20040456 Ver 1_Complete File_20040323

t

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 22, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue / Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETr
SECRETARY
,040456,
Subject: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127 (Kanuga Rd) over Wash
Creek. Henderson County in Division 14. Federal Project No. BRSTP-
1127(5), State Project No. 8.2951601, T.I.P. No. B-3475.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project,
along with a project site map, and permit drawings. NCDOT plans to replace bridge No. 356
with a reinforced concrete box culvert containing three barrels at 10 feet by 9 feet and
approximately 80 feet in length on the existing a Ignmen . The proposed roadway cross section
will include two 14 foot outside trave anes an one 12 foot center turning lane. The proposed
grade will be approximately the same as the existing roadway. Bicycle accommodations (14-foot
lanes) will be included on the replacement structure as well as on the approaches to the new
structure. Sidewalks will also be provided across both sides of the proposed structure. The west
approach will provide 2-foot valley gutter with sidewalk, along the right side of SR 1127 up to
the new structure. Curb and gutter with sidewalk, will be provided on the left side of the road.
The approach work extends approximately 270 feet to the west and approximately 150 feet to the
east of the existing bridge. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The offsite detour will be approximately 0.6 miles and include Lilly Pond Drive, West Allen
Street, and Main Street. Truck traffic will be detoured along White Street.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 356 consists of a continuous reinforced concrete slab supported
by reinforced concrete post and beam bents with vertical reinforced concrete abutments. There
are four spans. There is potential for dropping up to 100 cubic yards of material into Wash Creek.
This project is classified as Case 3, which does not require special restrictions for bridge
demolition, however, all guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in
addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP'S for
Bridge Demolition and Removal.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Jurisdictional Issues
Permanent Impacts: Wash Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. The replacement of
Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127(Kanuga Rd.) in Hendersonville will require the
construction of a 3 @ 10' x 8' Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert (RCBC). This will result in
0.019 acre of permanent fill and 128 feet of impacts to the stream channel.
Temporary Impacts: The initial phase of construction of the RCBC will require the installation of
an impervious dike on the eastern side of the stream so the easternmost barrel can be constructed
in a dry work area. After the completion of this barrel, the stream will be diverted into the
easternmost barrel by installing impervious dikes upstream and downstream, and the remaining
barrels will be constructed.
If necessary, the culvert construction area will be dewatered by pumping into a stilling basin
before the effluent is released back into the existing stream. The impervious dikes may be
constructed from a combination of materials that will be selected during the construction of the
project in order to minimize the temporary impacts. Examples of these methods include sheet
piling, sandbags, concrete traffic barrier, or soil encased in fabric. Culvert Phasing will proceed as
outlined below:
1. Construct Stilling Basin (40 CY)
2. Install Impervious Dike A
3. Construct Barrel 1
4. Remove Impervious Dike A and install Impervious Dike B and C
5. Divert water through Barrel 1
6. Construct Barrels 2 and 3
7. Complete Roadway
Restoration Plan: The area impacted by the culvert construction will be restored to pre-project
conditions and contours following the completion of the permanent structure and roadway. The
impacted areas will be revegetated according to the Seeding & Mulching special provisions.
Schedule: All steps will be taken to minimize stream impacts for Wash Creek. NCDOT will
request the Contractor to complete the construction of the culvert in a timely manner so that all
exposed areas will be stabilized to prevent erosion. The project schedule calls for a letting of
June 16, 2004 with a date of availability of July 16, 2004. It is expected that the Contractor will
choose to start construction of the RCBC at that time.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The Contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for the
removal of and disposal of all materials off-site at an upland location. The Contractor will use
excavating equipment to remove any materials from the stream. Heavy-duty trucks, dozers,
cranes and various other pieces of mechanical equipment necessary for construction of roadways
and culverts will be used on site. All material placed in the stream will be removed at that time.
The Contractor will have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems
suitable in the construction of the project. After the impervious dikes are no longer needed, all
materials will become the property of the Contractor.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of February 24, 2003, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) lists eight federally protected species (Table 1) for Henderson County. At the
time the CE was signed, biological conclusions of No Effect were reached for Small whorled
pogonia and White irisette. No individuals were located within the project area, however suitable
habitat was present. Therefore, the Biological Conclusion should be changed to, May Affect, Not
Likely to Adversely Affect. These Biological Conclusions are based on the results of a June 7,
2001 field survey. As a result, NCDOT biologists are committed to conducting an additional
investigation during late May 2004, prior to construction.
Table 1. Federally-protected species of Henderson County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Clemmys muhlenbergii Bog turtle Threatened (S/A) No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian elktoe Endangered No Effect
Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel Endangered No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled pogonia Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Helonias bullata Swamp pink Threatened No Effect
Sagiuaria fasciculata Bunched arrowhead Endangered No Effect
Sarracenia jonesii Mountain sweet pitcher plant Endangered No Effect
4arinchium dichotomum White irisette Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of it's range."
Threatened (S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator)--a species that is threatened due to similarity
of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the impervious dikes will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the impervious dikes. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the
Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR
771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to
proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a Nationwide Permits 23 (67 FR 2020; January
15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with I SA NCAC 2H .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B .0200 we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance in this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please contact Tyler Stanton at [phone].
Sincerely,
cc: w/attachment
4-:'_
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (Zcopies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Ron Watson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter Only)
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit F? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
F-1 Section 10 Permit F-1 Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: F?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699
Telephone Number: 919-733-7844 Fax Number: 919-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: N/A
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127 aKanuga Rd) over Wash
Creek.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3475
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Hendersonville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Located between Lily Pond Rd
and Washington St west of US 25
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 294920.6870 / 178676.40625
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Wash Creek
8. River Basin: Broad
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at bap://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/m=L/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application Urban Minor Collector. Project area is Urban. with
commercial development dominant.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Bridge replacement using mechanical highway construction equipment
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Investigations by the Bridge Maintenance Unit
indicate that rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and
deteriorated condition. Bridge No. 356 is not presently posted for single vehicle (SV or
truck-tractor semi trailer (TTSTI. It carries a sufficiency rating of 51.1 out of a possible 100,
and is considered functionally obsolete.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be no impacts to jurisdictional streams
from the construction of the proposed bridge.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
No Impact No Impacts 0 N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Permanent Fill 128 Wash Creek 8 feet Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.eov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.maNuest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 128
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Page 8 of 12
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on map) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)
1 Fill 0.019 Wash Creek Stream

