19950735 Ver 1_Complete File_19950719

AM h
A6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
May 31, 1995
9573..5
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
° 19 w J;?
.. i„;
Subject: Burke County, Replacement of Bridge No. 309 over the Henry Fork River
on SR 1924 (Old NC 18), Federal Aid Project BRZ-1924(1), State Project
No. 8.2851301, TIP No. B-2518.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The new bride will constructed in the same location and at the same
elevation as the existing bridge. During construction traffic will be detoured onto State
Road 1922. The project will require minor fill in surface waters, however the proposed
bridge crossing is located in a portion of the river that is not designated trout waters.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will
apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and. Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, for their review.
3 ;
2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Robert Johnson, COE-Asheville
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, NCDEHNR WRC
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. W.D. Smart, PE, Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Rob Hanson, PE, Planning and Environmental Branch

Date: 1/93
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2518
State Project No. 8.2851301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1924(1)
A. Project Description: To replace bridge number 309 on SR
1924 (Old NC 18) over the Henry Fork River in Burke
County.
B. Purpose and Need: To replace an obsolete bridge,
preventing the closure of the SR 1924 crossing of Henry
Fork River. The new bridge will provide greater clear
roadway width than the existing bridge, reducing the
likelihood of accidents from vehicles striking the bridge
rail. Bridge number 309 will be replaced in existing
location and SR 1924 will be closed during construction.
Traffic will be maintained on existing area roads (see
Figure 1 for detour route).
Note: Refer to Section D, "Special Project
Information" for a list of environmental commitments.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type I Improvements
1. Non-construction activities (program activities)
2. Approval of utility installations along or across a
transportation facility
3. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes,
paths, and facilities
4. Activities included in the State's "highway safety
plan" under 23 USC 402 (programs administered by
the Division of Motor Vehicles)
5. Transfer of Federal lands pursuant to 23 USC 317
when the subsequent action is not an FHWA action
6. The installation of noise barriers or alterations
to existing publicly owned buildings to provide for
noise reduction
7. Landscaping
8. Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings,
small passenger shelters, traffic signals, and
railroad warning devices
?. Emergency repairs under 23 USC 125 (Governor
Declared Emergency)
0. Acquisition of scenic easements
1.1. Determination of payback under 23 CFR Part 480 for
property previously acquired with Federal-aid
participation
1.2. Improvements to Px.istin.g rest areas and -.ruck weigh
1

Date: 1/93
stations
13. Ridesharing activities
14. Bus and rail car rehabilitation
15. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to
make them accessible for elderly and handicapped
persons
16. Program administration, technical assistance
activities, and operating assistance to transit
authorities to continue existing service or
increase service to meet changes in routine demand
17. The purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the
use of these vehicles can be accommodated by
existing facilities or by new facilities which
themselves are within a CE
18. Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when
carried out within the existing right of way
19. Purchase and installation of operating or
maintenance equipment to be located within the
transit facility and with,no significant impacts
off the site
20. Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
?,. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
2
Date: 1/93
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
3
Date: 1/93
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Existing Conditions
SR 1924 is classified as a minor collector in the North
Carolina Functional Classification System. SR 1924 in the
vicinity of bridge number 309 has 4.8 meters (16 feet) of
pavement and grassed shoulders varying in width from 0.3 to
2.7 meters (1 to 9 feet). The speed limit for the roadway is
unposted (statuatory limit of 55 mph (88 Km/h) applies). The
horizontal and vertical alignment of SR 1924 is poor. Many
of the curves along the roadway have less than a 65 Km/h (40
mph) design speed. A curve with a design speed of
approximately 65 Km/h (40 mph) is located adjacent to bridge
number 309 to the south. A curve with a design speed of
approximately 50 Km/h (30 mph) is located immediately north
of the bridge.
Bridge number 309 is a steel and timber beam bridge,
with timber decking and asphalt wearing surface. The end
bents are timber, while the three interior bents are steel
and concrete. The bridge has wooden hand rails. The bridge
is 35.4 meters (116 feet) long and 4.8 meters (16 feet) wide
face to face of wheel guards.
Bridge number 309 was built in 1956 and has an estimated
remaining life of four years. The structure's sufficiency
4

Date: 1/93
rating is 27.4 (out of a possible 100). Bridge number 309 is
posted at nine tons for both single vehicles and truck
tractor semi-trailers.
Proposed Improvements
The new bridge structure will be approximately 46 meters
(150 feet) long and have a clear deck width of 9.1 meters (30
feet). It will be constructed in approximately the same
location and at the same elevation as the existing bridge.
Proposed approach work will be limited to approximately 60
meters (200 feet) from either end of the new structure. The
proposed bridge approaches will be 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide,
with 2.4 meter (8-foot) grassed shoulders. No change in the
speed limit along SR 1924 is proposed as a part of this
project. The proposed roadway alignment meets a 65 Km/h (40
mph) design speed. This design speed is consistent with
adjoining portions of SR 1924, however, a design exception
may be required for this project due to the low design speed.
Proposed Detour
SR 1924 in the immediate area of the bridge will be
closed during construction of the new structure. Through
traffic will be detoured onto SR 1922, which intersects with
SR 1924 approximately 0.8 kilometers (0.5 mile) south of
bridge number 309 and then onto SR 1918, which intersects
with SR 1924 approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) north
of the bridge. The proposed detour route is shown on Figure
1. The total length of the proposed detour is 6.3 kilometers
(3.9 miles). The distance along SR 1924 between SR 1922 and
SR 1918 is 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles).
Schedule and Cost
The project is included in the 1995-2001 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1995 and
construction is scheduled for fiscal year 1996.
The estimated cost of the project is $558,000, including
$33,000 for right of way acquisition and $525,000 for
construction. The estimated cost included in the TAP is
$358,000, including $33,000 for right of way acquisition and
$325,000 for construction.
Environmental Commitments
NCDOT will implement all practical measures to minimize
and wood impacts to the nat.ura) and human environment.
The most stringent provisions of NCDOT's best management
practices for protection of surface waters will be followed
during the construction of this project due to the Henry Fork
5

