 3 are located in a pasture area, and support herbaceous vegetation and a
few stunted woody plants Vegetation includes jewelweed, soft rush, seedbox,
' beaksedge, ironweed, smartweed, and multiflora rose
Wetland 4
' Wetland 4 is located at the confluence of two UTS to Byers Creek (Figure 4C) The
wetland occurs as an island in the downcut floodplain of the two streams The streams
enter a small forested pocket at the puncture, and the wetland is dominated by woody
' species, including canopy species Vegetation includes red maple, green ash, multiflora
rose, greenbrier, jewelweed, tearthumb, soft rush, and smartweed
Wetlands 5 through 9
These wetlands are part of a stream and wetland complex located in a steep forested cove
(Figure 4D) The wetlands anse from overland runoff detained in level streamside flats
and from seeps arising along the slope Although the forested cove exhibits almost
complete canopy cover, the wetland areas are dominated by herbaceous vegetation,
including jewelweed, Japanese stilt grass, smartweed, sedges (Carex spp ), great blue
' lobelia (Lobelia siphilitica), and multiflora rose Woody species occur as saplings on the
fringes of the wetlands, and include flowering dogwood, mockernut hickory, tulip poplar,
and Chinese privet
' Wetland 10
This small wetland consists of a pocket of saturated soil and standing water at the mouth
' of a culvert leading to Stream 17 (Figure 4D) The wetland is in a depression in a
maintained lawn, and vegetation consists of herbaceous plants including jewelweed,
' smartweed, sedges, and Japanese stilt grass
Although limited in extent, wetlands in this mountain landscape function as receptors of
upland runoff, intercepting runoff prior to entering stream systems The wetlands also
function as buffers during tunes of flooding, by reducing runoff rates and allowmg for
increased absorption and infiltration
' The Water Quality Section of the State Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
has prepared a wetlands assessment procedure entitled Guidance for Rating the Values of
' Wetlands in North Carolina The most recent version (fourth) of this procedure, the
NCDEM Wetland Rating Worksheet, was released in January 1995 NCDOT is
considering this method as a standard procedure for assessing wetlands proposed for
roadway impacts, for this reason the NCDEM procedure was used to rate each wetland
47

identified within the project study area (Table 12) This procedure was not used to rate
the jurisdictional areas that are bank-to-bank streams
The NCDEM procedure rates wetlands according to six functional attributes water
' storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life
value, and recreational/educational value Each attribute is given a rating of 1 to 5 A
higher rating for a functional attribute indicates a higher value for that attribute to the
' environment A different multiplier is used with each attribute so that the highest
possible sum of the six products is 100 These attributes are weighted (by the multiplier)
to enhance the results in favor of water quality functions Pollutant removal is weighted
' to be the most important wetland attribute Water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization,
and aquatic life functions are given equal weight as secondary attributes, and wildlife
habitat and recreation/education functions are given minimal credit Based on this
' procedure, none of the project study area wetlands have notably high ratings Wetland 4,
at the confluence of Streams 8 and 9, and Wetlands 5 through 9, in a wetland/stream
complex in a wooded cove, appear to provide a slightly higher level of functions than the
' rest (Table 15)
D.2. Permit Issues
' D.2.a. Permits
Due to the location of the existing roadways over streams and adjacent to wetlands,
permits will be required for encroachment into these jurisdictional areas On linear
highway projects involving widening of an existing alignment, each wetland/stream
system crossing can be considered a "single and complete" project for permitting
purposes Since many potential jurisdictional impacts will be of limited size,
consideration should be given to the use of Nationwide Permit (NWP) No 14 (Linear
' Transportation Projects) The use of NWP No 14 is limited to crossings that result in a
filled area of no more than 0 5 acre of waters of the United States Since each crossing
can be considered a "single and complete" project. it is possible to have multiple
nationwide permits along the entire lughway alignment, assuming that the combined
adverse effects are minimal The USACE has determined that a NWP 14 will be the
' appropriate permit for the proposed project
Section 401 of CWA requires each state to certify that state water quality standards will
' not be violated for activities which 1) involve issuance of a federal permit or license, or
2) require discharges to "waters of the United States " The USACE cannot issue a
Section 404 permit until 401 certification is issued Therefore, NCDOT must apply to
' DEM for 401 certification as part of the permit process Each "single and complete"
project will require notification to NCDWQ for general certification
Since the replacement of several existing bridges is a element of this project, the
Tennessee Valley Authority must review the plans and approve them under Section 26a
of the TVA Act Submittal of the application form, structure plans, roadway plans, site
48

location map and the FHWA approval of the CE should be sent to the Morristown
' Watershed Team Office, 3726 E Moms Boulevard, Morristown, TN, 37813-1270
D.2.b. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States, and specifically
wetlands Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include
avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts
over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508 20) Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
' sequentially
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
' impacts to waters of the United States According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures
' should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms
of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes Impacts to
streams are expected due to the nature of the project, since not all sediment can be
prevented from entering waters of the United States Likewise, impacts to wetlands
adjacent to the roadway due to shoulder paving and ditch excavation are unavoidable
However, use of appropriate BMPs per NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
' Protection of Surface Waters will be utilized to prevent those impacts which are
avoidable
' Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions Minimization typically
' focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths As work on
SR 1006 will involve widening the existing roadway, multiple opportunities will occur to
minimize the lengths of culvert extensions and fill slopes Cut slopes are generally
proposed to be 15 1, standard fill slopes will be 2 1 All efforts will be made to decrease
' impacts to surface waters
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
' of the United States have been avoided and mimm,?ed to the maximum extent possible
It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved
in each and every permit action In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0506(h), NCDWQ
' may require compensatory mitigation for projects with greater to or equal than 10 acre of
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 0 linear feet of total
stream impacts Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092, January 15, 2002,
' the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse
1 49

I
effects to the aquatic environment are minimal The size and type of the proposed project
' impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered
in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
' impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization
opportunities have been implemented Compensatory actions often include restoration,
preservation and enhancement, and creation of waters of the United States Such actions
I should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site
Compensatory mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional area impacts may not need to be
' proposed for this project due to the potentially limited nature of the project impacts
However, utilization of BM[Ps is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts Fill or
alteration of more than 150 0 linear feet of stream may require compensatory mitigation
' in accordance with 15 NCAC 2H 0506(h) A final determination regarding mitigation
rests with the USACE and NCDWQ If mitigation is required, NCDOT will pay into the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)
Opportunities for compensatory mitigation are limited within the project study area
Some stream and wetland areas in the project study area are invaded by exotic, invasive
' plant species including Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora rose, Japanese
knotweed, and Oriental bittersweet Removal of these invaders, along with riparian
buffer enhancements, may constitute mitigation opportunities Streams 1 (UT to Clear
1 Creek) and 10 (Byers Creek) show obvious signs of channehzation and may provide
mitigation opportunities through natural channel restoration Temporary impacts to
floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting
disturbed areas with native riparian species and removal of temporary fill material upon
project completion
' D.3. PROTECTED SPECIES
' Species with Federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 US C 1531 et seq )
Endangered status refers to "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range", and Threatened status refers to "any species which is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U S C 1532). The federally protected species listed
' for Henderson County by the USFWS as of February 24, 2003 are depicted in Table 14
These species are briefly described in Table 14 which follows

1

50

L

Table 14. Federally Protected Species listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003
USFWS list)
Common Name Scientific Name Status*
Bog turtle
Appalachian elktoe
Oyster mussel
Bunched arrowhead
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Small-whorled pogoma
Swamp pink
Clemmys muhlenbergn T (S/A)
Alasmidonta ravenehana E
Epaoblasma capsaeformas E**
Sagittana fasciculata E
Sarracema jonesu E
Isotna medeoloides T
Helontas bullata T
White insette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E
*Federal Status
E--Endangered, a taxon "m danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range"
T--Threatened, a taxon "likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range"
T (S/A) - Threatened, due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and
listed for the protection of that species
** Historic record, obscure and incidental record
Clemmys muhlenbergh (Bog turtle)
' Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Family Emydidae
Date Listed November 4, 1997

1
The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches This
otherwise darkly-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a bright orange
or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et al 1980) The bog turtle
has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and
habitat alteration As a result, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened within the northern
portion of its range, and within the southern portion of its range, which includes North
Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T[S/A])
to the northern population The listing bans the collection and interstate and international
commercial trade of bog turtles form the southern population The listing allows
incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful
activities
The bog turtle is typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in
association with aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft
bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995) In North Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous
distribution in the mountains and western Piedmont
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not
required However, this project is not expected to affect the bog turtle as the project
study area occurs in historically developed and disturbed areas. Palustrine wetlands
proposed for potential impacts offer poor bog turtle habitat NCNHP records document
51

no occurrence of the bog turtle within 5 miles of the project study area, and no bog turtles
' were observed during field surveys Based on NCNHP records, field observations, and
professional judgment, this project will have no effect on the bog turtle

1

1

Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe)
Endangered
Family Umomdae
Date Listed November 23, 1994
Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate- to kidney-shaped freshwater mussel that grows
to approximately 3 1 inches in length, 14 inches in height, and 10 inch in width (Clarke
1991) The shell is thin, but not fragile, and exhibits slight inflation along the posterior
ridge near the center of the shell Beaks project only slightly above the hinge line
Lateral teeth are absent, however, the hinge plate of both valves is thickened Small,
pyramidal, compressed pseudocardmal teeth are present, and an interdental projection is
present in the left valve Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer shell
surface) is thicker and dark brown in adults Individuals may be variably marked with
prominent to obscure greenish rays The nacre (shell interior) is shiny, blue to bluish-
white with salmon, pinkish, or brownish coloring in the central portion of the shell and
beak cavity
Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee In North Carolina, this species may now
be restricted to the Little Tennessee and Nohchucky drainages (LeGrand et al 2001)
Recent NCWRC surveys have documented this species in the Little Tennessee River in
Macon and Swain Counties, the Cane River in Yancey County, and the Nohchucky and
North Toe Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell Counties A new population has recently been
found in the Little River near the Henderson-Transylvania County line (personal
communication, Mark Cantrell, USFWS, July 11, 2001) The Pigeon River once
supported a population of this mussel, but now is reported to be severely polluted and no
longer likely to support the species (TSCFTM 1990) Suitable habitat for Appalachian
elktoe is well-oxygenated riffle areas with sand and gravel substrate among cobbles and
boulders Current is usually moderate to swift and depth is no more than 3 feet (Parmalee
and Bogan 1998)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED*
Within the project study area, several streams may offer suitable habitat for Appalachian
elktoe These stream include Stream 2 (Clear Creek), Stream 3 (UT to Clear Creek),
Stream 10 (Byers Creek), and Stream 18 (Cushion Branch). Featherstone Creek, within
the project study area but not delineated for this report, may also provide habitat Each of
these streams is characterized as having moderate to brisk flow over substrates ranging
from sand to cobble or bedrock, each stream contains shallow riffles less than 3 feet deep
Therefore, suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe may exist within the project study area,
although poor water quality may be a hmitmg factor NCNHP records document no
occurrence of the Appalachian elktoe within 5 miles of the project study area Detailed
52
1

1

1

1
surveys will be required to determine the presence or absence of this species in the
project study area
Detailed Survey Results
*The habitat requirements for the Appalachian elktoe are sand and gravel substrate
among cobble and boulders and under flat rocks, usually in moderate current at depths of
less that three feet (Bogan, 2002)
NCDOT biologists Anne Burroughs, Matt Haney, and N Medlin visited the project on
February 15 and 16, 2007 All streams that were evaluated were located within the
French Broad River Basin Several unnamed small streams and ditches are crossed by
Howard Gap Road in the project area. These water bodies were approximately one meter
or less in width with unstable sand and silt substrate and provided no instream habitat for
freshwater mussels One named stream, Cushion Branch, also fit this description (small
and no instream habitat) and was not surveyed Another named stream, Featherstone
Creek was surveyed for mussels as part of a previous project (B-3662) on March 5, 2002
Two sites on the stream were surveyed with no mussels found at either site A Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" was made due to very poor instream habitat and no mussels of
any species being found The project has been subsequently completed Another habitat
evaluation was conducted for Featherstone Creek during the February 2007 site visit and
once again noted very poor/no instream habitat
The two streams in which mussel surveys were conducted during the recent site visit
were Clear Creek and Byers Creek For both streams, the surveys were conducted by
wadmg using batiscopes to look for mussels The distance surveyed on each stream was
from approximately 400 meters below the road crossing to 100 meters above the road
crossing
Clear Creek at Howard Gap Road was approximately 10 meters wide with primarily a
sand substrate and smaller areas with gravel, cobble. boulder, and silt included in the
substrate Flow patterns in the stream included riffle, run, and pool areas The narrow
buffer in the survey segment is typical of the entire catchment, which is dominated by
apple orchards and fields The areas of the substrate containing rocks did provide
marginal habitat for freshwater mussels including the two target species No mussels of
any species were found after 2 25 person-hours of survey time The invasive Asian clam,
Corbicula fluminea, was the only bivalve documented from Clear Creek during the
survey
Byers Creek at the road crossing vaned between 2 and 3 meters wide and had a substrate
composed of gravel and sand, with smaller areas of cobble and some boulder Flow
patterns in the stream included riffles, runs, and pools The stream had segments with no
buffers or narrow buffers due to encroachment by residences and fields The areas of the
substrate containing rocks did provide marginal habitat for freshwater mussels including
the two target species No mussels or bivalves of any species were found after 10 person-
hour of survey time
53

The lack of suitable instream habitat and the fact that no mussels of any species were
found during this or prior surveys mchcate that the Appalachian elktoe and oyster mussel
do not occur in the project footprint This is further supported by the lack of records in
the area for either of these species in the N C Natural Heritage Program and N C
' Wildlife Resources Commission databases Given this information, construction of the
proposed project will have no effect on the Appalachian elktoe or the oyster mussel
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION DETAIL STUDY: NO EFFECT
Epioblasma capsaeformis (Oyster mussel)
Endangered
Fanuly Umomdae
Date Listed June 14, 2001
' The oyster mussel is a small, freshwater mussel reaching approximately 2 1 inches in
length The shell is dull to sub-shiny and yellowish to green with numerous dark green
rays The nacre (inside shell surface) is whitish to bluish in color Shells of females are
slightly inflated and thinner toward the posterior margin Oyster mussels inhabit small to
medium-sized rivers with sand/gravel substrate in shallow ruffles and fast water less than
' 3 feet deep (Parmalee and Bogan 1998) This species is sometimes associated with water
willow (Justicia americana) and is found in gravel pockets between bedrock and swift
currents Four species of fish have been identified as hosts spotted darter (Etheostoma
' maculatum), redline darter (E ruf ilineatum), dusky darter (Percina sclera), and banded
sculpm (Cottus carollcnae) (USFWS 2000)
The oyster mussel is endemic to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina Within North Carolina,
' the species was known to have been abundant in the early 1900s in the upper Tennessee
River system of the mountains of western North Carolina and Tennessee Currently the
oyster mussel survives in nine tributaries of the Tennessee and Cumberland River
systems in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia This species is now considered to have
been "formerly reported" from the French Broad River (LeGrand et al 2001). Much of
the historic range of this species has been impounded by projects of the Tennessee Valley
' Authority and the USACE Other populations have probably been lost due to pollution
and siltation All known populations are small and vulnerable to disturbance
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED*
The larger streams in the project study area have suitable current and substrate
requirements and may harbor oyster mussel These streams include Stream 2 (Clear
Creek), Stream 10 (Byers Creek), Stream 18 (Cushion Branch), and Featherstone Creek
As with Appalachian elktoe, poor water quality may be a limiting factor, especially in
' Clear Creek NCNHP records document no occurrence of the oyster mussel within 5
miles of the project study area, and records for oyster mussel in Henderson County are
historic, incidental, and obscure Detailed surveys will be required to determine the
1 presence or absence of this species in the project study area
54