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
if construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): F? uplands F-1 stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The selected design was chosen to minimize the impacts to local businesses and is more cost-
effective.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
Page 9 of 12
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space. is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at hbt p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wro/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No Fj
Page 10 of 12
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No n
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No r-I
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 213 .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* (squImpct are feet) Multiplier MiRequired
tigation

Total
/.one i exienas out su reet perpenmcuiar nom near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (I 5A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes [:] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes F? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

3111,
Apphcant/Agent's Signature t Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
NORTH CAROLINA
a ??. .
: 26 f
i "
HEI
" (URINC.)
t •
i
gg t
2M
4 • IItl d
9f "
r
1 \ CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2951601 (B-3475)
MAPS BRIDGE NO. 556 ON SR 1127
OVER WASH CREEK
SHEET 1 OF 8 6 / 23 / 2003
1V CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SITE HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2951601 (B-3475)
MAP I BRIDGE NO.356 ON SR 1127
OVER WASH CREEK
SHEET 2 OF 8 6 / 23 / 2003
SSE6SSSSSSSSSS

m
ti
llw?
? I
? n
k
.?o
H
r ?
\ c°n
\ n 7 ?
a
\ m c
?o a \
o
-

% I I
F O rIN
?t
CD

a"
?e
I
I=
m?

a ?
F? ~ H
h T
0
.?-? zs $o
rn ? n1 1Z?1 Z
y
x m n t* ?
s ~
Aga o
>z ;
Nw ? .
I z? * O
o . nQ G
a / 't 4
7^ 1
u". Ravo ? ?
Z

-14 1
r
~\ o/ c
ZZ .•
tt
4N0
/?' SC4pti
GILL
/ co \? \ O Z y
a \\
A
4k

CANDSCAPI"C
cn o
cm
;uo
am
0 N
m
T
-j r
w 2
8? $A
M
a to
n
I

is SS; r5TlMESSSSS
i,Si:SSF4S35S86SUGP138SSSS833S4A&SSSE
a xTxl ?CFpni Fasas '
/ I
r 1
??. X90
? Ln ez ?'p

17`
,I
Q
'5 r
F O I
9

t,

1 )
?Be 1 \
\ O
qlpl?