Date: 1/93
River's classification as an outstanding resource water.
Hazardous spill catch basins will be constructed as part
of the project.
Runoff from the proposed bridge will not be discharged
directly into the Henry Fork River, but will be directed to
the hazardous spill catch basins.
Burke County Emergency Services will be notified prior to
the closure of SR 1924.
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide permit 23 will
be required for the project. A Section 401 water quality
certification will be required from the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Burke County is a designated "trout" county. A letter of
concurrence from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission will
be obtained during the project permitting process, prior to
issuance of the Nationwide 23 permit.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project
on any unique or
(2) Does the project
federally listed
species may occu
YES NO
have a substantial impact ? X
important natural resource?
involve habitat where
endangered or threatened F] X
r?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? n X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
6
Date: 1/93
YES NO
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
I X]
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated r X1
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ? X
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be F-1 X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts
t_o planned growth or land use for the area.?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of
any family or business?
1-1 X
-0 X
F-1 X
7
Date: 1/93
YES NO
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or ? X
community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X ?
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during
construction using existing roads, staged X ?
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal,
State, and local laws relating to the
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
x?
?x
F-1 X
8

Date: 1/93
YES NO
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(7) The Henry Fork River, from the Morganton water
intake to Laurel Creek has a water quality
classification of Class C ORW (Outstanding Resource
Waters). More stringent erosion control measures
are required for work near streams classified as
outstanding resource waters. Hazardous spill catch
basins are required at all crossings of outstanding
resource waters. NCDOT will implement all
additional water quality protection measures
required for construction near outstanding resource
waters.
(8) Burke County is a designated "trout" county. A
letter of concurrence from the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission will be required before a
Department of the Army wetland permit can be issued.
The proposed bridge crossing is located downstream
of a portion of the Henry Fork River which is a
designated public mountain trout water. In the
project area, however, the Henry Fork River is not a
designated public mountain trout water. No impacts
to public mountain trout waters are anticipated as a
result of the subject project.
I-
Date: 1/93
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2518
State Project No. 8.2851301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1924(1)
Project Description: Replacement of bridge number 309 on
SR 1924 (Old NC 18) over the Henry Fork River in Burke
County.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE I
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
/1-22-74-
Date ,W Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
i/ a z 9
xt?s ! • f??--
Da a Project Planning Unit Head
1f_ZZ-9y Q?46 ti,
Date Pr ject Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Fop, Division Administrator
Federal Higbwa.y Admin:; s i:.ration
10

r f
told
lNe_I,k.k ??? ? ?kTebleko?
r
+• c1e
10
64 Lukr
ek Hit A..dn....\
e1 v
elde.
Morganton Ale b!
B Rit VI

km
0 1 2
0 1
mile
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
SR 1924, BRIDGE NO. 309
OVER HENRY FORK RIVER
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2518
I FIG. 1
STUDIED DETOUR
? ROUTE

Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 309
On SR 1924
Over Henry Fork River
Burke County
TIP # B-2518
State Project No. 8.2851301
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1924(1)

Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2518
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
RUBY PHARR, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
OCTOBER 8, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..............................................
0 Introduction
1 ................................................ 1
.
1.1 .......
Project Description ....................................... ................................................ 1
2
1 Purpose ..................................................... ................................................ 1
.
1.3 Study Area .................................................... ................................................ 1
1
4
1 Physiography and Soils ................................. ................................................
.
1.5 Methodology ................................................ ................................................ 2
2.0 Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Waters Impacted ........................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics .................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification ................................................................ 3
2.1.3 Water Quality ................................................................................. 4
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources ......................................................... 4
3.0 Biotic Resources ..................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................ 5
3.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .......................................................... 5
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ...................................................... 6
3.1.3 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest ........................................ 7
3.2 Aquatic Community ...................................................................................... 7
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ................................................... 8
3.3.1 Terrestrial .......................................................................................8
3.3.2 Aquatic Community ........................................................................ 9
4.0 Special Topics ..................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Waters of the United States ........................................................................... 9
4. 1.1 Permits ......................................................................................... 10
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................................................................... 10
4.2 Rare or Protected Species ........................................................................... 10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .......................................................... 11
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species ............................. 15
5.0 References ................................................................................................... 17

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed replacement of bridge #309 on SR 1924 over Henry
Fork River in Burke County. Included are inventories of natural resources occurring
within the project area and identification of environmental concerns which must be
addressed in the planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
This project involves removal and replacement of Bridge No. 309 at its existing
location. It is anticipated that road closure will be used for this project. Traffic will be
maintained on an off-site detour. The plan calls for replacing the existing 5 m (16 ft) of
pavement with 2.7 m (1 to 9 ft) grassed shoulders with 6.5 m (22 ft) of pavement and 2 m
(6 ft) grassed shoulders. Proposed right-of-way (ROW) is 18 m (60 ft). Some
realignment of existing roadway may be involved. Project length is 300 m (1000 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to inventory, catalog and describe the natural
resources identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures to minimize resource impacts.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project site lies approximately 10 miles southeast of Morganton in
the South Mountains of Burke County (Figure 1). This location is a rural setting
including power line right-of-ways, two driveways, a cultivated field and some forested
areas. Industry, Agriculture and Recreation are primary land uses in the county. South
Mountain State Park is also located in Burke County.
1.4 Physiography and Soils
Burke County is in the central-western Piedmont of the Southern Appalachian
Mountains Physiographic Province. Topography in the area ranges from moderately
sloping to steep hills and associated narrow bottomland floodplains. Elevation is
approximately 347.1 m (1157 ft) to 372.0 m (1240 ft).
No published soil survey is available for Burke County. Soils information was
btained from Connie Adams of the Burke County Soil. Conservation Service. Five soil
Types are mapped in the study area (Table 1).
r
ar?T ,
Linville dge
Nils M
T
I N""WI 1
ford
""NrZ ?r'
ai1Elt N r„rav ta,,,
a
+
11 Mil 64 M
r*xtly/ d
+
lot + - ` r 10 It
+
+ 5 'I y,® jonn
B *Morganton Or 11
R / E
+
11 PI1/ C?rOV1
km
0 11? 2
I?
0 mile 1
4
i

NORTAROLfNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANS! SPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
SR 1924, BRIDGE NO. 309
OVER HENRY FORK RIVER
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2518

I FIG. 1 1
2
TABLE 1 SOIL SUMMARY, BURKE COUNTY
Name Slope % Classification
Colvard Var. Ostin complex 0-5 Non-hydric
Braddock Fine Sandy Loam 2-8 Non-hydric
Brevard Fine Sandy Loam 8-15 Non-hydric
Evard-Cowee Complex 8-15 Non-hydric
Cliffield-Pigeonroost Complex 30-50 Non-hydric
Colvard var. Ostin complex soils consists of about 45 percent Colvard variant soils
and 35 percent Ostin soils. Colvard variant soils are very deep and well drained on flood
plains. They formed in loamy alluvium. Ostin soils are very deep and well drained to
moderately well drained. They formed in coarse textured alluvium. These soils are
subject to occasional flooding for very brief periods.
Braddock Fine Sandy Loam soils are very deep, well drained soils on high
Terraces, foot slopes, benches, and coves. They formed in colluvium or old alluvium.
Brevard Fine Sandy Loam soils are very deep, well drained soils on high terraces,
foot slopes, benches, and coves. They formed in colluvium or old alluvium.
Evard-Cowee Complex stony soils consist of about 55-65 percent Evard soils and
30-50 percent Cowee soils. Evard soils are very deep, well drained soils on upland ridges
and side slopes. They formed in residuum from felsic high-grade metamorphic rocks
such as granite, schist, and gneiss Cowee soils are moderately deep with a loamy surface
with gravel mixed in and a loamy subsoil.
Cliffield-Pigeonroost Complex soils are very stony. This complex consists of
about 50 to 60 percent Cliffield soils and about 20-30 percent Pigeonroost soils. Cliffield
soils are moderately deep, well drained soils on ridges and side slopes. They formed in
residuum from felsic high-grade metamorphic rocks such as sillimanite schist or quartz-
mica schist. Pigeonroost soils and moderately deep, well drained soils on ridges or side
slopes. They formed in residuum from felsic high-grade metamorphic rocks such as
granite, gneiss and schist.
1.5 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and reviewed prior to the site visit.
Information sources include U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) relief maps, (Morganton
3
South and Valdese Quads), Soil Conservation Services (SCS) soils map of the area,
NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:100), North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) water quality classifications for the Catawba River,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species, N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats,
and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) personnel.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignment on October 1,
1994. Plant communities were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a
number of observation techniques; active searching, visual observations, (binocular), and
recording the identifying signs of Wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Cursory
surveys of aquatic communities were made by observation.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics, Best Usage Standards, and
water quality of the water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed.
2.1 Waters Impacted
Henry Fork joins Jacob Fork to form the South Fork of the Catawba River
approximately 51.2 km (32 mi) downstream from bridge #309. A small unnamed creek
flows southeast parallel to SR 1924 to enter Henry Fork approximately 7.5 m (25 ft) east
of bridge #309.
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Henry Fork flows west to east at the project site and is approximately 7.5 m (25 ft)
wide, with depths ranging from 0.3 m (1 ft) to 1.2 m (4 ft). The substrate is composed of
sand with scattered cobble interspersed with flat rock shoals. Siltation is present but
slight. The field investigation was conducted on a rainy day when the river was receiving
active run-off and the water was only slightly turbid. Flow was moderately high.
The unnamed tributary is approximately 1.4 m (3.5 ft) wide and 0.15 m (0.5 ft) to
0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep. The substrate is mixed gravel and cobble.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The reach of Henry Fork from the Morganton water intake to Laurel Creek which
includes this project site has been assigned the Best Usage Classification of Class C
ORW. Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
4
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The ORW classification
identifies Outstanding Resource Waters which are unique and special waters of
exceptional or national recreational or ecological significance which require special
protection to maintain existing uses. Best Usage Classification of the small tributary to
Henry River would have the same Best Usage Class as Henry Fork - CORW.
Outstanding Resource Waters are protected by High Quality Waters (HQW)
sedimentation controls. HQW design requires stringent erosion control measures which
include Type A sediment basins. When construction is completed, these basins are to be
converted to hazardous-spill catch basins. Bridge design must assure that run-off from
the bridge must be directed into the hazardous spill basins.
2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water quality
by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and
overall biomass are reflections of water quality. In April of 1988, the MAN conducted
a special ORW survey of the Henry Fork catchment. The survey found Henry Fork from
SR 1918 Ext. to NC 18 to have an excellent Bioclass rating. The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) lists no discharges for the project area.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project area could occur from substrate
disturbance, sedimentation and increased turbidity, as well as non-point discharge of
toxic substances from construction machinery. A decrease of dissolved oxygen and
changes in water temperature may occur as a result of removal of streamside canopy.
Increased sediments may clog gills, and smother the eggs of aquatic organisms. If wet
concrete is allowed to come into contact with river water, there is a possibility of causing
a fish kill. The NCWRC reports that the "Henry Fork supports good populations of
smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish that provide fishing for anglers. Stringent erosion
and sedimentation control measures adequate to protect fisheries resources should be
installed".
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Ecosystems described in the following sections include communities of associated
flora and fauna. These descriptions include the dominant plants and animals in each
community and their relationships with each other. Scientific nomenclature and common
name (when applicable) are used for species described. Subsequent references to the
v,ame species will use common name only.
5
Animal species which were observed directly or indirectly during the field survey
are denoted with an (*). Complete listings of the flora and fauna which may occur in the
study area can be found in one or more of the technical references listed in Section 5.0.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct biotic community types were identified in the project impact zone,
however, there is some degree of overlap between communities, particularly the faunal
components. Many terrestrial animals utilize a variety of habitats and may occur
throughout the entire area.
3.1.1 Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes maintained roadsides, a powerline
corridor, and a cultivated field. Many of the plants in these areas are "weedy" species
adapted to disturbed or maintained areas.
The low-growing roadside vegetation includes fescue grasses estuca spp.),
elephant's foot (Elehanto_pus tomentosus), ox-eye daisy (Cbasanthemum
leucanthemum), plantains Planta o rugelii, P. lanceolata), knotweeds (Polygon um ssp.)
and dandelions (Taraxacum officinale). A steep rocky road cut northwest of Bridge #
309 is dominated by Japanese honeysuckle onicera 'a? Ponca) and other common vines,
but also contains seedlings and small stump sprouts of area canopy trees - river birch
Betula nigra), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), bitternut hickory (Caryg
cordiformis), and Virginia pine Pinus virginiana); subcanopy tress - sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum) and red bud Cercis canadensis); and shrubs - rosebay
rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum) and mountain laurel K( Wn a latifoli ). This
moist northeast facing bank also has a wide variety of herbaceous species, including
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrosticoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), wild geranium Geranium maculatum), rue anemone
(Thalictrum thalictroides), robin's-plantain Eri eron pulchellus), and trailing arbutus
(Epig,aea re ens).
The maintained powerline corridor through a low moist area by the river contains
root sprouts of previously named species plus hop horn beam O( sgya virginiana),
persimmon Dios os vir ig nian a), wild cherry Prunus serotina), willow Salix niga),
hazel-nut Co lu Americana) and sumacs Rhus hina, R. copallina). The dense
growth of herbs and vines includes: wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), Joe-Pye-Weed
(Eupatorium maculatum), thistle Carduus altissima), asters Aster ssp.), ragwoods
Ambrosia trifida, A. artemisiifolia), ironweed Vemonia noveboracensis), blackberry
Rubus sp.) goldenrods Solida o ssp.), Japanese honeysuckle, greenbriar Smilax