Detailed Survey Results
The habitat requirements for the oyster mussel are shallow nffles in fast water that are
less than three feet in depth in gravel and sand substrate
NCDOT biologists Anne Burroughs, Matt Haney, and N Medlin visited the project on
February 15 and 16, 2007 All streams that were evaluated were located within the
French Broad River Basin Several unnamed small streams and ditches are crossed by
Howard Gap Road in the project area These waterbodies were approximately one meter
or less in width with unstable sand and silt substrate and provided no mstream habitat for
' freshwater mussels One named stream, Cushion Branch, also fit this description (small
and no instream habitat) and was not surveyed Another named stream, Featherstone
Creek was surveyed for mussels as part of a previous project (B-3662) on March 5, 2002
Two sites on the stream were surveyed with no mussels found at either site A Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" was made due to very poor instream habitat and no mussels of
any species being found The project has been subsequently completed Another habitat
evaluation was conducted for Featherstone Creek during the February 2007 site visit and
once again noted very poor/no instream habitat
' The two streams in which mussel surveys were conducted during the recent site visit
were Clear Creek and Byers Creek For both streams, the surveys were conducted by
wadmg using batiscopes to look for mussels The distance surveyed on each stream was
' from approximately 400 meters below the road crossing to 100 meters above the road
crossing
Clear Creek at Howard Gap Road was approximately 10 meters wide with primarily a
sand substrate and smaller areas with gravel, cobble, boulder, and silt included in the
' substrate Flow patterns in the stream included riffle, run, and pool areas The narrow
buffer in the survey segment is typical of the entire catchment, which is dominated by
apple orchards and fields The areas of the substrate containing rocks did provide
' marginal habitat for freshwater mussels including the two target species No mussels of
any species were found after 2 25 person-hours of survey time The invasive Asian clam,
Corbicula flummea, was the only bivalve documented from Clear Creek during the
survey
Byers Creek at the road crossing vaned between 2 and 3 meters wide and had a substrate
composed of gravel and sand, with smaller areas of cobble and some boulder Flow
patterns in the stream included riffles, runs, and pools The stream had segments with no
buffers or narrow buffers due to encroachment by residences and fields The areas of the
' substrate containing rocks did provide marginal habitat for freshwater mussels including
the two target species No mussels or bivalves of any species were found after 10 person-
hour of survey time
' The lack of suitable instream habitat and the fact that no mussels of any species were
found during this or prior surveys indicate that the Appalachian elktoe and oyster mussel
I do not occur in the project footprint This is further supported by the lack of records in
55

1
the area for either of these species in the N C Natural Heritage Program and N C
' Wildlife Resources Commission databases Given this information, construction of the
proposed project will have no effect on the Appalachian elktoe or the oyster mussel
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION DETAIL STUDY: NO EFFECT
Sagittarta fasciculata (Bunched arrowhead)
' Endangered
Family Ahsmataceae
Date Listed July 25, 1979
' Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14 inches in height
with simple, basal leaves Two leaf forms are produced phyllodes (bladeless) early in
' the season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the season (Kral 1983) The
phyllodes are linear, distinctively flattened, spongy-tissued, and are up to 4 inches long
and 0 8 inches wide Later leaves may be spoon-shaped or narrowly oblanceolate and
strap-like, growing to lengths of 14 inches and widths of 16 inches Umsexual flowers
are borne on an erect flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each whorl subtended by
three bracts fused at the base Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large, distinctively
crested achenes Flowering has been reported as occurring in May and June (Kral 1983)
to as late as July (Massey et al 1983), with fruits present from May through September
(Massey et al 1983) Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
' through September (Massey et al 1983)
' Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish
streams flowing through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983) Typical substrate is
reported to be siliceous and micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral
' 1983) Within North Carolina, the current distribution is restricted to Henderson County
(Amoroso and Finnegan 2002)
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Of the 18 stream crossings identified within the project study corridor, only Stream 1
may provide suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead, in the sluggish pooled area
upstream of Howard Gap Road However, detailed surveys for this plant were conducted
within the project study area on July 13-15, 2004 No specimens of bunched arrowhead
' were found Bunched arrowhead has been recorded by the NCNHP along Bat Fork,
approximately 2 3 miles south of the project study area Based on survey results and best
professional judgement, this project will not affect bunched arrowhead
Sarracenia jonesii [S. rubra ssp. jonesii] (Mountain sweet pitcher plant)
Endangered
Family Sarracemaceae
Date Listed September 30, 1988

56

Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial, hydrophytic herb growing to
' 30 inches in height with hollow, trumpet-shaped leaves The pitcher chamber is narrow
but expands sharply along the upper quarter of the length An ascending, cordate-shaped
hood is held high over the exposed pitcher chamber onfice Solitary flowers are
' produced on erect flowering stems Petals are dark red to maroon on the outside, with the
inner surface often yellow-green tinged with red Flowering has been reported from
April to June with fruits formed by August Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge
I in April and persist through August (Massey et al 1983) Mountain sweet pitcher plant
has been treated as a subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S rubra)
Mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and streamsides along the Blue
Ridge Divide Populations are usually found in level depressions in floodplams, but a
few populations have been found along waterfalls, on granite rockfaces Herbs and
shrubs dominate, but a few scattered canopy trees may be present Within North
Carolina, the current distribution is restricted to Henderson and Transylvania Counties
(Amoroso and Finnegan 2002)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' Some of the wetlands identified in the project study area are characterized as floodplain
depressions The less disturbed sites may provide suitable habitat for mountain sweet
pitcher plant These are Wetlands 5, 6, 8, and 11 through 17 Mountain sweet pitcher
' plant has been recorded by the NCNHP along Bat Fork, approximately 2 3 miles south of
the project study area Detailed surveys for mountain sweet pitcher plant were conducted
on July 13-15 and during the late October field visits in the project study area No
mountain sweet pitcher plants were found This project is not expected to affect
mountain sweet pitcher plant
Isotria medeoloides (Small-whorled pogonia)
Threatened
Family Orchidaceae
Date Listed September 10, 1982
The small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10 inches high Five
or sic drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips are arranged in
a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem Typically a single,
' yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced dust above the leaves, a second
flower rarely may be present Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of
0 7 inch, surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 10 inch in length Flower production,
which occurs from May to July, is followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal
capsule 0.7 to 12 inches in length (Massey et al 1983) This species may remain
dormant for up to 10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977)
' The small-whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern
Georgia, but is very local in distribution In North Carolina, this species is found in
scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso and Finnegan
1 57

2002) Small-whorled pogoma is found in open, dry deciduous, or minced pme-deciduous
' forest, or along stream banks Examples of areas providing suitable conditions (open
canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small-whorled pogoma has been
found include old fields, pastures, wmdthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and
' semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al
1983) In the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in
association with white pine (Weakley 1993)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' The project study area may contain suitable habitat for small-whorled pogoma in less
disturbed wooded or unmowed areas that extend to the roadside These areas provide
relatively undisturbed habitat within the range of characteristics suitable for small-
whorled pogoma growth Suitable habitat areas are more widespread in the northern half
of the project study area The NCNHP does not record any instances of small-whorled
pogoma within 5 miles of the project study corridor Detailed studies for this plant were
' conducted on July 13-15, 2004 No specimens of small-whorled pogoma were found
The project will not affect small-whorled pogoma
' Helonws bullata (Swamp pink)
Threatened
Family Lihaceae
' Date Listed September 9, 1988
Swamp pink is a perennial, hydrophytic herb in the lily family with simple leaves in a
' basal rosette Small scale-like leaves or bracts are found on a hollow flowering stem
wluch may be 16 inches tall in flower and 24 inches tall in fruit The inflorescence
consists of pink to lavender flowers borne on a raceme without bracts Fruits consist of
three-lobed papery capsules Flowering occurs in April and May, with fruits present
from May through July Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
through September (Massey et al 1983)
' In North Carolina, swamp Pink is found in mountain swamps and bogs Swamp Pink
occurs along small watercourses in permanently saturated, acidic, organic soils or black
muck which is mostly sphagnous (Porter and Wieboldt 1991) Swamp pink does not
tolerate prolonged inundation, but can survive infrequent and brief flooding In North
' Carolina, the current distribution is restricted to Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania
Counties (Amoroso and Finnegan 2002)
I BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Acidic bog soils which comprise suitable habitat for swamp pink do not occur within the
' project study area Saturated soils and wetlands identified within the project study area
are underlain by mineral soils, ranging from clay to sand in texture Swamp pink has
been recorded by the NCNHP along Bat Fork, approximately 2 3 miles south of the
project study area Due to the lack of habitat, this project will not affect swamp pink
58

Fil
Sisyrinchcum dichotomum (White irisette)
Endangered
Family Iridaceae
Date Listed September 26, 1991
' White rosette is a perennial herb in the ms family that grows to 16 inches tall Stem
leaves are at least as wide as the winged stem and may reach 5 5 inches long and 0 2 inch
wide Basal leaves reach one-third to one-half the height of the plant and may be up to
7 5 inches long and 0 14 inch wide White rosette differs from other blue-eyed grasses
by having three to five nodes with successively shorter mtemodes between dichotomous
' branches (USFWS 1995) Four to six flowers with white, recurved penanth units are
borne per spathe Flowering occurs from late May through July
White casette is found in dry to mesic, open oak-hickory forest on mnd-elevation
mountain slopes at elevations from 1300 to 3300 feet with aspects ranging primarily from
southeast to southwest (USFWS 1995) White rosette grows in shallow, circumneutral
' soils, especially over weathered amphibohte White insette is reported to grow best on
regularly disturbed sites, such as power Ines, roadsides, and woodland edges, which
minuc suppressed natural disturbances and maintain open habitat (USFWS 1995) The
current North Carolina distribution is restricted to Forsyth, Henderson, Polk, and
Rutherford Counties (Amoroso and Finnegan 2002)
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
' The project study area occurs at suitable elevations for white rosette, and south-facing
slopes are located at intervals along its length However, only one soil map unit within
the project study area approaches neutral reactivity required for white msette survival
This is an inclusion of Hatboro loam in the Clear Creek floodplam, in a highly disturbed
area The NCNHP has not recorded any instances of white msette within 5 mules of the
project study corridor Detailed studies conducted for white rosette on July 13-15, 2004
' failed to disclose any specimens The project will not affect white rosette
DA. Federal Species of Concern
t Nineteen Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed by the USFWS for Henderson
County (February 24, 2003 list) Federal species of concern are not afforded federal
' protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered An FSC is defined as a species that is under consideration for
listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing In addition, FSCs
that are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or of Special Concern (SC) by the
NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the
N C State Endangered Species Act and the N C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act
of 1979, as amended. Table 15 summarizes FSCs listed by USFWS for Henderson
County, and indicates whether suitable habitat exists for each species within the project
study area
59

Table 15. Federal Species of Concern listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003
USFWS list, Amoroso and Finnegan 2002, LeGrand et al 2001)
Common Name Scientific Name Potential State
' Habitat Status*
Appalachian Yellow-bellied Sphyrapzcus varzus Yes SC
Sapsucker appalachzenszs
Blotched Chub*** Enmystax znszgnzs Yes SR
Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis lezbn Yes Sc
' Eastern Woodrat - S Appalachian Neotoma florzdana haematoreza Yes SC
Population
Green Salamander Anezdes aeneus Yes E
' Hellbender Cryptobranchus allegamenszs Yes SC
Diana Fritillary Speyena dzana Yes SR
Tennessee Heelsphtter Lasmzgona holstonza No
Divided-leaf Ragwort** Packera mzllefolzum No E
T
Fort Mountain Sedge Carex communzs var Yes SR-T
amplzsquama
Fraser's Loosestnfe*** Lyszmachza fraserz Yes E
French Broad Heartleaf Hexastylzs rhombzformzs Yes SR-L
' Gray's Lily** Lzlzum grayz No T-SC
Large-flowered Barbara's Marshallza grandz fl
ora No
SR-T
Buttons*
Mountain Catchfly Szlene ovata Yes SR-T
Mountain Heartleaf Hexastylzs contracta No E
Rough Rush (=New Jersey Rush) Juncus caesanenszs No E
Schweiitz's Sedge Carex schweznztzzz No E
Sweet Pmesap*** Monotropszs odorata Yes SR-T
-State Status E = Endangered, T = Threatened
SC = Special Concern, SR = Significantly Rare,
SR-L Significantly Rare and of limited range (endemic or near-endemic to North
' Carolina)
SR-T = Significantly Rare throughout the species' range
** Historic record - the species has been observed in the county more than 20 years ago
' ***Obscure - the date the species was last observed in the county is uncertain
E. FLOODPLAIN
Henderson County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program Clear Creek is the only stream within the project study area where a detailed
' flood study has been performed Bridge No 40 over Clear Creek is proposed to be
replaced as a part of the Howard Gap Road project
1
60

Hydraulic are being performed to determine the new crossing requirements If possible,
' the new structure will be designed to provide a no rise condition for the base flood If
this provides not feasible, design will incorporate all measures to minimize rise impacts
and a Letter of Map Revision will be prepared
The floodplain area in the vicinity of the remaining stream crossings is primarily
residential and undeveloped The terrain throughout most of the project is rolling, with
the streams and natural draws located such that the project area can be drained without
difficulty Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent possible
' Overall, it is not anticipated that the proposed project should have any adverse impacts on
the existing floodplains
' F. F AZARDOUS MATERIALS
A field survey was conducted along the project to identify any sites that might be sources
of hazardous materials and might be impacted by the proposed project In addition to the
field survey, a file search of appropriate environmental agencies was conducted to
identify any known problem sites along the Howard Gap Road corridor from US 64 to
Jackson Road
Based on the field survey and base mapping that has been prepared, there are no
anticipated UST impacts Based in the GIS search no apparent Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERLA) sites were identified within the project corridor Based on
the GIS search, no regulated or unregulated landfills or dumpsites occur within the
project limits
' Based on the GIS search, two incidents are listed involving underground storage tanks
(USTs) with addresses along Howard Gap Road The first at Dotson Flowers, 2 Howard
' Gap Road involved a heating oil ust When no responsible party could be identified, the
ust was removed by the NCDOT A second site was the Corner Pantry at 600 Howard
Gap Road where an incident occurred February 13, 2003 Neither of these addresses
' correspond to properties shown on the base mapping prepared for the project The only
convenience store in the corridor is at the intersection of Brookside Camp Road and
Howard Gap Road