0
?Oh
/ / IZ

9 p?
p0 7 {`?1
\\ 209
H
mn
r
o0 m
,C)
0
y
mi
?m
r \

O m O
=r o.
O
O H
(`n.,ll y +
•A y
o0 4Q' .?3? ?e9j
gat, / / ? \
1
p \ \ \ \ zBVs
?e
.. \ 1 1
y J?? FF)?\\\
?O
L? i n
0 <4Hp?tlv
? • Sc4p'N \ ?
Q rn
A / ADS
t? s
? II
0
A n

0 8 30
?? 1 /t \ cZ SAC ??
D m a Ct1
\??A V Z(B%J ,x•10 ? 4 ? C"
m V) a Cif
T
-1 r
° Z `?i W
i
N) 0 0 0
00 00 AD (D
o cn o w
0
to
o Q
1? ? o
co IN °
rrl
C13 Z N
?I N ' SOD r O
N
No I °
1 °'
lln
I i i o
r I -? m m 0 N
0 M < -i
u p D
M 11
N) cp N X D
00
O 00p I I Lo 00 O
I I N
O I I W n
W
I I ?
I ?
I I N C?
I I
I I?
? IW
r
r
CID
E
i

z
U)0
C C ? p p
N a N °

E m
N
W U
LL
a

?
co
E C v

C
a V
v
LL
3

co C m N O
p O)
z .. O O
LL ..

Q N C
'O
C O U

H
Q = ?
o ?
a
? =
Imo
X
? W C

W H
C' V

D LL
?
g tu

W

c •°
= m ?

3
LL
U
m
m a ?

` d X
03 N
co O

•'
t'7
co
co

J i

t
co z i
0

1 4
IE?ROPl RTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
O DAL-KAWA CYCLE CENTER, INC. 312 KANUGA STREET
HENDERSONVILLE, NC 28739
O GIADYS MACE FISHER at al P O BOX 6504
HENDERSONVILLE, NC 28793
O PHILLIP M. POULOS P O BOX 8097
ASHEVILLE, NC 28814

1V `l. DOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.29S1601 (B-3475)
BRIDGE NO. 356 ON SR 1127
OVER WASH CREEK
SHEET 8 OF 8 6 / 23 / 2003

a ! '
C011ITRACT: C200842' TIP PROJECT B-3475 J
p o
N A
A ? Q a s
'11 p m p p
m
x n
Imo N N ? w ?
LOA
Q o 0
y
p O O
? gg b
N N trJ
00
+ u u H. u u u
v a"$N 0, b
c N ? a
aeC)
a
m m
r x
a?
rn y
14 b.
Nwt
o a p
p O
? 3 3
N CA N
Z
m '°n b
N
?? a S
b o ?e o cm
A 0W a m0?
j
yD Q b ?
o?
x o? ??o
Q r ?
a
22 O
m
m
m
Nt
y? ?b
to)
f?
x ?? ab
y
?O
x
? ex
v;
m?
LA m
Vl
z o
NZ
m T
mu
mA
H
T
5Z
m
TM
v
8-1
o;c
3
-a
s
r?
0
0
0
1
t!Ll
b
H
'b
Od
k
ZA
oA6

N ?
I
x
'A
n
y
y
O
O
O
y
b
y
bey

y
J Xm
i
0
I tI
tfl
ti
?O
o?
O
o
?w
C a
?, b O
b ?x
c7 0
h ? x
N
t ;?4-
i
Q
Qf
x
O
i
w
w?
W
m .1h,
V

SSEESEESSSESESs
5/28/99
W 7
CL :?c G
0 T( 'O T r

0_
0
= 0
N

o
O
3 f0
O?
W
N

CL ;,
s o
?• -_ .
? g

?
y.

W _ i
x
CL c a Q
h
?

N
o 91cooo o a
0 3? 3? N o o rc v <c m f° c c n gn'T 0
04 ar 0a. ec
o 0-
Q• _ S S p? o o Qo? ? T T n
ID W e3 `C „ 11??w1i ; ; O 7 7 =
D m C !• !p p: W ;
S ;
> ; 3 c - ?- o
.. ? I •I h I I I l y
F1 I Y,? 0 11
lal T i I? i m m I? p? ?? i„
Inl i m
? I y I I I I ? I I I I I I I
L/! 31 -0 30 -00
:OF F. -- Ir LP
(D 2t 4
-m c -a
0 -0 (A
3 0 _ ?o ; 0 y 3 m 9 _' ?° o; o n O rt n o v m o
n° W 3 O -1 ° o '00 to O< T n Q' o W a C o O y -p
6- 0
IOU C, ME
-• c _ ° ?° ° cn o 0
F 2.
°
o a Q-

p v

(a
O °
tr
a
m
en `per
IC
c

W
C
CL
!p
m 3:
O
?O
H
o
?