rotundifolia), Virgin's bower Clematis viraniana), and grape Vitis spp.)
6
South of the bridge the powerline corridor has been completely cleared and is now
dominated by sparse grasses: fescue escue elati r), broom-straw (Andropogon
d St. John's
ggparius), and serica (Less edeza cuneata). Gerardia A alinis tenufolia) an
wort (Hyyericu_m mutilum).
The disturbed Man-dominated Community provides a variety of habitats and
numerous opportunistic animal species utilize these areas as foraging zones and nesting
sites. Various species of reptiles, birds, and mammals may venture into these areas to
feed on seeds, berries, roots, and insects. These species include: Carolina chickadee
Parus carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), northern mockingbird
Mimus Qolylottos), American crow Corvu brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren
(T othorus ludovicianus) and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). Red-
tailed hawks Buteo jamacensis) may soar above the open areas to feed on prey such as
small mammals, reptiles and insects. Bluebirds S( ialia sialis) may forage for insects in
these open areas. Snakes such as the black racer Columber constrictor) and eastern
garter snakes may also feed on insects and small mammals in this habitat.
Mammals.frequenting this community may include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virainanus virg nianus), Virginia opossum Didel his vir i ana), mice (Perom sY cus
spp.), striped skunk Me hitis me hitis), raccoon Proc on lotor) and eastern cottontail
(Sylvilague floridanus) may forage along roadways. These animals often become
roadkills which then attrack scavenger species such as turkey vulture Cathartes aura) and
common crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos).
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest
This is the most abundant forested community type occurring in the project ROW.
This community occurs mainly on the northeastern side of the roadway on steep slopes
grading toward Henry Fork River and the small unnamed tributary along SR 1924. The
closed canopy is dominated by white oak (QLuercus alba) and also includes red oak
uercus rubra), hickory (Carta spp.), pine Pinus sp.) and yellow poplar. Subcanopy
species include red maple Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood Corvus florid a), American
holly (Ilex opaca), and sourwood. A sparse shrub layer includes strawberry bush
'Euon?mus americana), and rosebay rhododendron. Herbs are very scarce.
The Dry-Mesic-Oak-Hickory Forest located southwest of the existing roadway has
a more gentle slope but also has been more disturbed in the past as is evidenced by the
increased incidence of pines, Pinus spp.) locust Robinia pseudoacacia), and yellow
poplar, as well a slightly more open canopy. Shrubs are also more common, including
horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), mountain laurel, and rosebay rhododendron. The
sparse herb layer is also more varied including Hexastylis sp., partridge berry (Mitchell
7
re ens), autumn coralroot, (Corallorhiza wisteriana), wild yam Di corea villo a),
bellwort (Uvularia u Indian pipe (Monotropa uniflora), green briar (a_x sp.),
and grapefern (Bonchium dissectum).
Faunal diversity is expected to be low in this community near the roadway. No
vertebrate species were observed during the field investigation. Blue jays (Cvanocitta
cristata), white-breasted nuthatch S( itta carolinensis) carolina chickadee, downy
woodpecker icoi a cen ), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopuus ilk eatus), red-eyed
vireo Vireo olivaceous) and blue-gray gnatcatcher Polio tila caerulea).
Other vertebrate species likely to occur in this community include: grey squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum, grey treefrogs (Hula spp.) and the eastern
pipstrelle Pi strellus subflavus).
3.1.3 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This palustrine community exists in the narrow flood plain adjacent to Henry Fork
and along its unnamed tributary. The dominant canopy trees are river birch, sycamore
Platanoccidentalis), bitternut hickory, and black walnut Lu lans nigra). Subcanopy
species include flowering dogwood, sourwood, hop hornbeam, American holly, and
sassafras Sa safras albidum). Shrubs include highland dog-hobble (Leucothoe
fontanesiana), rosebay rhododendron, red bud, and hazelnut. A sparse herb layer
includes spotted jewelweed (Impatiens ca ensi ), geum (Geum canadense), violets Viola
spp.), golden ragwort Senecio aureus). Vines include grape Vitis sp.) and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans).
This narrow corridor along the waterways would be utilized by many of the
species already listed. Portions of this community have been disturbed and would be
limited in its ability to support a unique faunal community.
3.2 Aquatic Community
The vegetation along this stream should provide a good supply of terrestrial
dedritus to provide food chain energy. The dedritus is decomposed by bacteria or
consumed by macroinvertebrates, such as acquatic insects.
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems, as primary and
secondary consumers, and as prey species for organisms higher in the food chain.
Aquatic invertebrates, including crayfish (Cambaridae) and insects are present in Henry
Fork.
8 1.
Gamefish such as smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), redbreast sunfish
e omi auritu ), and trout (Oncorh nchus mykiss) (Salmo trutta) are present in Henry
Fork, according to Bob Brown, N.C. Inland Fisheries Biologist. Other species likely to
be at this site include striped jumprock (Moxostoma rupiscartes), bluehead chub
Nocomis latocenhalus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), stoneroller
(CaMostorn anomalum), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), suckermouth redhorse
(Moxostoma patmi? osum), and Santee chub C rinella zanema).
Representatives of all vertebrate classes are integral parts of the aquatic
community. Salamanders present may include the northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus) and the two-lined salamander cea bislineata). Frogs that
prey on aquatic insects may include pickerel frog (Rana alp ustris) and bullfrog (R.
catesbeian a).
Reptiles would be represented by the queen snake Re ina septenvittata), northern
water snake Nerodia si edon) and snapping turtle Ch( elydra serpentina). These snakes
feed on crayfish, small fish, amphibians. The snapping turtle feeds on plant material,
aquatic invertebrates, and carrion.
Belted kingfishers (Meeaceryle alycon) nests within stream banks and feeds on
small fish.
Mammals likely to be closely associated with the aquatic community include the
semiaquatic muskrat Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon, and mink Mustela vison mink)
muskrats are primarily herbivorous, feeding on aquatic plant roots and tubers but may
also feed on shellfish when present. Raccoons and mink utilize a variety of aquatic
foods.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts, resulting from project construction are being addressed
separately as terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, it is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the community in which the
construction activity occurs. All measures possible should be taken to ensure no
,ediment leaves the construction site.
3.3.1 Terrestrial
The natural communities that once occurred in the project area have been
mented and reduced as a result of previous development. However, since the
,,xoposed construction plans to follow the sarne route as the existing, roadway and Gt;(
and maintain the same 60 ft right-of-way that now exists, little additional disturbance or
9
fragmentation of habitat will occur. According to the aerial photograph's indications, the
project length extends approximately 195.0 m (650 ft) with a proposed right-of-way of 18
m (60 ft).
TABLE 2. Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Type Hectare (acre)
Man-Dominated 0.06 (0.14)
Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 0.04 (0.1)
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest 0.24 (0.6)
Total 0.34 (0.84)
3.3.2 Aquatic
The aquatic component of the project area recieves some siltation from fields
along its banks. Project construction is likely to increase sediment loads in Henry Fork
temporarily. Any erosion along the small unnamed tributary that flows at the foot of the
current road fill will also add to the sediment load in Henry Fork. Construction-related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which form an
important part of the food chains for both aquatic and terrestrial animals. Less mobile
organisms may be covered and smothered by the sediment. Local fish populations can
also be harmed by construction-related activities. Increased sedimentation and suspended
particulates can smother fish eggs, reduce the water's oxygen carrying capacity, change
the temperature of the water, reduce depth of light penetration in the water column, and
alter spawning habits. The NCWRC stated that they were "especially concerned with
protecting this habitat for smallmouth bass from sedimentation and other degradation.
"Bridge construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not come in
contact with river water in order to reduce the possibility of causing a fish kill." Other
concerns at this site would relate to the possibility of increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) reaching the stream from construction machinery.
Best Management Practices (BMW's) for protection of surface waters must be
strictly followed to insure the biological integrity and water quality of this stream.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of section