1

61

1

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Solicited
Beginning in August 2004, the following federal, state, and local agencies were contacted
to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed project
(Note An asterisk indicates the agencies that responded to the scoping letter )
City of Asheville - Engineering Department
Henderson County Manager
Henderson County Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
*Henderson County Fire Marshall
Henderson County Public Schools
*State Clearinghouse
*Department of Cultural Resources - Division of Archives and History - SHPO
*N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water
Quahty/Wetlands
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Parks and
Recreation
*N C Wildlife Resources Commission - Mountain Region Coordinator
*U S Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U S Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville Field Office
U S Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration
*Tennessee Valley Authority
Written responses from the agencies are included in Appendix C
B. Interagency Coordination
The proposed project is to widen Howard Gap Road from US 64 to Jackson Road
(SR 1539) 2 feet on each side symmetrical about the existing centerline At three
locations, excessive horizontal curvature will be unproved Bridge No 40 will be
replaced immediately west of its existing location Two bridges, Nos 22 and 222 will be
replaced at their existing location
Since this project is essentially a tumor widening project, no Merger Team meetings were
proposed and none have been held
C. Citizens Information Workshop / Design Public Hearing
Citizen comments and concerns were taken into consideration during the planning stage
of the project A Citizens Informational Workshop was held in the Fletcher Elementary
School on December 15, 2005, by NCDOT representatives to present the proposed
project to the public and obtain comments and/or suggestions relative to the proposed
62

project The project was advertised in the local news media Of the 34 citizens that
attended the workshop, most were in favor of the project as proposed The citizen
comments resulting from the meeting pertained to design details
' The comments from the Citizens Information Workshop are included in Appendix D
following the agency comments
D. Design Public Hearing
' No formal design public hearing is planned in as much as the Preliminary Design Plans
were available and discussed at the December 15, 2005, Citizens Informational
Workshop

I

63

VII. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J L and J T Finnegan 2002 Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
' and Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh 111 pp
' Clarke, A H 1991 The Tribe Alasmidontim (Umonidae Anodontmae), Part I Pegias,
Alasmidonta, and Arcidens Snuthsoman Contributions to Zoology, No 326 101 pp
' Cowardin, L M , V Carter, F C Golet, and E T LaRoe 1979 Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States USFWS/OBS -79/31 Fish and
Wildlife Service, U S Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 103 pp
' Daniels, R B , S W Buol, H J Kleiss, and C A Ditzler 1999 Soil Systems in North
Carolina North Carolina State University Soil Science Department, Raleigh, North
Carolina
Department of the Army (DOA) 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
' Manual Tech Rpt Y-87-1 US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS 100 pp
Griffith, G E, J M Omernik, J A Comstock, M P Schafale, W H McNab, D R Lenat,
T F MacPherson, J.B Glover, and V B Shelbourne 2002 Ecoregions of North
Carolina and South Carolina (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,
and photographs) Map scale 1 1,500,000 U S Geological Survey, Reston, VA
' Hamel, Paul B 1992 Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South The Nature
Conservancy, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 367 pp
Kartesz, J 1998 A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands Biota of North America Program
' Kral, R 1983 A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related
Vascular Plants of the South United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Southern Region, Atlanta, GA Technical Publication R8-TP 2 1305 pp
' LeGrand, H E , Jr , S P Hall, and J T Finnegan 2001 Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh 67 pp
Martof, B S , W M Palmer, J R Bailey, and J R Harrison, III 1980 Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina 264 pp
64

Massey, J R, D K S Otte, T A Atkinson, and RD Whetstone 1983 An Atlas and
Illustrated Guide to the Threatened and Endangered Plants of the Mountains of North
Carolina and Virginia Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Waynesville, North
Carolina 218 pp
Menhinick, E F 1991 The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina The Delmar Company,
Charlotte, NC for North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC 227 pp
Newcomb, L 1977 Newcomb's Wildflower Guide Little, Brown, and Company,
Boston, MA 490 pp
N C Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) 1995 Guidance for Rating the
Value of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Version N C Department of Environment,
' Health, and Natural Resources, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 1999 Internal Guidance Manual N C
Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Method, Version 2 0 N C Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC
' N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2000 French Broad River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Planning Branch, Raleigh, NC
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2002 Final North Carolina Water Quality
' Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report
Available http //h2o enr state nc us/tmdl/General_303d htm [October 26, 2004] N C
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water
Quality Section, Planning Branch, Raleigh, NC
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2004a Basmwide Information Management
System Available online http //h2o enr state nc us/bims/Reports/reportsWB html
October 25, 2004 N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC
N C Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2004b North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) Public
' Review Draft Available http //h2o.enr.state.nc us/tmdl/General_303d htm [October 26,
2004] N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Water Quality Section, Planning Branch, Raleigh, NC
N C Geological Survey (NCGS) 1991 Generalized Geologic Map of North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC
' Palmer, W.M and A L Braswell 1995 Reptiles of North Carolina The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 412 pp
65

1
Parmalee, P W and A E Bogan 1998 The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville 328 pp
Porter, D M, and T F Wieboldt 1991 Vascular Plants Pp 51-171 in K Terwilliger
' (ed ), Virginia's Endangered Species Proceedings of a Symposium The McDonald and
Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia 672 pp
' Potter, E F , J F Parnell, and R P Teuhngs 1980 Birds of the Carolinas The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 408 pp
Radford, A E , H E Ahles, and C R Bell 1968 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 1183 pp
' Rohde, F C , R G Arndt, DG. Lindquist, and J F Parnell 1994 Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC 222 pp
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation N C Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC 325 pp
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1980 Soil Survey of Henderson County Area United
States Department of Agriculture
' The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM) 1990 A
Report on the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial
' Molluscan Fauna 283 pp
U S Census Bureau 2000 United States Census 2000, selected tablulations
' U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1995 White Insette Recovery Plan U S Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia 22 pp
' U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2000 Endangered and Threatened Mussels in
North Carolina Oyster Mussels in North Carolina http //nc-es fws gov/mussel/
oystermuss html
Weakley, A S 1993 Orchidaceae (Orchid Family) Isotria Rafinesque (Whorled
' Pogoma, Five-leaves, Fiveleaf Orchid) P. 491 in Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas
and Virginia, Working Draft of 22 October 1993
t Webster, W D , J F Parnell, and W.C Biggs, Jr 1985 Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC 255
PP
66
I I
F1(Wy v ?:
PIS GAH 9Y'
2 F, u °

H,? D R S O N
'fff

-'-Hendersonville •?
,+ ?

APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 1.0
MILE
\ t
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
HENDERSON COUNTY
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
from US 64 to SR1539 (Jackson Road)
MA14181R
Figure I
June,2004
%
w,
w

v -i - .a
E
r i
t
Nil, TIP

NNI
13
'
All
,r

s AV

5 -
o

.
+
f
4,N 1 a

?. vy?
a I X
m wI Mk
-it lo

A-
-

9
ery
Itl?? ?
!'
,'
E yy
ia"6
"? ?
xf _
'Ir L

* Y? 4IN

?i

EcoScience
Ni, Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, SuRe 101
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Ph: 919-828-3433
Fax: [phone]
HOWARD GAP ROAD
(SR 1006)
IMPROVEMENTS
Henderson County,
North Carolina
IF -:;f .1l`-AdmvAi
Title:
EXISTING
CONDITIONS

Drawn by. FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1" = 1250
Date:
OCT 2004
Project:
04-201
m m m m = = m = = = m m m m w m
I

{
----------------------

G r 1
Y r-
` ..
.
1 h
` ?? ?
f . k
..ii,,.
s _

EcoScience
Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
04
.?? Ph: 919-828-3433
Fax: [phone]
Drawn by: FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1" = 1250
Date:
OCT 2004
Protect:
04-201
Symbol Series Hydric Status*
BaB Bradson gravelly loam, 2-7% slopes Upland soil
BaC Bradson gravelly loam, 7-15% slopes Upland soil
Co Codorus loam Hydric Status B
Cu Comus fine sandy loam Upland soil
DeA Delanco loam, 0-2% slopes Hydric Status B
EdE Edneyville fine sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Upland soil
EwE Evard soils, 15-25% slopes Upland soil
EwF Evard soils, 25-45% slopes Upland soil
Ha Hatboro loam Hydric Status A
2
7%
l
H
ill
l land soil
U
HyB oam,
-
s
opes
ayesv
e p
HyC Hayesville loam, 7-15% slopes Upland soil
HyE Hayesville loam, 15-25% slopes Upland soil
TeB Tate fine sandy loam, 2-7% slopes Upland soil
TeC Tate fine sandy loam, 7-15% slopes Upland soil
' Hydric Status A = Hydric soils
Hydric Status B = Non-hydric soils which may contain hydric inclusions
11
M M== M M== M w= r M
Y
f r` Symbol Series Hydric Status*
BaB Bradson gravelly loam, 2-7% slopes Upland soil
BaC Bradson gravelly loam, 7-15% slopes Upland soil
.
...... -----
.._

Co

Codorus loam

Hydric Status B
? Cu Comus fine sandy loam Upland soil
?r DeA Delanco loam, 0-2% slopes Hydric Status B
/ EdE Edneyville fine sandy loam, 15-25% slopes Upland soil
,
l EwE Evard soils, 15-25% slopes Upland soil
TT
I,
64 EwF Evard soils, 25-45% slopes Upland soil
_ Ha Hatboro loam Hydric Status A
HyB Hayesville loam, 2-7% slopes Upland soil
H
C es
7-15% slo
loam
ill
H Upland soil
y p
,
ayesv
e
A- r
A
HyE
Hayesville loam, 15-25% slopes
Upland soil
5
TeB
Tate fine sandy loam, 2-7% slopes
Upland soil
TeC Tate fine sandy loam, 7-15% slopes Upland soil

' Hydric Status A = Hydric soils
H ( Hydric Status B = Non-hydric soils which may contain hydric inclusions
w5,

.
H
-..fir
}331-? ,y -I '•
am -K? ??
? ? .. ? ? v T ^..i, -. .j.-a
- I - •
+ _ <1t ?
a/ 41Y1 l i
S? J
7 "` {'
,,? v y :s ? .,«?, I 'c * ?,r- ? ,• °x''1`5.-. a? .j.. - - ti

n 1 xinM
v
-
i It -
y..

,
Oat'
y `
ry,
, at
V
'

wTM
P7 HI
H ..-
%
\ -
z fi 1 a {?

• 4
Project

- Study
Area

ii
4.
EWF

Y.IAGiy1A'
TeC

\
k +.l•,. q_:'

FIN +y .. I \
., ,,5 z ?`:,?.A Y mat
%

. x

Ba C
k
, _

.
".

\ A
.
A.
kip^I1
'

j

.. F

r IVA"

4/
x ?
~
?_ # ?
r1 ???.,,..F ' ? « \ ! ' / • 1' «
A *,? ? N`
'G ",? 4 F
S "?34i.FN 'p ?+•``!\
..
4
? 1', 16
1o Y fi ?.- ` J.^
;Af
a !tkfF??i
r+r

'

i
F
?
BeB

.

•

.'F{f
t•'>/
,
t
?
•
•
?
.si
+
`1
??
x . f'.!? „.„ ,
..?,4?
r:; .
a6
k r M , ?yy ?.f
i,

tMatchline_2.shP
S soils
N M Hydric Status A
A ? Hydric Status B
Upland Soils
Source: 1999 Infrared Orthophoto
1000 0 1000 2000 Feet
EcoScience
Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Ph: 919-828-3433
Fax: [phone]
HOWARD GAP ROAD
(SR 1006)
IMPROVEMENTS
Henderson County,
North Carolina

Title:
SCS SOILS
Drawn by: FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1" = 1250
Date:
OCT 2004
Project:
04-201

ti
#
? 13

4PF
.'?., .•= `?? ? ? `~ "^+a_,.? f r r'f r S ?''_.ti .?,, ? ?• ? ?4 Y Y` ? ? i ? ? ?r ?i e?-
'bk'
` 'R ,ter ?,s Y.y?' •` r7 i ( 5 y§ ! y ?' 1
w+? ?' `, ?i. ? ?.r•?"-r??` f?? ,f,/ ? ??_ ??_ ? '? ?? . ? ? ''4 ?'c Ley
...4 f y; ° ti yy` }yr, * ?k' i? -mot fr
? N/S;
';F??a.? G ? ' •? ? °?,,' ?t ?.*.,. ? `fit ?/ ? 1 ? i•ri° _.-..?` ?,>a
. ? _'?y y ? 1 fr
r.*', 1 a •ti ^?ti § a• "°ar,, ,,rte - '" _ ?' rte
ILI
Stream 3
GO zz-_
°Stream 2
1`'_'"_`',_ F? ? ,?y?'..,,?....-- Y?-.?'*-tip I :? 14 '+-'' ?' °{ ,,.?.'"r '``,V.` `.•.
'f•`J!' Wetland I
` _..
Ns.
P) I
S eam 1 R M,
Project
°- ` Study'
- ? Area
'Y ` 1 1 A° r
gyp' ?r••.?,y?.? N.
- r
.
. ? r,' ? rte. ,,?, ? _,.?',... r .t '.? +'? ? I •ii ? y tr # ?.
a
74,
210 0
-
atiy _ Mores irokt,
s N Matchline 5.shp ,? ,?.,, ?. ,,. ,? ?° ? ?„ ? ' • ??
Streams
Wetlands
N - '
A 500 0 500 Feet
Source: USGS Hendersonville, NC 7.5-minute quadrangl a`? j? r_?, '., •,_ ` a * -`"""1'
Title:
EcoScience HOWARD GAP ROAD
Corporation IMPR(SR 1006)
OVEMENTS JURISDICTIONAL
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 AREAS
Ph: 919-828-3433 Henderson County,
Fax: [phone] North Carolina
Drawn by. FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1 500'
Date:
OCT 2004
4
A
Project:
04-201
I Cl)

m

?
(A
[A ?
p
p ? N
m
? m
M a
T
mCL
CL
m
n
x
m
a

o

a
ID
C
- -'?•
m
z
n
3

m 0
m

J

r ? f}r
Ile
r r'
i
IF
r?
r ? t ?+ rte:
CO)
r?
i
r ?
?• r
14
fr
i f
P f
f .-
f
i y
yr.Tr/ ?
?r