Y
? o
®000 o D O®o ? ®I 1 0 0 0 0+® CS a == D D =? 1 0 o- I ? I II
I II
> 0???S0 0 sIcm
<O 10 0 r Z FL S C
C C l? 3 C o O-0 A 02 a W o
U2 (c
CL CL w 0
c
° a
O
C c
= C
D G ;
II FD
?° I m rv a:1
vO ?J I I I i I
m n r W; I
m I C I I i i I
II
X
I I I I t cc 8 c ox
?7y c=c O ° a. ?c' cc
lC O C tp N
02 CA 0
3 0 ?° o.
0 C
N N ;
a

VJ
a
0

? I II I I
I I I I ? ? I
3a ?o ? IZ I p © ? ? ? ? I I I I ? ? I
o ? n ? I I I I I I
N U 4 I? I ? I I I I I
I
R+ v 7e v G v p v p v y v v v
o = a.' = dap. o a. B I S a. AS
?a.
O C. x C. C. G '9 d FL y CA
R a 02- H c
o m
N W
C' o3 ?• Co .a o C m m° y C
V; = n it V T 1p = V? O
W. 0
' ,
CL. c
m ,
a m
' v H 3
m C
I
0 a A n x s

S (A O W
-+ a y

H
C
m
II
C
N
c
D
m
Z
m
M
0
Z
M ?Z
Z ??
cn
mmi
® 0
0 ?4
Z ®0
3
0
r
CA
3 ?o fl c o n= c o S.
c o
a a
m ? s 3 .
H

>? fo oo I~I I I ?- z r??
J J

:s:sssssssss
v
rt
0
N
S
S
O
Q
o,
a
cc
IG
I
r CE
D ?
? D
o M
O .
O o
D Z =
Z V1
U1 r-
T O z
N M
O N
O

C W N
m A N Vi
D X -
? ~
_ C

H z z
z
o
°
° z
m co
w > H x x

D m m 4 n
r
m
A
A
? 7C z z

? x
m

z m

z
n
x
fF)
Z
O
M
N r
V
?OZ?t
n2
v
o O -4
C m
.e;° v
0 m
N
D p
n
N
?a y
?r
MM
W
A
We Z
D? N
n cn
vo O
m
7v
v=
N
D M
? A
=A
m?
Zm
O CA
Z•o
mLn
M
;bW
j
D 'v
?x
O
Z
m °?o
xx
J x
m•
m O
i •p
?D
W?
co O
z
-00
?-1
Qm
co
c
oD
?m
z
Dc
= co
mm
0m
JD co
co
1 •
M CA
=v
Co.
N
Z
r
m
m
Z
--I
n
2
rn
C
r
m
iw
b
-- F;
N M N N
-iaoD-o
sm-1 D v
-Ix
0 mb?0 ?O m--10
z m-0 m-a -0>V
rz.
OIa Z' Z Z .
' =
nm<Y 6> 7° m> m<D
= am= m v .{cpD
? ° • ?o v m 70

•
ZZ
?o ?o
?X
a-
a
?-o M.
mm Zm 0 W ZG)o
-o m• m mm
m ?r
D
? D D
?
D=
? x4?
-
I
-
iA
i
x-
==M>
m
zmZ
DO
?m
N :2 D
z D
° v cA N cc
°mD m, -Dzma <cn omD
fir a ?

i
i iD =rD-f x= "-4
m
n W-rl <mc? tr ONn
ca w z m --I
ca s
fn ion

o

mm
-q z m
m
G
-
z 0
• z
o m o m 'O -4
m m
= D w mm vmm

co w
x -q
r ?-? am
m m
-? v
i
?. Q m fJ w
m
-
z D Co 4 ccn n

o M M z
?-?
•t
>
m
o
m• c a
v =Wm rm vm
z
Dmv
Z. ww

CO)
=
D N
m

moo
W
N fn a
-I
m m -0 m m
min m = mD Zi0

=am -? zr?c
a

p

°
D m
a

m cn
x m mo-
v
-CS
im
-

?0 '
oo ?,
-1
v v =
co
° m xm m ro
°W p
ono ocn
o ?o w
w i
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
c S&&"CC DAI A IAC G Z S2
9/16/02
N
+ N
+ N
+ N
+ a
+ N
+ a
+ N
++ +
t W
+ W
+
} N
t N
+ I:f
+ N
+ N
+ =1
+
V Z
+ 1 N
+p N
.+ N
.+ lil
.+p IN
.+ N
+ N
+ N
+ N
+ N
+ N
++? iv
+ N
+ N
+ N
++
?- ^ jt
CCC
p .Np r r I ? OVO O V H N P R 13 s z
1 ? .O 8 8 8 V V - V V O ? O O P P
r-I ? !31 !3 !s -rl ? !3 r+ P !q al n ? al zi 4 P ? !3 P r4 -ri -r4 1 LOCATION %T KF OR Cy
?O 0p V V a H N J. W O 10 . m m V V 0` 8' 8' S' C N N ?• ? N W N N PIIOM
sfmxln)RE NO