10
404 of The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps.
of Engineers (COE).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be
a "wetland," the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils,
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, or hydrological
indicators, including: saturated soils, stained oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation,
high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
. No wetland communities were identified within this project ROW. Construction
of the proposed project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetlands.
4.1.1 Permits
Construction is likely to be authorized by provisions of General Nationwide permit
33 CFR 330.5 (A)-23. Burke County is one of 25 counties designated as having trout
waters. Projects in these counties must be reviewed and approved by the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission prior to the issuance of the COE permit. Also, Section
401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission states that this construction site lies
downstream of the section of Henry Fork that is Hatchery Supported Designated Public
Mountain Trout Water's consequently, trout are not an issue at this site.
4.1.2. Mitigation
Since this project will likely be authorized under a Nationwide permit, mitigation
for impacts to surface waters is generally not required by the COE. A final determined
regarding mitigation requirements rests with COE.
4.2 Rare or Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the potential to have a detrimental
impact to the survival and well-being of any species classified as federally protected, is
subject to review by the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries service, under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered
species receive additional protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina
protection of plant species falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-
202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
11
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists 6 federally protected species for Burke
County as of July 8, 1994. These species are listed in Table 2. A discussion of each
species follows.
TABLE 3 Federally Protected Species for Burke County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
BIRDS
Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon E
PLANTS
Geum ra iatum* Spreading avens E
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia E
Hexast?s naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
Hedyotis 12mmured var montana Roan Mt. Bluet E
Hudsonia montan a Mountain golden-heather T
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T
E (Endangered): A taxon that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
T (Threatened): A taxon that is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
* Indicates no specimen from Burke County in at least 20 years.
Falco peregrinus anatum (American peregrine falcon) E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 10113/70; 6/2/70; 3/20/70
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Burke, Jackson, Madison, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes.
The American peregrine falcon is a raptor found throughout the United States in
areas with high cliffs, high ledges and adjacent open land for foraging. Nesting for the
falcons is generally on high cliff ledges but they may also nest in broken off tree tops in
the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and bridges in urban areas.
12
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small mammals and birds. They occupy a
range from 0.6 to 311 sq lams (.25 to 120 sq mi) depending on the availability of food.
The hunting range usually extends 16 km (10 mi) from the nest. Nesting occurs from
mid-March to May.
The anatum subspecies of the peregrine falcon is intermediate in coloring. The
back is dark gray and the underside is off-white to tannish with dark barring. This
subspecies appears slightly larger than the tundriu subspecies and has a wider black
wedge forming the side of the helmet. Males of this species grow to an average length of
0.4 m (16 in) and females average 0.5 m (2C in) in length.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The majority of the study area is supported by disturbed vegetation and does not
support suitable habitat for the American peregrine falcon. No impacts to the American
peregrine falcon will occur from proposed construction.,
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) E
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the
Southern Appalachian Mountains. Known populations in Burke County have been
extirpated and populations in other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of
0.2-0.5 m (S-20 in). The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow
radially symmetrical flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets
are kidney shaped and much larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent.
Leaflets have lobed or uneven margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves
are smaller than the basal, rounded to obovate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are
hemispheric aggregates of hairy achenes that are 7-9 mm (0.3-0.4 in) in diameter.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs, and escarpments on mountains,
hills, and ridges. Habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight, high
elevations, and shallow acidic soils. The spreading avens is found in soils composed of
sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus. Most populations are pioneers
on rocky outcrops.
13
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for spreading avens. No impacts
to spreading avens will occur from proposed construction.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) E
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid-May through mid-June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Surry.
The small-whorled pogonia was known historically from Maine to Georgia, with
the exception of Delaware, along the eastern seaboard and in Michigan, Illinois, and
Missouri. In North Carolina it is found in the Nantahala National Forest, Macon County
and near the town of Flat Rock, Henderson County.
This perennial orchid has long pubescent roots and a hollow stem 0.1 to 0.3 m (4
to 12 in) tall. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that
are somewhat pointed. Leaves measure approximately 80 x 40 mm (3 x 2 in). One or
two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem. Flowers have short sepals
that are only 25 mm (1 in) long.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-
coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It
prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub
coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect.
The study area does not support suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia. No
impacts to small-whorled pogonia will occur from proposed construction.
Hexas lis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaeae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid-March through mid-May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln, Rutherford
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont counties in
North Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
. ? ??? ?/ _ ? .14, ?`'/ ice) / - `_ /' I .,1 r? / I - I _ '??•-•
u? •f
99 rf?
o. s
400,
??)(''/?t?l".? ?i'??,`'??\?•?,?.?`\ ;`;?;:; ol? 9R1DGE:NO.•309 .. - / _ ??:, .. _ ?_ ???
. e .\ ? I • i Vii,.. . `'`.\ . ; , ?` i? 1 ///^ ? ("? - ?'. ni ? ?'? ,
x/.760, \ ^ f.a ?' ±rr'+ ?: ? - ^l ,s - _? _•, ? ,
1.0
10
vl-
Q.i
\ 1 ,-• L!•` ?1:??--_ . (•\` (, .-?. ?`\ ?`? 1 `_ - •??' ii/\^?-') Vim`
a-b
AIN
?utler// /Gro ?Z
'dam" / ? ?d? ?_- - ? ? - ? ? ? - _-' - ?- - - /' . f. iit ? '??• .\i•" .'`''
14
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from
a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds 0.15 m (6 in) in height. The leaves are dark
green in color, evergreen, and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles. Fruits mature from
mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent
slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does contain suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf. A
survey was conducted. No impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf will be likely to occur
from proposed construction.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) T
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20, 1980
Flowers Present: mid to late June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, McDowell
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in
color. It usually grows in clumps 0.1-0.2 m (4-8 in) across and 0.2 m (6 in) high, it
sometimes occurs in clumps that are a 0.3 m (12 in) or more across. The leaves from the
previous year are retained and appear scale-like on the older branches. Leaves are from
3-7 mm (0.1-0.3 in) long and appear awl-shaped and thread-like. It forms solitary,
terminal, lanceolate flowers that are nearly three centimeters across. These yellow
flowers have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit capsules have three
projecting points at the tips, are roundish, and are found on 13 mm (0.5 in) stalks.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops. It can be
found on exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds
dominated by sand myrtle (Leiophyllum sp.) which merge into pine forest. Plants do live
in partially shaded areas, but do not appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas.
Critical habitat has been designated in Burke County, North Carolina.