' •? ? '? N fr ,l
V
d B 4ti?. _
1

RW
r
f r
If

l L.1
10` -" ?
r { __ tl f
r y ? d ,
`.?_-
IF
'r!°>

3 f,.
-old

(n 0 0 -0
LO n
ZD_
m rn
.
m

u 0
n
o z
0
ut
O M
(n N
o 25 N
o 0
0

z
1. M1r ?-.t r
rn
m
W ?
I?
r 1

= C
_
o
3,*
-
?cn M n y
oXa ; C
CD G) m 0
3 C:) > -4
CD C CO)
N
0
CL

I-- I
'Y

-f 8-
R = r?
?? m n
om 0
m ?.
mm m?
a CA ?
S°
--
1 11
1 f
Stream
^'-,,_ '? r ? .••5-?,•.+- J r` ,: fe ? ` " ,? L ? ' „? ? ? ?...•fP ? j+7: '`". 1 ',-.r..- L ?I ?/! _ ? ? ? '1'y,+., "? ?'` ? ,,'Y ?«
!? `°-?"' _ ' „F `- - -r-'"- ? 'W- ?'^^-, ?' ? ,mot L I r `'',?• -'? ti' •` ' ?"? !'J ?- a,
"
Stream 9-°'y`^'_
`'.r 9 4 h
k -y ?y..•"r r 4 + -4- S. L ! i ti'4. }y y si'?`? w dr
Wetland 4
-`
r... i ?" ?t(1 NJ-'`l ., •v r i 1 .? ,ei,,."-4?? J p P [ . ? ?' 4 ? •w+?`,?
`..• d# -, °_ /' ";. Project ?. rte" r• *? a•
Study
b f
Area r ? __,,...?
-.. ,
iii
.r ?
d
" R
w
\4L." to
44
(y, N ? •?? I ? y •: M 7j y ? 1?" `a
Y", fill
r?
yd' '4w'
"? r ? '• q MM •d W ?
+ 4(X
.p y'*? ?R`?'?"??*f °AI .r-'?????'+w. ?" ** ? ?' .. e. lG•?. Ayw - ? .s ? ?+? "MI ?y'+;
r ? ? .w •4
,
i
r v T r
ee ?L_ 7-
?
N Matchline-5shp UFB 141
Streams I
Wetlands
206 dH13
N lw. ?ry ir4
>,4"
0 500 Feet
.^?. q
A 500
Source: USGS Fruitland and Hendersonville, NC 7.5-minute quadrangle
Title: Draw by: FIGURE
i
E
S HOWARD GAP ROAD ES
ence
c
co
Corporation IMPR(SR 1006) OVEMENTS JURISDICTIONAL
. 1 500'
'
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Rale
Raleigh, North Carolina na 2 27604

u
t
d
C
H AREAS Date
OCT 2004
Ph: 919-828-3433 en
erson
o
n
y,
Project:
m° Fax: [phone] North Carolina 04-201
rr.°
'Pre,

4 1
I /I

7-7
0 177-
Stream 17 11
tc
r
J*
%
t i.
10
ti Wetland 10-
%
A
Stream 16
1

V11

J
t
tf
534

1/? /
'4 7 ? 4
NMatchline-5.shp
Streams
Wetlands
?.
Stream 10,11
.t > f -
A 500 0 500 Feet
Source: USGS Skyland, NIC 7.5-minute quadrangle a
Title:
EcoScience HOWARD GAP ROAD
Corporation IMPR(SR 1006)
OVEMENTS JURISDICTIONAL
1101 Raleigh, aynes Street, Suite AREAS
North Carolina 27604
jog Rale7604
Ph: 919-828-3433 Henderson County,
Fax: [phone] North Carolina

Drawn by: FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1 500'
Date:
OCT 2004
4 D
Project:
04-201
m m m m m m m m m m m w m m m m m s.
714
stab I
X
Stream 18 ti
i/' ••y a
Alk
546
SP
17-" ater
ti iV F r
Project
Study N, =`- =
w?+ Area
14
el 01 1
f. F' ,ti. rr t T ?' 1 s
may, {1`! t!
Stream 17:
p ?
Wetlands .,• .of r r i^ L r
Streams;.'
liar
.0 "P
N 500 0 500 Feet '• `?' '- Wetland 10
Source: USGS Skyland and Fruitland, NC 7.5-minute quadrangles • Y !!}
d.i '? 14
EcoScience
Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Ph: 919-828-3433
Fax: [phone]
HOWARD GAP ROAD
(SR 1006)
IMPROVEMENTS
Henderson County,
North Carolina
?F
y ? h E'
R
(Jr ' kt
M
1
r ?
4
Stream 16
-141
%
u1 w. 1 h,
title:
JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS
Drawn by: FIGURE
ES
Scale:
1 500'
Date:
OCT 2004
4E
Project:
04-201
Q
c?
N
CC
O
I
SO
O

J
I
ui
0 0
Z Z
p:3
N O
x ?
W
N rv
N
N 0
?
(30
O
N
<Z_ O
N
1N I Od
3a`? J
IL
N
N
O
go
z
?W CL 00
c?3 c,4 0 O
0
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I W
I Q
I
I
Z
I Q
I ?
I Q
? V
I O
I ?
I
I =
I ?
I ?
I 3
I
I
I
I
I
V
g
W
W
$
O o
ZZ
XN 0
?++ 0
LO
W
Cie
LL
I
Z
O
H
V
W
N
N
N
0
V
J
Q
V

8
f
r

1

11

APPENDIX A
NRCS FARMLAND RATING FORM
1
1
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev 1-s1)
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS

1

1
1

1
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3 Date of Land Evaluation Request 2127 07 Sheet 1 of
1 Name of Project , iGVol Mor-, IA 10 1 R 5 Federal Agency Involved ACE
2 Type of Project 14161 H Wn•Y FAG t W Ty 6 County and State H F-4 DERI?0N ` "G
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1 Date Request Received by NRCS 2 Person Completing Form
3 Does the corridor contain prime, unique statewide or local important farmland? - ?
(if no the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form) YES NO 4 Acres Imgated Average Farm Size
5 Major Crop(s) 6 Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction
% Acres = % 7 Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres
8 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used _ 9} Name of Local Site Assessment System
1

10 Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal A
enc
) Alternative Corridor For Segment
g
y Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
A Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services
C Total Acres In Corridor _
PART IV (To be completed by_NRCS) Land Evaluation Information L_-= = _-° -__ -_' - - - -
A =Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B -Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland _
C - Percentage Of Farmland 1 County Or Local Govt -Unit To Bi Converted = --
D Percentage Of Farrnlarid in Govt=Jurisdicbon With Same iii Hldhef Retative'Values
PART_-V (ro be con waved bjr NRCS) Land Evaluation- tidnmiahar Cnleifoii Relab?rei
tialue of Famlland to 13e-Serv4cea or Convened Scale of_0=100-iioints _ = _-: _ - _ _ - - - -
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessment Cnterfa (These criteria are explained In 7 CFR 658 5(c)) Maximum
Points
1 Area in Nonurban Use 15
2 Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3 Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20
4 Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20
5 Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10
6 Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7 Availabldi Of Farm Support Services 5
8 On-Farm Investments 20
9 Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 Q
10 Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 U
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Corridor Assessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
1 Corridor Selected 2 Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project 3 Date Of Selection 4 Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES ? NO
5 Reason For Selection
I\v I" vvn IPIUM d wain IUI VOUI bUyi IICnL NYILI] IIIUIG LIIdil UI IG/91lC I I ld Lu %,UfIIUUI
r ? N r r rr r rr r r rr rr r rr
v
7 7 m
? ? \ 7? °?g Y r ri ?+ 3? I • ? I Y , j g P ? g , ..._
?e @
J/o
c
Y _
Yt t X.
"? { ? ./ rfi .g," ? °. ?.P ?'g \y g ! / / Ig t fd \ ', g ?.' ? •\
/ t. a /,. • + 1 1
° r j s M IE- / A t a? 11 a
/ ? /? e g gi ? I I @ ? / / /a?T - - i• ? ig f3 //, ?
1
0 g \••\\ „-// j' ?
f ? 1 i? . ?f i? `- z
T, 00
n SF{ R ? ` j r / ?
/ // \ / 8
g / 1
/
l\`1I ?i? Ir •\? x, ? s Y I ?•, g
Y ` II 1 / \ + 1 SEP
01
g h I \ 0 • i ?- a
t+ ? / g \ ' Y g ??/ e
\
, 1 _ ? g g r •\
r ? ? ra
Y
t
z
0
J O in y> r z T I
CO Z O
z a>q D D y O x
0
g
z C
n X
0
v'^ a2 O w
o
'.£ Lo,
Z N
= Zo = g
C, A
0mnr??
11 S Alm D =
2- a
C
U r
p 59, p
/ \ t?f C ? ' it\••
p / •I
s ;p'?j? 4iFr ¦ iE I ?B ?m®? ?I j ? #IS i)
I Jill I lit
C Ea o ? p fff
i @ f $ m
IIII 11
pfii
r

C

APPENDIX B
' CULTURAL RESOURCES
S CONCURRENCE FORMS
CORRESPONDENCE
L

0

1
1

Ci

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretary
1 October 8, 2004
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Ken Burleson, PE
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street
Suite 141
Cary, NC 27511
SUBJECT Moving Ahead, Division 14, SR 1006 from SR 1539 to US 64, Henderson County,
' ER 04-2248
Thank you for your letter of August 13, 2004 concerning the above project
We have conducted a search of our files, and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area
However, the architectural survey for the area of potential effect is over twenty years old
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, please send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure These photographs should be keyed to a
map that clearly shows the site location If there are no buildings over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project site, please notify us of this in writing
Two historic archaeological sites were recorded during the survey for Bridge No 20 on SR 1006 over
Featherstone Creek 31HN183 and 31HN184 were assessed as being ineligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places The remainder of the current project area has never been systematically surveyed
to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources Based on the topographic and
' hydrological situation, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
sites
' We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
' activities

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
' SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

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 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 In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number
Sincerely,
}
eter Sandbeck
cc Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT

11

J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Proen.ltimi Offic(

yr I It_ I - L . r f ' t i 111 -
I et di i n , I 'l It [ „t t t 17 , _ t
IN t t _ Ctl' r r.
4,11mr, i1 20110
DaN _? 13, kel
kglin ill F> t_ r it _,(>rS 1 !1-1_; 1F: r?
?,'? 1r),nrTt'Jr, D11IrlLt ( 0, l>', 1-,f 1 i Q11,Lrr`,
1?+ 1?1tt' r_ ?telYUe,Rtli,nl?'!?
A 171L, tiL_, \C ?;ti:S(l i 110"G
Re i h.ricin 14, `?,k 111116,1 Itmar11 C=ap ltnatif fi,)m '-,lti ro Lo 61 11L11LIU-011FT'' It_
E)et-u Mr g tkt:

1
111ank -u For ,our IL11L' _11 Eli t Vrkcr 4. 201 , 1111'+11,1111!1, I.IL 111-11 tt r`lt)L111`?I .Un t.V 0. 1,s1L 11NN I.
l- ah sZr,,,r \.11'1 (171. NtJl rl' ( I++) in,, D patt`11(nt -it Tr li)41'rJ:I It1' s 1 {1-,17 AIL lt)tt'. C` 1?Lt't Ct ThL rt I1! trt ini T- rt_'"
'rlll(It 11"t 1T''Ll Il'C.?C (If tilt --It t I, _ir, of Cll., Irat ntl-
11L' 111L LI)L.''?,C CIC tilt It ;' Lt 1%1A 1CC'? l+t IL bIC I Ld 1111.111 rllt PI01LCl 111.1'1r)_t Itt 1 1 sJ' purp,;'r
i(Sr1'}l7`lT'_! L tti1Ll JL(i'fll' t1t? iii "11C ??ntr[7!' 1 [[ lr+i1C 1?It`,t'? 111r)t) ?1CC tEt Jfiritilf 111:tC ILt. F( H' \t 11 L' lt_r 1)(1,4[1 .
lIl rh>L CL-L?l;' tt+C 11` l,iLj til tilt _111211. l I'C, IzR L ' i` 1 11?1t,i:L Pt (Ct
)JIN210i atltl
' 11'4 ${ I-t `, do 7101. M, l'1 l_'lt:.lClll '- 111~111 f'IC L 11L,!C,l, U1 11.1-11Lt 01.11`,7 t Lt, ?l Id inn J1111 _,+_,n it11,1'lrtim `I!
hi,, ,ir, ',r neln, o in
%IT 1 ld t,ir?Lt) 111` It Ct I1i1174-r-deu Zhilt nr, UTII'L- 4ILi), L t102rtil t:We! S "MM, Ilt 11121( IILILLI 111 C'?[i:tLL,l"t"1 tit 11 1
JUS PLh1` C' l? t LOI)CIlt Tn'l,sl Llll4 rLCQDU11C.'I1,Iltlirl 111ce rite 1,,mIt.t 1 'Alll 11+11 _I1 011-1 ]hJTY111C'irlt VCII It"' s'„*,1L sl
Ll"?flllT'C"ty
111,- 3€71 C CUl?1117L11111 11 1.1 LIL I-Ll.rsuani ics St rttsltl 1111>'!I rlx' 4 1111 11 11 1-11',LCIIIC Pr(,Lrti,.LL'3n 1Ci l[td 1111
I, I CIMILd _11Y 1-h5rs)TIC PTLIL1N.111( l'?? lit?t_'lli'Ir1; tot (_f1rnphMLt V,I&,tLV011 11)(tC?il?ltlt'ti 1{ ih l i li
1'aLt "RIIIt
Thn4 1r111 tit] s'tt1C Ct)t>l'L_"ClCAI "I LI L`!11 I,Ici t. s'1 I It-, t'-I hix, Ill .iL"LI 111, t'I+1'i:tril 1111 [Im 11 rt c ?.! 1-014 111
t-irl s_1 t,not: t_t IL..11T111-1= I Ill 11151:111L'1'- [I RL t ILNNl CO(s,t11l1,1r )I, tt 9111 ris'1 (t?-lE
:11 I)IL CL 1'
1 ? u I
?, 1L1 til-11Z(s?l'.
I ILL W ilit( I I.o'_,
' isms u + '__ s ; +?+,sn It. I 't +? Dirths,
IAlrr,s 1, 1 1 - I'r 1-1 1 TLkpln,tt"..N -
I Page 1 of 2
David Modlin
from: "Mark Davis" <markdavis@dot state nc us>
To: "David G Modlin, Jr, Ph D, P E " <dmodlin@tgsengmeers com>
c: "Mark T Gibbs" <mgibbs@dot state nc us>, "Charles L Flowe, PE" <cflowe@tgsengineers com>
ent: Monday, March 10, 2008 2 20 PM
ubject: [Fwd RE Howard Gap Road]
livid,
I believe this is what you were looking for I hope this will
low you to complete the EA If you have any questions, please
vise
Tanks, Mark
-------- Ongmal Message --------
rbject RE Howard Gap Road
to Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14 57 35 -0400
From "Renee Gledhill-Earley" <renee_gledhill =earley a ncmail net>
Baker,
av d KBaker@sa 02`us'ace army mil>,"'Mary Pope Furr"'
<mai @dot state nc us>
f "'Mark Davis"' <markdavis@dot state nc up
Yes, Dave, I can concur with the " no historic properties
ected" finding
NCDOT
Renee
I --Original Message -----
rom Baker, David K SAW
ailto David K Baker@saw02 usace army mil]
F0rit Monday, March 10, 2008 11 06 AM
Mary Pope Furr
Mark Davis, Renee Gledhill-Earley
bject RE Howard Gap Road
Iuary Pope-Thanks for the information I agree with your
ggested "No
storic properties affected" finding Sorry the weather didn't
operate
r your field trip
nee- Are you in agreement with this finding as well?
vid K Baker
gulatory Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
1 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Isheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
828) 271-7980, extension 225
3/12/2008
Ix [phone] Page 2 of 2
dav_id k baker@usace army_mil
-Original Message-----
m Mary Pope Furr [mailto mfurr@dot state nc us]
Sent Friday, March 07, 2008 4 21 PM
Baker, David K SAW
Mark Davis, Renee Gledhill-Earley, Courtney P Foley, Matt T
Wilkerson
I bject Howard Gap Road
Greetings all
lurtney, Matt, and I had the pleasure of visaing each of the
permit areas
t ng SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) in Henderson County this week in
pouring
rain. This is a state funded project (once known as MA 1418R)
h several
LtACE permits along its length There are three culverts to be
replaced at
i corner of SR 1006 and Hutch Mountain Road which are near a
rner of a
parcel owned by the Fletcher School A portion of the buildings
this
hool's campus were once part of the Mountain Sanitarium and
lospital, and
feew of these could be eligible for the National Register
wever, since
ction 106 applies to the permit areas only and there are no
Wstoric
lat ldmgs within view shed of the three culverts, I would suggest
a
ding of "No
stork properties affected" be issued for the project In
ieu of photographs of the permit area (a ravine), I've attached
ap
owing the locations of the historic buildings and the permit
e If you
ve any questions or comments please let me know I'm sure the
vision
ill l be grateful to wrap up the coordination for this project