P
N
FJ
O
`0
O
O•
O p,
D
01
?`
W
N
TO .
N N
w N Np
w NNp
rr Np
IJJ N
? pNp
t11 pNp
N eNe
N N
W N
13 pN
w pN
?.+ pN
i. pN
a pNp
?.
TOP ELEVATION

0
00 ff
o
w
In
a
o
$
8
"
$
v V N
$ V
•
y D

O O N N N N N N N N
g N N N NNQ
9 N
INVERT EIIVAnOH
O d
.o 8 0 a u f3 y
N
O N
a N N N N N N N N AQ7
S N N N
'
$ N
H4VFIR ELEVATION
7

SLOP! 0171CAL -

s m
n
?
s
a o

A
+
? ^
C
N N ?V1 N D1
? pp,, ?
1
'L ?

m
m N O E

? G
n

.064 ?
.064 5
.064 9 r_
.064 y
?

.079

.079

m m .109 ? ? 1•.3

is, SIDE DRAIN PRE
--

1r SIDE DRAIN PIPE I
1
W
0-4 0
y ® *4
24• SIDE DRAIN PIPS
v
z
R.C.P. 9 y
ZZ ?
C.S.P. F ^
0
FDl EACH
o• THRU 5 QUANTITIES 4
O W
1
)
.
MR DRAINAGE 1
4
H

1
0-
> STRUCTURE ? ^
/
M
5.a THRU
0. • TOTAL LF FOR MY ^
?

lO.aAND ABOVE . g QUA"""` $HALL SIR COL

W + p3 x eoL.IB7

N
C.E. STD. 040.01 OR STD. $40.02 ? ? rb

co y y 0-4

O• O ? ?? ,S
s

w
D.I. STD. 040.14 OR SID. 040.13
W 0.1. FRAME L GUM M. 040.16
M.DA TWE %L• SID. $40.17 OR 640.46 R
y

M.D.I. TOE •$• STD. $40.15 OR 04027 ?
1
V
MAJ. TYPE •D• STD. 040.19 OR $40.46
M.DJ. FRAME WITH GRATE STD. $4034
M.D.I. FRAME VM MID GRATES M. $4o.44
M.D.I. IRS.) FRAME WITH GRATE SID. 04034
M.D.I.(H.S.) FRAME WITH TWO GRATES STD. 64031
L6. SID. 640.31 OR $40.54
N T.O.1.I. W/MJI. STD. $40.52
N M.H. FRAME 6 COYER STD. 010.54
w CONC. APRON FOR D.I. SM. 052.06

N N PIPE CLEAN OUT (FA)
CORR. STEEL wore" No. a -Sam
s
W N
P CONC. COLLARS CL'r C.Y. STD 640.72
P P CONC. 6 6RICR FIFE RUo, C.Y. Sm. 040.71 -
N N g O FIFE REMOVAL UN.FT.
?

p

S
53332'''$11'$ $$$'DGN$$ ES 53$ SS 55$53$
3$$$ RNAM $533 6/4/99
Z S
aA.!?
WW .?'?AC?V,!
0 CA
^^?O
~,Q
0
to
ae
I b10
yb? ? O
a c
y?
y
a
cox ? ? ?
b ?®
C
y
?O
Olt
ICb
i
I?

?
O
? C
Z
?
0 O
O O
P

C
O m

1 5

m -i

O C

?

° E,

Z

Z
?
i$
v

S

0
o w
W w
W
?

A
A
qY -1
F ?
O O
O
Z
?