15
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does not support suitable habitat for this species. No impact to
mountain golden heather will occur from proposed construction.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are eleven federal candidate (C2) species listed for Burke County.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species
are mentioned here for information purposes, should they become protected in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during site visits, nor were any of these
species observed.
The North Carolina status of these species is also listed in Table 3. Plants or
animals with stte designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC), are given protection by the State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
State designation of E-SC (Endangered-Special Concern) may be collected from
the wild and sold under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special
Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold
under specific regulations. The Watch Category 5 (W5 - rare because of severe decline)
includes species which have declined sharply in North Carolina, but which do not appear
yet to warrant site-specific monitoring.

16
TABLE 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species - Burke County
Common Name Status Habitat
(Scientific Name) Federal State
Mammals_
Eastern woodrat C2 SC NO
Neotoma florid magis
Clams
Brook floater (mussel) C2 T YES
(Alasmidont varicosa)
Plants
A liverwort C2 C NO
(Cephaloziella obtusilobula)*
Butternut C2 W5 YES
Ju lans cinerea)
Sweet pinesap C2 C YES
(Monotropsis odorata)*
A liverwort C2 E NO
(Plagiochila caduciloba)*
A liverwort C2 C NO
(Plagiochila sullivandi var. spinigera)*
A liverwort C2 C NO
(Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii)*
Rock skullcap C2 C NO
(Scutellaria saxatilis)
Oconee - bells C2 E-SC NO
Shortia galacifolia)*
Short - styled oconee - bells C2 E-SC NO
Shortia galacifolia var. brevislyla)*
No specimen from Burke County found in at least 20 years.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and animals revealed one record
of Santee chub C rinella zanema), which is classified as SR (Significantly Rare) in
North Carolina, having been collected at Bridge # 309. Species which are classified as
SR are not afforded State protection. This species was not surveyed for nor was it
observed during the field investigations.