1

3/12/2008

0

1

p
1

APPENDIX C
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

' Mar 21 05 03:53p p.2
' U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT tf;=. 250.5
Action Td 200530461 County Henderson U S G S Quad Hendersonville
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner,`Agent INCDOT c/o EcoSeience
' Address Ms. Elizabeth Scherrer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Telephone 'No [phone]
t Property description
Size (acres) approximately 85 Nearest Town Hendersonville
Nearest Waterway Clear. Featherstone, Leers, and Nlud Creeks and Cushion Branch
River Basin French Broad
USGS HUC 06010105 Coordinates N 35.35595 W 82 43778
Location description The protect is located alo»Q approximately 7 miles of SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road), east of 126,
' north of US 64 south of UPS 25, adjacent to and in Clear Creek and unnamed tributaries, unnamed tributaries to Mud
Creek, Biers Creek and unnamed tributaries, and Cushion Branch and unnamed tributaries, northeast of
Hendersonville, Henderson County, North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
_ Based on preliminary information, there maybe wetlands on the above described property We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction To be considered final, a
' jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps This preliminary detenrunatton is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331)
There are'Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
' X There are waters of the U S including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant To be considered final, any delineation must be venfied by the Corps
' X The waters of the U S including wetlands on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified
by the Corps We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed
and verified by the Corps Once venfred, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA
jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
' upon for a period not to exceed five years
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are amurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official idenufted below on Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification
_ There are no waters of the U S , to include wetlands, present on the abotie described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Seuion 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) Unless there is a change in the law or our
' published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
' (CAN4A) You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NIC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

Mar 21 05 03:53p
p.3
Action ID 200531448
' Placement of dredged or fill material within Nraters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311) If you have any questions regarding this
determmnation and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Ms. Angle Pennock at [phone] ext) 226
Bans For Deterimnetion 't'here are wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corns of Engineers Wetland delineation manual
within the protect area and these wetlands are adjacent Clear Creek and unnamed tributaries. unnamed tributaries to
Mud Creek, Byers Creek and unnamed tnbutaries, and Cushion Branch and unnamed tributaries. AIR streams within
the oroiect corridor are tributaries to Mud Creek, a tributary to the French Broad River. The French Broad is
navigable below the Wilson Bridge crossing on US 276 around River !'life 1%.5.
' Remarks This determination is based on information submitted by Elizabeth Scherrer of EcoScience on May 7, 2004
and January 12, 2005, and a field visit by Angie Pennock on January 4, 2005
' Corps Regulatory Official
Date 03/16/200 5 Expiration Date 03/16/2010
' Corps Regulatory Official (Imbal)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
' • A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the 'Notification Of Admimstrativc Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks' section and attach the
' "Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form

1
Page 2 of 2

' Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499
September 7, 2004
' Mr Mark Davis
Environmental Supervisor
Fourteenth Division Office
' North Carolina Department of Transportation
253 Webster Road
Sylva, North Carolina 28779
' Dear Mr Davis
SR 1006 (HOWARD GAP ROAD) FROM SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD) SOUTH OF
' FLETCHER TO US 64, MUD CREEK TRIBUTARIES, HENDERSON COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA, NCDOT MOVING AHEAD PROJECT NO MA14181R
' TVA has reviewed the August 13, 2004, request for comments on the proposed
improvements to Howard Gap Road for 7 miles between Fletcher and Hendersonville We
are not aware of any unique environmental issues associated with this protect The
' environmental documentation prepared for this protect should note that an approval under
Section 26a of the TVA Act would be required if new culverts, bridges, and stream
relocations are required upstream or downstream of the existing alignment

1

1

We would appreciate the inclusion of TVA in any interagency or merger team meetings
related to this protect Even though it is anticipated that the protect will be processed as a
state funded Environmental Assessment, TVA would appreciate the opportunity to serve as
a cooperating agency in the preparation of the environmental document TVA was
included as a cooperating agency in the State EA for US 19/19E, TIP Protect Numbers R-
1518 and R-2519A
Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M Draper at [phone] or
hmdraper@tva gov
Sincerely, I
? tv?`'f
r
'Jon &4 `Laney; Manager
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning
cc. Ken Burleson, EE
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
' Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM 1, 20 Zl ?z???9
TO Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator I? SEP
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
' FROM Dave McHenry, Mountain Region Coordin
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE September 7, 2004 • i ; ` J
'ter.,... .
SUBJECT NC Moving Ahead Project, SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from SR 1539 (Jackson Road)
' south of Fletcher to US 64, Henderson County
NCDOT Moving Ahead Project No. MA14I8R
OUA No. 05-0053
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reviewed the notice for the
subject project and are familiar with the fish and wildlife resources in the area Our scoping 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 project involves widening SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from SR 1539 (Jackson Road) south of
Fletcher to US 64 northeast of Hendersonville, Henderson County The roadway width will be increased
' from 20 feet to 24 feet with 2-foot paved shoulders There may be some minor road alignment adjustments to
improve curvature and intersection safety and a median turn lane between eastbound and westbound US 64
may be included Bridges 20, 22, 222, and 40 would be replaced as part of this project The Commission
' prefers that bridges be replaced with spanning structures Our standard recommendations for bridge
replacements will be provided upon request
Featherstone, Byers, and Clear creeks and other streams that intersect the project are ui the Mud
' Creek watershed, classified C by the Division of Water Quality, and not Designated Public Mountain Trout
Waters Mud Creek generally parallels SR 1006 in this region
Mud Creek provides spawning, nursery, and adult habitat for cool-water and warm-water fishes such
as muskellunge (Esox masqumongy), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomiew), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), and a variety of sunfishes and nongame fishes Our sampling has found
muskellunge using this area for reproduction Mud Creek joins the French Broad River downstream of the
' protect area and provides a sanctuary for fry and juvenile fishes The lower portions of streams in the protect
area likely support a sunfish and nongame fish assemblage similar to Mud Creek wherever depth and other
habitat features are suitable We do not anticipate the occurrence of trout in the project area because of
degraded habitat in this increasingly urbanized region of Henderson County. However, the headwaters of
' Featherstone and Byers creeks may still support limited trout resources.
There are records for rare aquatic life downstream of or near the protect area The state Endangered
' slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis) and the state Threatened creeper (Strophitus undulates) have been
Mading Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
' Telephone: [phone] ext 281 - Fax: [phone]

I

I1

G

SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) Page 2 September 7, 2004
NC Moving Ahead Project No MA14181R
OLIA No 05-0053
found in the French Broad River near its confluence with Mud Creek The federal and state Endangered
Appalachian elktoe (A raveneliana) mussel has recently been found in the lower Mills River, which suggests
it could be re-colonizing the upper French Broad River in the vicinity of the Mud Creek confluence
The Commission is concerned about potential adverse effects of the project on aquatic resources
Most of the project is a considerable distance upstream of Mud Creek, but sediment from project construction,
particularly near Featherstone Creek, could nonetheless contribute to habitat degradation further downstream
Therefore, sediment and erosion control measures for sensitive watersheds should be used during construction
to minimize the potential for adverse effects on rare and other aquatic life Stormwater and road surface
pollutants from this roadway may have more influence on water quality in the watershed after construction
because of the widening and increased traffic Measures to address the quality and quantity of stormwater
from the project are therefore needed
Our major concern with this project is its potential secondary and cumulative effects The I-26, SR
1783 (Upward Road, TIP No R-4430), and NC Highway 25 (TIP No R-2214A) improvement projects have
been completed or are being planned in this region of Henderson County Sediment, stormwater, and road
surface pollutants from these projects may have a deleterious effect on water quality in the watershed Of
relatively greater consequence will be additional urban development that is typically encouraged by similar
infrastructure improvement projects Land use regulations have few restrictions in this region of Henderson
County, which makes continued and accelerated growth likely This will contribute to urban sprawl to the
east toward more rural areas, including Green River Game Land. The proposed project is smaller compared
to the cthcr road mprovement projects, but collectively they will have likely have an appreciable, positive
effect on urbanization
Development will increase impervious surfaces, stormwater runoff, and pollutants associated with
construction and urban activities Numerous studies have shown that when 10-15% of a watershed is
converted to :mpervious surfaces, there is a serious decline in the health of receiving waters (Schueler 1994)
and the quality of fish habitat and wetlands are negatively impacted (Booth 1991, Taylor 1993). Water
quality problems already exist, as evidenced by Bat Fork Creek, which is near the project area, being on the
303(d) list and public money being spent to improve water quality in Mud Creek downstream of the project
area and in Clear Creek, which crosses the project near the southern terminus Additional regulations or
ordinances are necessary to adequately protect water quality in this watershed. Preservation of wildlife
habitat and open space is also important to the health of the area and enhances the quality of life for residents
Since the proposed project will contribute to increased development in the region, we feel that the
Environmental Assessment (EA) that is prepared should outline measures that are in place or that will be
initiated to off set adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources A study of secondary and cumulative
impacts and commitments to measures to minimize these impacts are recommended We strongly encourage
local authernties to adopt regulations and measures that would provide significant prorect!on of the sensitive
natural resources in their jurisdiction Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found
in the Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (NCWRC 2002) We also encourage NCDOT and local
authorities to use low impact development techniques to manage stormwater quantity and quality in
developed areas (see www lowimpactdevelopment ora for information) Alternatives to traditional curb and
gutter should be examined to provide better treatment of stormwater We encourage the use of non-
impervious materials to construct sidewalks, parking lots, and other facilities, particularly in developed or
developing watersheds with a high percentage of impervious surfaces
In addition to addressing the specific concerns discussed above, the EA should include a detailed
assessment of the natural resources in the project area and should discuss the potential of mitigating
development impacts on wetlands, surface waters and high-quality upland habitat Additionally, to provide a
meaningful review of the project's effects on fish and wildlife resources, we request that the following
information be included in the EA, as appropriate.
SR 1006 (Howard Gap ) Page 3 September 7, 2004
' r Road
' NC Moving Ahead Project No MA14181R
OLIA No 05-0053
1 Include descriptions of fish and wildlife resources within the project area and a listing of federally or
' state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species When practicable, potential
borrow or disposal areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories
2 Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project If applicable, include the lmear feet of
' stream that will be channelized or relocated
3 Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project Wetland acreage should
include all project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If the USACE is not consulted,
the person delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed
' 4 Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project
Potential borrow sites and waste areas should be included
5 Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
' habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6 Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and mdnect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
' 7 Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation
8 Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result from
' secondary development facilitated by the improved road access
9 Tf construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental
document, and all project sponsors should be identified
' Measures to avoid or mmunize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands, should be
implemented during construction Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we will recommend
' mitigation of the losses In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform important functions
of flood control and water quality protection
The U S Army Corps of Engineers (COE) recognizes Henderson County as a trout county
Therefore, the NCWRC will review any COE permits associated with the project and recommend conditions
to the permit to protect aquatic species Although some streams in the area do support trout, we do not
anticipate a need for a trout moratorium based on our current knowledge of this project
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for this project If we can
be of further assistance, please contact our office at [phone] extension 24
Literature Cited
Booth, D 1991 Urbanization and the natural drainage system-impacts, solutions, and prognoses Northwest
Environmental Journal 7(1) 93-118
' NCWRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission) 2002 Guidance Memorandum to Address and
Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water
Quality NCWRC, Raleigh Available
' http //www ncwildlife org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7c3_impacts pdf (February 2003)
Schueler, Tom 1994 The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 13 (pp100-
111)
' Taylor, B L. 1993 The influences of wetland and watershed morphological characteristics and relationships
to wetland vegetation communities Masters thesis Dept of Civil Engineering University of
Washington Seattle, WA
1
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) Page 4
' NC Moving Ahead Project No MA1418IR
OLIA No 05-0053
' cc Mr Ken Burleson, TGS Engineers
Mr. Mark Davis, NCDOT Division 14 Environmental Officer
Ms Angie Pennock, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms Marella Buncnck, Biologist, USFWS Asheville
' Mr Brian Wrenn, Highway Coordinator, Division of Water Quality

J

L-?

1
September 7, 2004

1 09/16/2004 12•d8 8282516353 LAND OF SKY REGIONAL PAGE 03103

1
Regional Clearinghouse
N. C Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
The Land-of-Sky Regional Council has received the attached Information about a proposal which
could affect your jurisdiction
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly.
1 If you wish to comment on this proposed action, complete this form and return it with your
comments to this office by 09/15/2004 Comments received after this date cannot be included in our
response to the State Clearinghouse.
1 If you need addittonal time m order to obtain more information about the application or to
formulate your comments, please call Linda Herrera at $28/251-6622 as soon as possible An extension;
of the review period may be possible
1 A NOTE to Reviewers - Projects with a "C" in the State Application Identifier (below) is a
funding proposal review Continents should focus on the acceptability or unacceptability of the praiect.
1 `Irajects with an "E' m the identifier are environmental or site reviews Comments for these projects
should focus on the adequacy of the environmental document or site selection process.
1 If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments regarding
this proposal.
1 Statc Application Identifier # 05-E-4220-0053 Regional # 010-2004
Commenter's Name _F?? Al /E'467dot-- Title A-Ye9
1 Representing G l -rP tQ t I D ?(/ 1lI LL ??
(Local Govemment)
i Address T`a b D f4 v L AJ C -71't,
1 Phonc 0p? 800 Date ? a-Sf p
Comment (or attach)- /72
25 Heritage Drive • Asheville, NC 28806-1914
Tetevhone828-251-40? Favfi7sL7S1?t?a
buncombe • Henderson • Madison o Transylvania Counties

1

?' SSA7F a,
4
Cava
North Carolina Department of Crime
Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
Floodplain Management Branch
,Michael F Easley, Governor Bryan E Beatty, Secretary
Division of Emergency Management
National Flood Insurance Program
STATE NUMBER 05-E-4220-0053
APPLICANT NC Dept of Transportation
DESC NC Moving Ahead Project, SR1006 from SR1539 south of Fletcher to US64
Henderson
The proposed road improvements cross at least one mapped Henderson County
rloo.dway a: C.ar,e Creek, and may impact other floodways as well All floodway
development, including road and bridge work, must obtain a "No Impact Certificarlon" or
a "Conaitional Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) or must comply fully with section 65 7
ct ?? GFR All CLOMR requests must be approved by local officials prior to being
suumitted to FEMA
Reya t,,5'6
y o p
.2004
nave L e ntz nor
Division of Emergency Management- NFIP r,sQ#?*
919-715-8000 extension 351
MAILING ADDRESS
Disaster Recovery Operations
Center (DROC)
4713 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4713
Fax [phone]
www ncem org
NC Division of Emergency
Management
OFFICE LOCATION
1830-B Tillery Place
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone [phone]x351
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
r
[I
AG?RA_State of North Carolina Reviewing Office 6;26
NC®ENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources q?j
Project Number -"-' JQUS3 Due Date
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
' to comply with North Carolina Law Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office

L I

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity On-site inspection preappl"cation
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual Additionally, obtain perm,t to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters facility-granted after NPOES Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-wn"chever is later
Water Use Permit Preappl"cat"on technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
`"Je" Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7 days
I I ?
installation of a well (15 days)

[hedge and F"I" Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner 55 da/y s
E On-site inspection Preappl"cat"on conference usual Filling mad require Easemen*
(90 d
)
_ to Fill from N C Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit' ams
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(?Q 0100, 2Q 0300, 2H 060G)
Anv open burning assonated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D 1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos maten-+( must be in compliance with
60 days
15 A NCAC 2D 1110 (a) t1) which requires notification I N/A
a",d;Pmovalpoortod,-mol"t"on ContactAsbestos (90days)
Cowrol Group 919-733-0820
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D C80G
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
I control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quauty Section) at least 30 (30 Jays)
I
days before beginning act,v"ty A fee of $50 for the first acre o" any part of an acre
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance 30 days
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets
Mining Permit On-site inspection usual Surety bond filed with DENR Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N C. Division of Forest Resources If permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N C. Division of Forest Resources required 'if more than five 1 day
in coastal N C with organic sods acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be requested (N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn Is planned"
Refining Facilities N/A 90 -120 days
(N/A)
¦
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 da
s b
f
y
e
ore begin construction Applicant
must hire N C qualified engineer t
o prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction Is according to DENR approved plans May also re
quire permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers.
An inspection of site is necessa
' ry to verify Hazard Classification A minimum
fee of $200 00 must accompany the application An additional

[] processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Permit to drill exploratory oil or
as w
ll
g
e
Fie surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment
be plu
d

© ,
gge
according
to DENR rules and regulations
Geo
h
l
p
ysica
Exploration Pernit
Application filed with DENR at least 10 da
ys prior to issue of permit Application
by letter No standard application form
' Q State Lakes Construction Permit
Application fees based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions
& drawings of structure & proof of

0 ownership of riparian property
401 Water Quality Certification -
' N/A
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250 00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINO
R rieveiooment $50 00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area If any monument needs to be mo
d
ve
or destroyed, please notify
N C Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N C. 27011
1 [?
t i Abandonment of any wells if required must be in accordance with Title 15A Subchapter 2C 0100
Normal Process Time
Statutory Time Lima)
30 days
(60 days)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
(130 days)
60 days
0 30 days)
22 days
(25 days)
Notification of the properTegional office is requested if °orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
-"F
¦ i I Compliance with 15A NCAC ?N 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required
L-I I
1 01Ncr CG'tlments (atrac i additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
¦j
r `{
(A LA_
?n

sF?
??cF?oai
?04?
F
R
i
t, ? v
45 days
(N/A)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to t he Regional Office marked belo

? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfn Place
? Mooresville Regional Office w.

? Wilmington Regional Offi

Asheville, N C 28801
919 North Main Street
Mooresville
N C 28115 ce
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
@g-

qup;?E
q `r Oro ,
[phone] Wilmington, N C 28405
[phone]
? Fayetteville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Offic

225 Green Street, Suite 714 e

3800 Barrett Drive
PO Box 27687
? Winston-Salem Regional Office

Fayetteville, N C 28301 ,
Raleigh, N C 27611 585 Waughtown Street
[phone] [phone] Winston-Salem, N C 27107
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N C 27889
[phone]

r

0? W A TF9
m O
ud b
-71
O `C
September 7, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
FROM Brian L Wrenn, NC DWQ W
SUBJECT DWQ Comments on Improvements to SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) from SR 1539 to US
64, Henderson County, Moving Ahead Project, State Clearinghouse No 05-0053
In reply to the request for comments on the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project
indicates that the following water resources in Hydrologic Unit 04-03-02 would be umpacted
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification Stream Index Number
Cane Creek French Broad C 6-57-(9)
_
Byers Creek French Broad C 6-55-13
Featherstone Creek
-Clear Creek French Broad
French Broad C
C 6-55-12
6-55-11-(5)
Any impacts to these streams, unnamed tributaries to these streams, wetlands, or open water bodies
' associated with the referenced project would require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) DWQ has the following comments regarding the development of the
environmental assessment for the referenced project
' Project Spec iflc Comments
• The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H 0506(b)(6), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quahty Certification
General Comments
• When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification No 3366/Nationwide Permit No 33 (Temporary
' Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed
• After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical

Nose Carolina
Transportation Perming Unit ?tur'111111
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
' 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: htto //h2o enr state nc us/ncwetlands
Michael F Easley, Governor
William G Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W Klimek, P E Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 500/6 Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

• In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H 0506(b)(6)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream and for impacts of greater than 1 acre to any wetlands In the event that mitigation
is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values
In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC 2H 0506
(h)(3) 1, the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
' • DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges
• Any new culverts must be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms
passage through the crossing
• If foundation test borings are necessary, it should be noted in the document Geotechnical work is
' approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No 6 for Survey
Activities
' • Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands
• Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable Impacts to wetlands
' in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation
• The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
' methods for storm water management More specifically, storm water will not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be designed to dram to a properly
designed storm water detention facility/apparatus
- Wluie the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations
' pnor to permit approval
Thank you for requesting our input at this time The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
' standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Brian L Wrenn at 919-733-5715
pc Angie Pennock, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
' Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville Field Office
Marla Chambers, NCWRC ?•?-??2(Q?s?
File Copy
%
j ?? gEg
Y
Ilk i Y
`ova y
1

11

u

1

t
1

1
1

09-07-'04 11 20 FFOM-NCDENF ASHEVILLE P.O 3282997043 T-083 P02/02 U-080
/11 ` r rye f 6+-l
T4D 11-1
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND Project Number
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH County
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name NC DOT Type of Project NC Moving Ahead PicJed-SR
10M (How-ard Gip- Rd)-
Comments provided by Henderson County
? Regional Program Person
® Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
? Central Office program person
Name i[atoid Saylor
Date
9-1-04
Telephone number r(R) 9? ?5z' C?
Program within Division of Environmental Health
i
Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program
.?• is S %? ,
response (check all applicable) ? No objection to project as proposed
No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
??See comments below
I
71-4

Return to
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
09-07-'04 11 20 FFOM-NCDENF ASHEVILLE RC 3282997043

n
1

1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
NC DOT NC Moving Ahead
Project Name Type of Project Project-SR 1006
owar ap Xd)
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications fokfeMf &rC n
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
0300et seq ) For infortriation, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements For more information the
applicant should contact the Pubi-c Water Supply Section, [phone]
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone]
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone]
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A 1900 et
se,) =or information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone]
T-083 F03/03 I]-020
Pro ect Number
0?-0053
G ny
en erson
2? For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form
Jim McRicht
PWS
9-1-04
Reviewer
Section/Branch
Date
S.\Pws\Angela W\Cleannghouse\Review Response Pgs 1 and 2 for input doc

t
Mr. Ken Burleson, PE
' TGS Engineers
Suite 141,
975 Walnut St.
' Cary, NC 27511
October 25, 2004
Mr. Burleson:
c
Reference your letter "NC Moving Ahead Project, SR 1006 from SR 1539
' south of Fletcher to US 64, Henderson County, NCDOT Moving Ahead
Project No. MA14181R".
' This office's primary concern is flow of emergency traffic along Howard
Gap Road during construction of the road and bridges. We would request
detours be maintained around each of the 4 bridges during demolition and
' construction.
This planned improvement will be a great asset to Henderson County when
' completed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
' W. H. Hollis
Deputy Fire Marshal

HENDERSON COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE
101 East Allen Street Rocky D Hyder
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Fire Marshal
[phone] FAX [phone]

?e ram
.2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 22, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
SUBJECT
Mark Davis, Division Environmental Officer
NCDOT Division 14
Neil Medlin, Environmental Supervisor
Biological Surveys Group
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Survey report for the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
ravenehana) and oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis)
for the proposed improvements to Howard Gap Road (SR
1006), Henderson County, Project No 14C 045122
' Background
This memorandum addresses the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta ravenehana)
' and oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis), federally protected mussel species listed
by the U S Fish and Wildlife Service for Henderson County The proposed project
consists of improvements to Howard Gap Road (SR 1006) from US 64 to Jackson Road
' (SR 1539) near Fletcher These improvements include resurfacing the road, a slight
widening, and upgrading crossing structures along the route
' The habitat requirements for the Appalachian elktoe are sand and gravel substrate
among cobble and boulders and under flat rocks, usually in moderate current at depths of
less that three feet (Bogan, 2002) The habitat requirements for the oyster mussel are
' shallow riffles in fast water that are less than three feet in depth in gravel and sand
substrate
Surveys, Habitat, and Methods
NCDOT biologists Anne Burroughs, Matt Haney, and N Medlin visited the
project on February 15 and 16, 2007 All streams that were evaluated were located within
the French Broad River Basin Several unnamed small streams and ditches are crossed by
' MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] or LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 919-715-1335 PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BLVD SUITE 240
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT FAX [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
' 1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBS/TE WWW NCDOT ORG
r

1

Howard Gap Road in the project area These waterbodies were approximately one meter
or less in width with unstable sand and silt substrate and provided no instream habitat for
freshwater mussels One named stream, Cushion Branch, also fit this description (small
and no instream habitat) and was not surveyed Another named stream, Featherstone
Creek was surveyed for mussels as part of a previous project (B-3662) on March 5, 2002
Two sites on the stream were surveyed with no mussels found at either site A Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" was made due to very poor instream habitat and no mussels of
any species being found The project has been subsequently completed Another habitat
evaluation was conducted for Featherstone Creek during the February 2007 site visit and
once again noted very poor/no instream habitat
The two streams in which mussel surveys were conducted during the recent site
visit were Clear Creek and Byers Creek For both streams, the surveys were conducted by
wading using batiscopes to look for mussels The distance surveyed on each stream was
from approximately 400 meters below the road crossing to 100 meters above the road
crossing
Clear Creek at Howard Gap Road was approximately 10 meters wide with
primarily a sand substrate and smaller areas with gravel, cobble, boulder, and silt
included in the substrate Flow patterns in the stream included riffle, run, and pool areas
The narrow buffer in the survey segment is typical of the entire catchment, which is
dominated by apple orchards and fields The areas of the substrate containing rocks did
provide marginal habitat for freshwater mussels including the two target species No
mussels of any species were found after 2 25 person-hours of survey time The invasive
Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, was the only bivalve documented from Clear Creek
during the survey
Byers Creek at the road crossing vaned between 2 and 3 meters wide and had a
substrate composed of gravel and sand, with smaller areas of cobble and some boulder
Flow patterns in the stream included riffles, runs, and pools The stream had segments
with no buffers or narrow buffers due to encroachment by residences and fields The areas
of the substrate containing rocks did provide marginal habitat for freshwater mussels
including the two target species No mussels or bivalves of any species were found after
0 person-hour of survey time
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The lack of suitable instream habitat and the fact that no mussels of any species
were found during this or prior surveys indicate that the Appalachian elktoe and oyster
mussel do not occur in the project footprint This is further supported by the lack of
records in the area for either of these species in the N C Natural Heritage Program and
N C Wildlife Resources Commission databases Given this information, construction of
the proposed protect will have no effect on the Appalachian elktoe or the oyster mussel
1

C
C

1

1

Qualifications of Investigators
Investigator Anne Burroughs
Education B S Biological Sciences, Minor in Environmental Science,
North Carolina State University 1992
Experience Biological Control Technician - NC Dept of Agriculture May 2001-April
2003
Environmental Specialist/Supervisor - NC Dept of Transportation, May
2003-August 2003, January 2004-present
Expertise Endangered species (terrestnal/aquatic) surveys, bentluc
macroinvertebrate collection
Investigator Matthew M Haney
Education B S Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience N C. Dept of Transportation Oct. 1999-present
N C Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
U S Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research May 1997-
August 1997
Investigator Neil Medlin
Education M A Biology, Appalachian State University
B S Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience Environmental Specialist/Supervisor, NCDOT, January 2002-present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality,
June 1990-January 2002
Environmental Biologist, FL Department of Environmental Protection
(formerly Department of Environmental Regulation),
August 1986-June 1990
Expertise Freshwater fish and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and
identification, aquatic habitat evaluations and function, biocntena and
biotic indices evaluations, Endangered species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys
and assessments.
Reference
Bogan, Art 2002 Workbook and Key to the Freshwater Bivalves of North Carolina