17
5.0 REFERENCES
Borror, D.J., N.F. Johnson, C.A. Triplehorn. 1989. An Introduction to the study of
Insects. New York, Saunders College.
Cowardin, L.M. et. al., 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol, H.J. Byrd, and J.A. Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems
in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vickburg, Miss.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. "Federal Manual for
Delineating and Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands." U.S. Army Corps of
Engineering, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington, D.C. Cooperative
Technical Publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and Stephan P. Hall. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Viry-inia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM, 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water
Quality, 1983-1990.
18
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the i
a
Waters of the Roanoke River Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina". Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh, North Carolina Department of
Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University.of North Carolina Press.
Reed, Porter B., Jr. 1986. "1986 Wetland Plant List for North Carolina". St. Petersburg,
Fla. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of The Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 1981. :Effects of
Highways on Wildlife". Report # FHWA/RD-81/067.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States., U.S., Government Printing Office, Washington
D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of The Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program: Division of Parks and
Recreation; Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources.
Weakley, Alan S. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. 1994. Working draft. N.C.
Natural Heritage Program.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
9
TO: REP. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Erl'r_ GABarn /
yl?. ?nVir: an4
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, ¦LDG.
?.. J, Woav, NCDOY Nr
ACTION
? NOT[ AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOT[ AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FO YOUR APPROVAL
? NOT[ AND SEE M[ ABOUT THIS POR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEAS[ ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
?j?a' ,?r. i? I 0 1993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WEf.,ANLSu ki)j
d? WATFR IiAU%,?,_,,Y c;?=Ciltlf+l ,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SWIM. HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR RO. BOX 25201: RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SE:CRUTARY
September 7, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager (_?Z
Planning and Environmental Branch
00 ??? ?`?
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheer the Replacement of Bridge
Number 309 on SR 1924" over the Henry Fork River, Burke
County, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1924(1), State Project
8.2851301, TIP Project B-2518
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A Scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 12, 1993 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JAM/plr ,
Attachment
-201
r,
C,14 76.
2 ?b /lead
fTN
t,) ,.
?A44,s 04 , - 9
o!

r
r
t
nlle idle
Is ?
Mc-Y.&H e
bldM? t
NP dY ?
Table Roc1E° r?nl, Em..
10 ?_
1 ak Hd?ir.r
g R.. I E/ NJrlrurr
n Pl ^Mt ?ro.e 8

km
0 1 2
0 1
mile
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BURKE COUNTY
SR 1924, BRIDGE NO. 309
OVER HENRY FORK RIVER
T. I. P. PROJECT B - 2518
FIG. 1

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: 9/5/93
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming:
Planning 1
Design
TIP No.: B-2518
State Project No.: 8.2851301
F. A. Project No.: BRZ-1924(1)
Division: 13
County: Burke
Route.: SR 1924
Purpose of Project: Replace obsolete: bridge
Description of Project: Proposed Project involves removal and replacement
of Bridge No. 309 on SR 1924 over the Henry Fork River in Burke County.
Method of Replacement:
1. Existing Location - road closure: Y
2. Existing Location - on-site detour:
3. Relocation:
4. Other:
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers. or other? Yes: No: X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($): , (s):
Page 1
BRIDGE PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
Traffic: Current: 700 VPD Design Year: 1,260 VPD
TTST: % DT: %
Typical Roadway Section: (existing) 16 feet of pavement with one
to nine-foot grassed shoulders
Existing Structure: Length: 35 meters Width: 5.4 meters
116 feet 18 feet
Proposed Structure:
S /IMP
Bridge - Length: 35 meters Width: 8.meters
: 116 feet 28 feet
or
Culvert - Size: @: meters by: meters
feet feet
Detour Structure:
Bridge - Length: meters Width: meters
feet feet
or
Pipe - Size: millimeters inches
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies ................................ $325,000
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util,.
and acquisition) ................................. $33,000
Force Account Items .................................
Total Cost ........................................ $355,000
TIP Construction Cost ................................ $325,000
TIP Right of Way Cost ................................ $33,000
TIP Total Cost ....................................... $355,000
Page 2

BRIDGE
PROJECT SC,'OPItiG SHEET
Additional Comments: Two possible detour routes were driven during a
visit to the project site. The first route would involve detouring
traffic onto SR 1922 south of bridge no. 309, then onto SR 1915 where
traffic would return to SR 1924 north of the bridge. The second detour
involves using SR 1917, rather, than SR 1918, to return to SR 1924.
C
Using SR 1922/SR 1918, the length of the detour route would be
3.9 miles. The distance alon SR 1924 is 2.8 miles. 11 Using SR 1922/SR 1917 the length of the detour route
would be 3.5 miles. The distance along SR 1924 is 2.7 miles.
These possible detour routes are mentioned for information
purposes. The decision regarding whether or not to use an on or
off-Site detour will be made after considering costs and following
coordination with the Division and other Units.
Prepared By: Jay McInnis Date: 8-5-93
J,
nu
RIDGE
n•? ?•
?I
19
10}4
EAK \
rnRYNUT
-/ - - DETOUR 1 F 2
-- -- - DETOUR 1.
• - - - - DETOUR
Page 3
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
THE ABOVE SCOPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
HIGHWAY DESIGN
ROADWAY DESIGN
STRUCTURES
DESIGN SERVICES
GEOTECHNICAL
HYDRAULICS
LOC. & SURVEYS
PHOTOGRAMMETRY
PREL. EST. ENGR.
PLANNING & ENVIRON.
RIGHT OF WAY
R/W UTILITIES
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
COUNTY MANAGER
INIT. DATE
BOARD OF TRANS. MEMBER
SECONDARY ROADS OFF.
MGR., PROGRAM & POLICY
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION BRANCH
ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL
MAINTENANCE BRANCH
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
CHIEF ENGINEER-OPER.
CHIEF ENGINEER-PRECONS.
DIVISION ENGINEER
STATEWIDE PLANNING
BICYCLE COORDINATOR.
FHWA
DEPT. OF CULT. RES.
INIT. DATE
CITY/MUNICIPALITY
OTHERS:
DEPT. OF EH & NR
SCOPE SHEET FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE SENT TO DIVISION ENGINEER FOR
HANDLING.
COMMENTS OR REMARKS: (IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED PROJECT
SCOPING, NOTE YOUR PROPOSED REVISIONS IN COMMENTS
AND REMARKS SECTION AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.)
PAGE 4
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF'TBANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
11-1 -?3
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Ev?r, &e"6 OEHNIR1 OEM.
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
t
t
?
m i
03OT
ay
"Al
c d F
I l
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? F R YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS "OR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