' APPENDIX D
I CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
1

1
1

NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
' FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO HOWARD GAP ROAD
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006
' FROM US 64 TO SR 1539, JACKSON ROAD
Project MA14181 R Henderson County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will conduct a Citizens
Informational Workshop on Thursday, December 15, 2005 between the hours of 4 00
PM and 6 00 PM in the Cafeteria at the Fletcher Elementary School located at 500
' Howard Gap Road in Fletcher to present proposed improvements to SR 1006, Howard
Gap Road in Henderson County NCDOT is planning improvements to Howard Gap
Road from US 64 to SR 1539 (Jackson Road) dust south of Fletcher The total project
' length is approximately 7 miles
Currently, this segment of existing Howard Gap Road has a 20-foot paved travelway
with narrow turf shoulders Along most of the route, the proposed improvement will
provide two, 12-foot lanes with two-foot full depth paved shoulders on a total shoulder
width of six to eight feet Generally, the roadway is to be symmetrically widened about
the existing centerline of pavement Minor relocations of the route to maintain traffic
service at the bridge replacements, and to intersecting roadways to improve safety are
included Between eastbound and westbound US 64, a three-lane curb and gutter
roadway is proposed In the vicinity of SR 1558 (Hutch Mountain Road) the roadway will
' be realigned to improve curvature
Southbound along Howard Gap Road, additional left-turn lanes are proposed at
' eastbound US 64, at SR 1662 (North Clear Creek Road) and opposite SR 1532 (Naples
Road) into the Fletcher Academy and Fletcher Seventh Day Adventist Church
Northbound, additional left-turn lanes are proposed at SR 1513 (Nix Road), at SR 1503
(Clear Creek Road) and at SR 1532 (Naples Road) The existing left-turn lane at
westbound US 64 will be lengthened

1

There are four existing bridges along this segment of Howard Gap Road With the
separately planned project to replace Henderson County Bridge Number 20 over
Featherstone Creek, all four of these bridges will be replaced The proposed
improvements include the replacement of the remaining three existing bridges,
Henderson County Bridge Numbers 22, 40 and 222 crossing Byers Creek, Clear Creek
and a tributary of Clear Creek These creek crossings will be replaced with 36-foot clear
width bridges At Byers Creek and Clear Creek, traffic service will be maintained during
construction by relocating the crossings adjacent to the existing structures
The purpose of this workshop is to present information, answer questions and receive
comments regarding this project Interested individuals may attend this informal
workshop at their convenience during the above stated hours Department of
Transportation representatives will be present to answer questions and receive
comments relative to the proposed project
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr Charlie Flowe, PE, TGS
Engineers, 975 Walnut Street, Suite 141, Cary NC 27511, phone [phone] ext
114 or e-mail at cflowe 1gsengmeers com

APPROXIMATE SCALE
0 1.0
MILE
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
V7
tmN
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
HENDERSON COUNTY
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
from US 64 to SRIM9 (Jackson Road)
MA141BIR
December, 2005
Figure 1
Hendersonville Times-News Page 1 of 4

W W W hen der&onN,i ane%as corn w w A henderaonviitati ows corn

11c,nder,on I rm»,1, {ma and Poll. C onnuts' No?Lmber 08 200
' Home November 05 2005 12 OOAM
Marketplace Art!
Classified
Find a Job N
C
Board of Transportation approves
g ?ri
.
.
Find a Car
HHo
? Delivery $900
000 for Howard Gap Road project ®F--
e
,

Local
Electron 2005
Mill Center The issue The N C
Forum Department of
Mental Health A Transportation is planning to
Question of Care
improve approximately
AP State News seven miles of Howard Gap
AP National
News Road from U S 64 East in
AP World News Hendersonville north to
Business Jackson Road near Fletcher
CBS The project would widen the
Marketwatch road's two lanes from 10 to
Obituaries
12 feet, add a foot to paved
Weather shoulders
increase grassy
For the Record ,
Community shoulders by 4 to 7 feet,
Today's photos replace four narrow bridges
sports" and add turn lanes at several
Local Sports intersections where traffic is
Area Football heavy The curvy, heavily
AP Sports News traveled road - considered
i" oo
i Dir.11
nix
604
tip
Hodan
C rVRD
Reg, rte
t?
D M
7W

r
1

Sports Columns one of the most dangerous in
Mountain Sports Henderson County
Sports in Your
Town
Wh
'
Th
N C B
d
f
l
h
h
Columnists at
s new
e
oar
o
Transportation in Ra
eig
T
ursday
Columnists approved $900,000 toward the estimated project cost of between $4

Opinion million and $5 million DOT had previously set aside $3 3 million set
Columns aside for the improvements The latest allocation will be used to
Editorials continue planning and acquire rights-of-way, District Engineer Mark
Letters Gibbs said Friday "Basically it is a funding measure we have taken to
Features try to keep the project moving forward over the coming year," he said
CORE
entertainment What's next DOT will hold a public hearing on the project within six
Mountain to eight weeks at Fletcher Elementary School
date and time to be
Traditions ,
announced DOT officials hope to have plans approved over the winter
Blue Ridge Living and to start acquiring rights-of-way in the spring Construction is set
Food & Health
for 2007, a target date Gibbs calls "optmustic "
Crossroads
Religion directory
occasions -- Harrison Metzger
Renaissance
Class Act
http //www hendersonvlllenews com/apps/nbcs dll/article?AID=/20051105/NEWS/51105034
W W W
W WW
11/8/0.5
11V11YV1JVia ? aaav a ?u?vv

1

V+ t'fV. ii Iilil2t 3w IV Ii ?r ? tYS t rr+
Local
Henderson Transyivama and Polk Counties I December 13 2005
Home LOCAL
Marketplace
Classfied December 12 2005 9 02AM
Find a Job
Find a Car
Home Delivery
Public can evaluate roadway changes
News
Local Harrison Metzger
Mill Center
Times-News Staff Writer
Forum
For
Mental Health A hs' rrison.metzger(Mhenderst3nvillenews.com
of Care
t
Q ion
ues

AP State News
AP National
News
NAPLES -- When he
AP World News
Business started his job as
CBS
Ma ketwatch
principal of Fletcher
Obituaries Academy in May

Weather ,

Rob Gettys was
For the Record
Community amazed to see how
Today's photos much traffic had
Sports _ _
Local Sports
increased on Howard
Area Football Road since he
Ga
AP Sports News p
was a student at the
Sports Columns
Mountain Sports school in the 1980s.
Sports in Your
Town
Columnists
"It is a very narrow
Columnists
O road for being as well
pinion
Ycoiumns "
Editorials traveled as it is, and it
" he
a lot of blind curves
curves
has a lot of shar
Letters ,
,
p
said
Features
CORE .
entertainment
Mountain
who graduated from Fletcher Academy in
Gettys
' Traditions ,
1988, said he's glad to hear the N.C. Department o
Blue Ridge Living
Food & Health Transportation is moving ahead with long discussed
Crossroads
director
R
l safety improvements to widen narrow shoulders,
' y
igion
e
curves and bridges on the road.
Occasions
Renaissance
Class Act
' Movie listings
" G
Article Too
PR IN T T141 S AR
E MAIL THIS A
Local Employn
AW North Carolina
Carolina First
Times-News Delive
Top7obs
A Residential
Builder/ Develol
GLADE HOMES,
WNC is seeking
Service Technici
• View Full At
MCGUFFEY " S
Restaurant in
Hendersonville i
hiring Front of 1
Servers Apply i
0 View Full At
FABRIC CUTTER
needed for ladle
clothing compar
Fletcher Cali 6;
http://Www.hendersonviUenews.com/apps/pbcs.cM/article?AID=/20051212/NEWS/5l2120334/1... 12/13/2005
Featured Advertiser
1
1
Farm & Garden
Columns
Calendars
Arts calendar
Community
calendar
Religion calendar
Where & When
Web Extras
DuPont Forest
Trail Marathon
Biking the Blue
Ridge
Centennial
Courthouse
Celebration
Bearfootin' 2005
Apple Festival
Guide
Medical Directory
Veterans profiles
Blue Ridge Guide
Services
How to Reach Us
Links Directory
About Us
Place an Ad
FAQ
Photo Reprints
Newspapers In
Education
Our
Representatives
"Having it widened will be beneficial and I'm certain
it will increase safety," he said Friday.
Fletcher Academy and Captain Gilmer Elementary
School are both on the road. Together they have
about have 220 students and 50 staff. Gettys said he
and other staff will probably attend a meeting the
DOT will hold Thursday on the state's plans to
improve seven miles of Howard Gap Road between
Fletcher and Hendersonville.
The public can attend the information workshop from
4 to 6 p.m. Thursday in the cafeteria of Fletcher
Elementary School, 500 Howard Gap Road.
The DOT is planning the safety improvements
between U.S. 64 East and Jackson Road just south of
Fletcher. This section of road carried 3,800 to 7,600
vehicles per day in 2003.
The Highway Patrol rates Howard Gap as the most
dangerous road in the county apart from major
highways such as U.S. 64 and Interstate 26.
Residents have long said the narrow, winding road
needs improvements to handle increasingly heavy
traffic. Buses from Fletcher, Clear Creek and other
schools that use the road must compete for space on
narrow bridges with dump trucks from a nearby
quarry. Traffic continues to grow with developments
such as the Wal-Mart Supercenter on U.S. 64 East
and the planned Sam's Club.
The state plans to widen the road's two lanes from 10
to 12 feet, add a foot to the paved shoulders, widen
grassy shoulders from 4 to 7 feet and replace four
narrow bridges. The project will also add left turn
lanes on Howard Gap southbound at U.S. 64
eastbound, North Clear Creek Road and into Fletcher
3562
• View Full Ad
TAX PREPARERS
experienced or v
train JACKSON
HEWITT 650-66
• View Full Ad
OPPORTUNITY -
Franchise, New
Vehicle coming t
America
Experienced,
qualified,
• View Full Ad
w View all Top
Top Real Estate
LAUREL PARK - I
view, flattest lot
in Wildwood Heli
6 acre Water,
natural
• View Full Ad
DELLWOOD
APARTMENTS Nc
smoking
environment St
1, 2, 3 bedroom
Call for
• View Full Ad
A 2BR on the No
Side 55+ or old
No pets $435 +
deposit Call 69;
9263
• View Full Ad
New Building 64
across from Wal
Call for details 6
0037 or 685-391
• View Full Ad
Druid hills Nice
2BA in city, gas
air, $199,500 6S
6630 or 551-52`-
• View Full Ad
» View all Top
domes
http //www hendersonviUenews.com/apps/pbcs.dWartcle?AID=/20051212/NEWS/512120334/1 . 12/13/2005

1

Academy. Northbound turn lanes are planned at Nix Top Autos
Clear Creek Road and Naples Road, while an
Road '"-
,
existing left turn lane at U.S. 64 westbound would be CHEVROLET 20(
S10 LS Extra Cz

lengthened. The project would also realign curves 3rd door, 4X4,
Power windows
near Hutch Mountain Road. locks, Alloy whe
• View Full At
DOT officials hope to have plans approved over the TOYOTA 2000

winter and to start acquiring rights-of-way in the SR5 E>
TACOMA
Cab 4X4 V66, , 5-
spring. Construction is set for 2007. Cost projections speed, Power
windows & lock--
range from $4 million to $5 million. The N.C. Board tilt,
of Transportation last month approved $900,000 for • View Full At
the project, in addition to $3.3 million previously BUICK 2004
earmarked. CENTURY CUST,
4-door, V6, Aub
Dual Zone Air, F

DOT engineers will present information, answer windows & lock,
power
questions and take comments at Thursday's • View Full At

workshop. Residents can request additional

information by contacting Charlie Flowe of TGS CADILLAC 2000
Catera, V6, olive
Engineers, 975 Walnut St. Suit 141, C NC
> > ?? grey metallic,
chrome wheels,
by phone at 919-319-8850 Ext. 114 or by e-
27511 Bose premium
,
mail at cflawe(a?tgsengineers.com. • View Full At
TOYOTA 2001
Sienna Van XLE
only 15,000 oru
miles by retiree
Never damaged
smoked-
0 View Full At
x View all Top
Autos
http://Www.hendmonvillenews.com/apps/pbcs.dWar ele?AID=/20051212/NEWS/512120334/l... 12/1312005

PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
Project No. MA 14181R
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 4:00 to 6:00 PM
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
WORKSHOP FORMAT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) welcomes you to this informal Citizens Informational
Workshop The purpose of this workshop is to provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the planning
process of improvements to Howard Gap Road from US 64 to Jackson Road
Please READ this handout, REVIEW the project with one of our representatives, and feel free to WRITE your
comments or suggestions on the comment sheet provided in this handout You can either leave your comment
sheet with one of our representatives at this Workshop or mail it to the address provided
' PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation thanks you for taking this opportunity to participate in the
planning process of this project You are encouraged to provide your input and suggestions either here or later
by mad or by phone Feel free to contact the project representative listed below if you have questions, ideas, or
suggestions
Mr. Charles L. Flowe, P.E.
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cflowe(a tgsenmeers com

PURPOSE OF PROJECT
1
From January 2001 through December 2003, 159 motor vehicle crashes were reported along existing Howard
' Gap Road between US 64 and SR 1539 (Jackson Road) This resulted in a total crash rate of 373 62 crashes
per 100 million vehicle miles compared to an average total crash rate of 15916 crashes per 100 million vehicle
miles for rural highways in NCDOT Division 14 during the same period The route has narrow lanes and
' shoulders and cames a substantial percentage of truck traffic Improvements are needed to improve the route's
safety and maintainability
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
' Existing Howard Gap Road between US 64 and SR 1539 (Jackson Road) is approximately 7 miles long Refer to
Figure 1 for the protect location The route is classified as a Rural Major Collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and the traffic volume is anticipated to increase to 12500 to 17400 vehicles per day by the
' year 2030
Currently, the route contains a two-lane, 19 to 20-foot pavement width with narrow turf shoulders The posted
' speed limits range from 25 miles per hour through the curves at the mountainous gap to 45 miles per hour on the
southern end towards Hendersonville Along most of the route, the proposed improvement will provide
' two, 12-foot lanes with two-foot full depth paved shoulders on a total shoulder width of six to eight
feet Generally, the roadway is to be symmetrically widened about the existing centerline of
pavement Minor relocations of the route and to intersecting roadways to improve safety are
included Between eastbound and westbound US 64, a three-lane curb and gutter roadway is
proposed In the vicinity of SR 1558 (Hutch Mountain Road) the roadway will be realigned to improve
curvature
' Southbound along Howard Gap Road, additional left-tum lanes are proposed at eastbound US 64, at
SR 1662 (North Clear Creek Road) and opposite SR 1532 (Naples Road) into the Fletcher Academy
and Fletcher Seventh Day Adventist Church Northbound, additional left-tum lanes are proposed at
' SR 1513 (Nix Road), at SR 1503 (Clear Creek Road) and at SR 1532 (Naples Road) The existing
left-tum lane at westbound US 64 will be lengthened
' PLAN-NI-NG PROCESS
The North Carolina Department of Transportatlon retained TGS Engineers, a private consulting engineering firm,
to develop plans and to prepare a report that will document impacts associated with protect
Studies needed to identify environmental and cultural resource impacts are currently underway, as well as the
' development of functional design drawings Based on our preliminary findings, this protect is expected to have
no significant impacts on the natural environment or on any historic/architectural resources
' This Citizens Informational Workshop is being held to present protect plans considered to-date and to receive
citizen input, ideas, and/or suggestions
' Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2006, and construction in Fiscal Year 2007

AMOMUM SCALE
0 1.0
I
North Carolina
Department of T ansportation
Pmjed Development
& Enviromnmtd Analysis Branch
EUMMSON COUNTY
SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road)
from US 64 to SMM9 (Jackson Road)
MA1418M
December, 2005
F%um 1

1
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
NAME: PHONE:(
)
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS:
Please leave your completed comment sheet here tonight or mad it to the project representative listed below
Mr. Charles L. Flowe, P.E.
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cflowena,tgsengineers com
f

1 SIGN-IN SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
' US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
' CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
' Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
' Fletcher
f ,NAME- ADDRESS 1776' ;
-? 72 F7714
X `r a ? ` p *j?g1
Ike ,1? .''? 3.3.E
G? %?'% .?1?!/_=G Z ,, ,'.^ -,.s??/'"???f 7%C-? if !: i+%;/fs'f'? / ?-7i? T L E `C// F? ?s /?? ?f i?3.Z
4n2 S,?n I ION "M 0,
r tzjj,` vs
. Llc3v, d lea ?+r?$nr.
r fJ. ?
1k, lc? l

,1 d
i1_v 6kuoScvv,ly f 14?us 'D,2 I l '7S

IL
a-; /4 f? ?M?,SwCCr3`?r,

0

1
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
NAME: DRESS
L? 5? ?.? I`??1 GEC ?' ?.? ?\!?°`1"G?t?i L? •'"1?-1t Vv^ v , `? ?- ?'?'7`?c
L) to e. 1) ,
I ,. o% ,f r-1 j/d ^,1)<,

r ?L(
r ,
U)AVtD 4' A C.<

`I
L? ?? Y C r L Cwt iryl l< r a u t /Jr ??- ?- ?? ?Y
Flercw,ec AcA-Oemm 1 N ?s? 3 Z
C I? boX
SIGN-IN SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
1

SIGN-IN SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
¦
NAME:
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
ADDRESS

L
Z?4zy/?Z;) IT 4r ??
rT Irv.,,; ? >
n L
¦
¦

r
I

1
1

COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
NAME ] PHONE:( )
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS:
C6,eV <e_A ?p-7-CJ ?fA'y AS E' /4°/l? f O?sG?i`yat a? ?? <S
Please leave your completed comment sheet here tonight or mad it to the project representative listed below
Mr Charles L. Flowe, P.E.
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cfloweAtgsengineers com

COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
Debora t F7ox
NAME: PHONE: ( )
ADDRESS:

0

1
COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS:
24rce.) 1 y D - L- SAM_ a3-3-+06-fl- 'Dulyf? rot(
r
c/r-Lga&? M LStl 6 w1 cLna4cr parce-1 con `Uc It lI i n I-ickwr-f ?ec SQ?c-S
L.Vt.1`& Wualc n-al no-E awn bpcr l'?m.kr-4 :Yaiuct 1l6ort -Qer tnP.. (19a9) X90- 10-A O tloa (c
"Paco, Z7e con ccr- n S . S? d c ad
Sim 4c" Cam„„, ow sQf -L-93'l-F 6Y. 5/
Scp-k- 4c k i+% L?ci',, 9VdSOn
??It,C4ktsl [1ennt?Lr`anneeda-l 4/1-f 14,11 Ed P-- 1412 Luc# 1-?udSon
Please leave your completed comment sheet here tonight or mail it to the project representative listed below
Mr. Charles L. Flowe, P.E
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cflowePtgsengineers com
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
COMMENT SHEET
<;
E.
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
/ Fletcher
PHONE: (f2;968'9-
ADDRESS:
i .0-.P 'D
Please leave your completed comment sheet here tonight or mad it to the project representative listed below
Mr Charles L. Flowe, P.E
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cflowe ,tgsengmeers com
COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS:
1
1
1
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED HOWARD GAP ROAD IMPROVEMENT
HENDERSON COUNTY SR 1006 FROM
US 64 EAST TO SR 1539 (JACKSON ROAD)
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
December 15, 2005 (4:00 to 6:00 p.m.)
Fletcher Elementary School
500 Howard Gap Road
Fletcher
NAME' PHONE: (W) 02`7'2- - SVO,'
ADDRESS: //
1139 $ f?,'/7Gt?PrStrll vi /%? 1 [l?c.`/t SG? ??,/?. iC><? 's? t? •S
COMMENTS AND/OR SUGGESTIONS:
Please leaire your completed comn
Mr. Charles L. Flowe, P.E.
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street, Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] or [phone] fax
Email cflowe(n)tgsengineers com

representative listed below

11

1

[phone] - Fax
cflowena tgsengineers com - e-mail
----- Original Message -----
From "John and Donna Juszczyk" <,usznearthlink net>
To <cflowent sengineers com>
Sent Friday, December 09, 2005 2 11 PM
Subject Project MA14181R (WITH ATTACHMENT)
> SORRYI I FORGOT TO ATTACH MY LIST OF CONCERNS ON THE FIRST E-MAIL
> Dear Mr Flowe,
>
> I have dust received a letter from the NCDOT regarding the Howard Gap
> Road Improvement Prod ect # MA 14181 R
> Your name was listed to obtain additional information, so I am taking
> the liberty of sending you a list of questions that come to mind after
> reading the letter I am seeking to get these answers both as the
> president of our homeowners association whose property is at the
> intersection of Howard Gap and Ardis Lane, and as a concerned taxpayer
> I am attaching a word document attachment with the list of concerns that
> I hope to get answered at the upcoming meeting on 12/15/05 at the
> Fletcher School I am sending you this list of concerns anticipating
> that you will be a part of the meeting and will be making a
> presentation If my anticipation is correct, I would hope that you will
> be addressing these points in your presentation This would hopefully
> cut down the time needed during a question and answer period
> If you are not going to be there, please direct me to the proper person
> or respond directly via a return a mail
> I would like to meet you and hope that you will be there to address our
> concerns
> Sincerely yours,
> John Juszczyk
> President- Twin Oaks Condominium Cluster II
> 10 Ardis Lane Unit A
> Hendersonville NC 28792
Page 2 of 2
12/11/05

1

Howard Gap Road Project
What are dates for:
• Resident input (if any) lVdi ?
• Right of way acquisition ( and how Do 7-
• Plan completion
• Bid return
• Construction start
• Construction finish
What are current right of way footages from centerline?
Will there be culverts?
• Will they be part of the shoulder? .Sa."
• If not, how will runoff be handled? /•?? ?'??c3
What are current road standards re: load limits?

What will new standards be?
• Similar to US 25? ?coesas?cWs roe4's
• Will heavy traffic (which will increase) and heavy loads from school buses,
gravel trucks and semi trailers ( escaping traffic and weigh stations) destroy the
road as they do presently?
• Will there be enforcement of weight restrictions and also re: loose gravel from
dump trucks. g,9
/92 y
Will the speed limit change?
• Increased traffic and widening will cause more speeding than currently
happening now. I e
• Will the speed limits be enforced? (Not happening now!) .-
What is the anticipated traffic increase percentage? ,
How much emphasis will be put into the plan for straightening the areas of road
where there is currently limited or poor visibili , particularly when there is a side
street which enters the road at an "apex" of a curve?
• It is hazard to vehicles entering from side streets especially with lack of speed
limit enforcement.
• Regarding visibility, who is responsible for clearing brush etc. adjacent to
shoulders and are there any enforceable regulations? 7
How will widening affect the grade levels for side roads that now enter Howard
Gap?
• Some side roads currently have very little "landing area" after a steep
downgrade which presents a problem in snowy and icy conditions.

' • This also affects the visibility issue! .s./e? -,-/ Q
What will be the impact on landscaping elevations where the increase of shoulder
for the new right of way will dictate the partial removal of hillside?
• What considerations in the planing process will there for current shrubs and
trees?
• Will there be a need for retaining walls? _..,
' What will be the impact on existing underground utilities which are close to the
roads edge now, and could possibly be under the roadway or paved shoulder in the
' new plan?
How will this protect mesh with the proposed long range 5 lane road plan.
11
12/9/05

1
1
' Ken

1

0

1
Page 1 of 2
From "Charles L Flowe, PE" <cflowe@tgsengineers com>
To "John and Donna Juszczyk" <lusz@earthlink net>
Cc "Terry, Jim" <jterry@tgsengineers com>, "Gibbs, Mark T " <mgibbs@dot state nc us>, "Burleson,
J Kenneth" <kburleson@tgsengineers com>
Sent Friday, December 09, 2005 3 26 PM
Subject Re Project MA14181 R (WITH ATTACHMENT)
Mr Juszczyk
We will attempt to address your questions fully at the public workshop on
the 15th One question that you asked is when public input will be
accepted The reason for the Public Informational Workshop is to provide an
informal "drop-m" sort of a meeting for the purpose of showing the public
early design concepts for the project and receiving public input about the
project The information gained at the workshop will be addressed and
incorporated, if appropriate and feasible, into the final plans
There will be NCDOT people at the workshop to discuss right-of-way
acquisition procedures and long-range plans for Howard Gap Road For the
speeding and overweight issues, the NCDOT people will be glad to hear your
concerns, but these are enforcement issues that should be brought to the
attention of the appropriate law enforcement agencies (DMV for overweight
vehicles and police or sheriff for speeding)
As stated in the meeting announcement that you received, the purpose of the
project is to widen the lanes and place T paved shoulders outside of the
lane edges There will be some minor alignment slufts to improve horizontal
curvature and some elevation changes to eliminate or reduce blind spots On
the mountain north of Fletcher Academy and the hospital, there is proposed
to be a short section of relatively mayor realignment to improve vehicular
safety in that area
The general intent of the project is to provide wider, safer lanes and to
provide some shoulder area to reduce the risk of injury if someone runs off
of the roadway The impacts to adjacent property will be as minimal as we
can make them and accomplish the project goals
We look forward to meeting you at the workshop next Thursday
Charlie Flowe
Charles L Flowe, PE
TGS Engineers
975 Walnut Street
Suite 141
Cary, North Carolina 27511
[phone] - Voice
[phone] - Mobile
12/11/05
FAX CE
1
J-1
t
c i•?tr??
p ?{++.y, 93

C, -7

,beg ¦ E H./?vr.- 6--
_

/ r ?1 /"1 ?,?l v
I
1
1

fl

1

tdi fef G=lade DOW% Pitt
p1}yle ! ,
TG8 EngrneVs r -aw Commitments bA we eEe v4r,
.. ^ a ll meeting SetWuled for 12115/05 ? 01 V. •" •
V1fE3 !! } be itnBCl,?'. iU uss , r......
? $ZEC1 ill t4?ttN ?„; 4nn+u flUr feelings about this W019a
irtE to
...,coact aF7out the Ilty of expa4ng "If-, r11u,
...t .n n> rr telt=134 if1118 Coitivet satM we are Very [uuviawe c
s,5 r eajrsan.C04 :.., v t? r is tx?ttetttty pyStwtlB?lYi3a small t r_.n Rd for several reasons, prtmariy at t.° .nrth4 ?Ertt ?tlSe a good Cea? to w men the rvm?. it c?"
r r rc'u;. r ^I t sew s are QL 1Gt • ? •• , min ytftJUiu °or?.,vtr at tF 3
to think $ 1Alir3er food
?;d riMr? 1rskF?e shoal s. u.,yt, dd nnE_y64 and leaf! use e [ i
r r trWerS ex? the speed to 111LO • r.•..6 _ _ at j _fw1 ?,,?i .,,.,,{ 1?p?yard Ci2p lYin u tv a w rx M R3 '
.? 4ST:t r t}l f3 _Auy ..,..i I'1?'1' ., 010 1-9 l1t11" ?r rs?ac. ntil r,
somdS Also, manY "ft g t:il ° rWrhar exit- TWO is no other WaY to e?d
Stgqtes and then get baCK orl t Lv ati u
i ?i ?0.iri. v tttrSttta?lYf ?11
t{aiyarf5 oft ti'k? {t
'Fedor
t \4he18 C?7'
?......t I-- because of the cufv@
tWrtina hm from Betinda prive om YI0wo;U ..,...t-
..cc••••••• LtOt]rid to-so (trs el:
c' GEN{l ill i ?nyc y --- .,- wrj not into the norW
. t ...a the gneed limit ara often alms on us UVIODO ZIP
er r,;?t file a?min4 trsiftc from view so a,--
-other nwwng viers o ,•• • -,
&-?prous r
r.,.ws the rusrthl From the ?utR W9 hlve a gLguiGill u••,f-__ _ tt. TtustSuw q!"'
wrwe /,? .e v... - Y.a'
rurc? that w e enter Novuard Gap ?O ?' h, palate many accidents ff wilt as aesaii*u
ove this sduatm as m W PIT IM-1, r.
.;; ltarsina t?wi'E t rxlt imps ?._..a ..teaea te4 u? kr?t'x*-
"we Cottid; w r..,... .
.e.......nr. cr3iarule a;iotiltir m
L,F,f Wba tWtontitwildyouv?nVOU....,..._'---
81nf5E'reV,

3A't t?JGiN +te. nrt,rm
?L?;rgonvillp WC 28732
t;, ;
,
8?-?rT?i 46
t Victoria Hull Oersarlt)
34 Belinda Diwe
t4? 28732
tt?s,arivr#ly

0

1

._. _...,.?. H flan
M_ Helene kcutieii xs? ten, ?, - r
22B Tulip =tail
It- &jr_ 28792
W?tt?S Y:lJ tL.._ IA VVIS Atneriegio niinez fII?.3?[M
lLUG2 I

Mr Charlie Flowe
TGS Engineers
' 975 Walnut St, Suite 141
Cary, NC 27511
82 Dellwood View La, #3
Hendersonville, NC 28791
December 12, 2005
?/ -""W4 t,
- JIT
r, le MA141bIR
' Dear Mr Flowe,
I am pleased to read in the Times News today that DOT has the funding to improve
Howard Gap Rd in 2007 I travel it frequently to get to physical therapy at Park Ridge
Hospital, and the Lelia Patterson Center When I travel on Howard Gap Road, I find
myself being tailgated, passed by other vehicles exceeding the speed limit, and lack of
' direction from traffic lights I wonder why speed limits aren't enforced I wonder why
tuning signals, and traffic lights can't be installed now at the intersections of Howard
Gap Road with Brookside Camp Rd, North Clear Creek Rd, and White Road They
' would calm the traffic flow and cut down on some of the dangers met in traveling this
road
' In fact the life you save may be mine
Sincerely,
' Carla Rodio

1
1

C(sON/fE
DEC 14 2005 D
1