O
NOV - 31993
WETLANCS ('. R,_
WATER U! U I VS'

A
JAMES B. HUNT, )R.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MEMORANDUM TO:
November 1, 1993
FROM:
SUBJECT:
? d "` 5U1F
? o
h
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
File
Jay McInnis
Project Planning Engineer
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
Bridge No. 309 on SR 1924 over Henry Fork River, Burke
County, Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1924(1), State Project
8.2851301, TIP Project B-2518
The scoping meeting for the subject project was held on October 12, 1993
in room 470 of the Highway Building. The following people were in
attendance:
Eric Galamb
Betty C. Yancey
Ahmad Mubaslat
Joel Howerton
Jerry Snead
Chris Mathis
Tony Houser
Brad Stipes
Danny Rogers
R. M. Girolami
Rob Hanson
Jay McInnis
DEHNR-Division of Environmental
Management
Right of Way
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Program Development
Structure Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The subject project proposes to replace Bridge No. 309 on SR 1924 over
Henry Fork River in Burke County.
Two alternatives for replacing the bridge were discussed. One
alternative would involve replacing the bridge in the same location. An
off-site detour would be used for this alternative. Two detour routes have
been identified. Detour 1 would utilize SR 1922 and 1918. The total length
of this detour is 3.9 miles. Detour 2 would utilize SR 1922 and SR 1917.
The total length of this detour is 3.5 miles. Detour 2 would require traffic
to cross a bridge on SR 1917 that is posted at eight tons, which is one ton
less than the posting of Bridge No. 309.
G)
4W
November 1, 1993
Page 2
The second alternative for replacing the bridge would involve relocating
an approximately 1,000-foot portion of SR 1924 to the south. The existing
structure would be used to maintain traffic.
The Hydraulics Unit recommended replacing Bridge No. 309 in the same
location and at the same elevation. This would avoid encroaching on a
tributary to Henry Fork located northeast of the bridge.
The Roadway Design Unit also recommended replacing the bridge in its
existing location. Although relocating the bridge to the south would improve
the alignment of SR 1924 somewhat, a curve with a design speed less than 40
MPH would still exist north of the bridge.
The consensus of the meeting was to replace the structure in its
existing location with some approach work to improve the horizontal
alignment. Construction limits for the project would extend 200 feet on
either end of the bridge.
Henry Fork River has a water quality classification of C. However, the
project area is shown on a GIS map as being in a potential high quality water
zone. Per conversation with David Foster (DEHNR), this means the area is
within one mile of a stream with high quality water. David stated the
potential high quality water zones were only temporarily shown on the GIS
maps in order to show areas where high quality waters might be present, and
are now no longer included on the maps. Based on this, unless the
classification of the subject section of the Henry Fork River changes, only
normal erosion control measures will be required.
The Henry Fork River is not classified as a trout stream. However,
Burke County is a trout county. Therefore, a letter of concurrence from the
Wildlife Resources Commission will be required as part of the Section 404
permit process.
JAM/rfm
cc: Scoping participants

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5O
P.O. BOX 1890 n
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF December 1, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199504510 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions); TIP No. B-2518
Mr. Frank Vick 0,
State of North Carolina ?`f9
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your May 31, 1995 application for Department of the Army (DA)
authorization to replace Bridge #309 over the Henry Fork River, on S.R. 1924
(Old NC 18), south of Morganton, in Burke County, North Carolina. The bridge
will be replaced on existing location and S.R. 1924 will be closed during
construction. Traffic will be maintained on existing area roads. Your plans
call for replacing the existing 16 feet of pavement with 22 feet of pavement
and 6 feet of grassed shoulders. Some realignment of existing roadway may be
involved. Project length is 1,000 feet. It is anticipated that there will be
a minimal impact to the waters of Henry Fork as a result of the project. No
wetlands will be impacted.
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, those
conditions outlined in the July 17, 1995 WRC comment letter (which you have
already received), and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM). You should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone],
regarding water quality certification. This nationwide permit does not
relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local
approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified,
reissued or revoked prior to 21 January 1997. It is incumbent upon you to
remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public
notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence
or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide
16.
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin in the
Asheville Regulatory office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert W. Johnson
Office Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
(./Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Stephanie Briggs
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
..,t
go-
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
5U
P.O. BOX 1890
-,
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 IF
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF December 1, 1995 --
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199506065 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. Frank Vick
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Reference your September 26, 1995 application for Department of the Army
(DA) authorization to replace Bridge Number 72 over North Toe River, on S.R.
1164, near Minneapolis, in Avery County, North Carolina. The bridge will be
replaced with a new bridge approximately 33 feet west of the existing
structure's centerline. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction. No wetlands will be impacted by the
project and it is anticipated that minimal adverse impacts to the waters of
the North Toe River will occur during construction. This project has been
coordinated with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC).
For the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program, Title 33,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the Federal
Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits. Authorization,
pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined,
pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing the Procedural Provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the activity, work or discharge
is categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and the
office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, those
conditions outlined in the October 13, 1995 WRC comment letter (which you have
already received), and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality
certification from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM). You should contact Mr. Jahn Dorney, telephone [phone],
regarding water quality certification. This nationwide permit does not
relieve you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local
approval.
This verification will be valid until the nationwide permit is modified,
reissued or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified,
reissued or revoked prior to 21 January 1997. It is incumbent upon you to
remain informed of changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public
notice announcing the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you commence

or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the nationwide
permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve months from the date of
the modification or revocation to complete the activity under the present
terms and conditions of this nationwide permit.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steve Chapin in the
Asheville Regulatory office at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert W. Johnson
Office Manager
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Ar. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ms. Stephanie Briggs
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201