0

O CO CO t%!
?O O
ssasaa ??iim aaa
a33aa5 aaaS aSaSDGNSSSSSaSaaSa355aa
asssUSERNartESSSs
I
n
C: r m rn
r-rl (J)
? 615 `? \ maom I fry
Od d ONO?d q \\ r ro °
rn (J) ::!o
ON3i O?ssd ZO L tle c, t+ 'o°. / " \ O1 o rn
J`
o? ? 96tl91' ? roza• 7D ?? J? \lmO ?rn?
?' ?\ q?q\\56 S / ; \\ \ / / o ' \ -4-
n rnTrn?
? -? .8? ,v2 • ? 0 ? ? I J ? ? O v0
? \\ / N I O rny?
4*
e I o° 2 °Le C Q)
1 D
Z Np i
\ ? CI
m \ z 30
?O
nm C° \ n
T tl m? vl lU m z (n
-U (` \ rm f ti? P C ro C C Irn
MC)
C) F-ri
8/17/99
1
y
?LK X,?a?Olvx? r-Ti
oo?i°omocy??o??m So
CZE 59 -T)
tp 2 N T ?? ?? y ?? O ',
H
\ II II -ADO \ mm K_ Zq? Fl
r-ri
U U1
O o???N+ r y >, 1 ? ''
?? ?) N \\ 9B0g4.?0 N I I9 OZ g N
Z •Zl O O
CIO r I (-n C-)
!\ / ?' I -,D(-) 171 O yc^O \ bg'S\+ '1H.09 r
\ ? C 6q1 1t? \ '9? vl p?O r\l
(?
inm N y\ Z+ W s \3 ?;? ???? .
c+ r ?? J / \ 'I- O Q Ro 5 4t r a w l
?^ /? / \p2 pQ O IC A I - 1
Lf)
kr wI rim + P m
c?4 p\ -I Ln or \q\m + P°N +
n \° Y4 ?1 P cn t? m ?? 2 2
6 `1 I O
o < ?b '? ?? y P tig14 E ?5 '0c 44
2h? + qtl ' hl ? '. w y
4, 40,
'50 C
.00 1?1. 61.
/ • \ ? m mm ? / ? +Z I ??y 4ti ? Vr \S
mA /'?? ?? ?? 'cn WWp I? A an' WgV7 yR O
Ln :n!
W
`{- m O // m PA ?? OA O\ N n V 00 -Jiom q
Co 2 :10 10
??"I• x ng y $ R NED "' m N
?? v I y x o f A = Y
16,
?`? ry / ? O -P`4 ? y N r a w ~ + @. Al _Y? U?y v ? ?c?,
U) 48
m •

?
? y
?I IPA
/omo'AO
I
r
I Qw
y .
O
w'°• g O I
/

m . rn I"

II Ao
+
O
A
[ Q

N y 1
0r?1
0L?y•9 NJ
? .c
?? w9n a?

o 0,?
\
°ro ?
;y ? ,
' ? emu,
N \???0\y
o
r
I a'
w P
I o.
?'
o
m I
N
0
42 0
' _? ? q` i 'a d

CQ SiT ?,?

y
? 0
I ? g? I
O

/? ? 1 n\ Ca
c \
/ o

n ? A
'l N
l
Jy \?
'A I'll
a / ?. / / / r?lO+now ?y? pn?ootn I C) \
/ °' / J ' tAii ycn to ?moF ~?A G7? ?rnO ? °o \\ \ \
:zz
L i paad A yP? mo ~V1? \ °°Z
a ?, a •p N O r 4 ? / ? O C7 y ? ?n p ?q \
O'???P 9Z?r, f Op ? ? 1 \\
z•C •W? HF\ 8 W ?y yA & \\ /// Q Q) \ \ •y
/ PF ST 4nD rd ?? ?\ O c\ \
O !. ° n W W + ? ?? ? O O m °o \ \
n CO V2 ,r], p g? A o' \\ \\
c?'j p sr2 4, p L-„ O
\ \ i
? y yT?/SxR y to P °°O ?? \\\ ??_/?o
v'
\ ? m ? (quo \ tl 0t,
W qOS W0I?1N I N I m N m GyC "0 ??1 n
T ?c01 -? p? 'C \ \
Gl ? O" ?N to / I ?o
s ?Qyo0?0 N I OW r- ?C mn ? ?
N mF
ic?i ??yy gN/ I v t4NOS N rn
a. zi? P P y 93 z? API c
^ + N o c
MGR `
?y ?L o o Ul
S
\°O
W, WO 10 F"
/,.. 00 6'° O 47 v? w a in O°•45•`
S?y? vci win ?9?6,`riJ,
> j F mo xrn o inm Y?
j ?\D W ? •oo N oO Oo N ? m z/ ?p y?\oi o B,O 2 ?a o
j 4? ro o p n n ¢O n / \?/ ?s'o yai A \ ro
C ?" n roc ? ._ U' y 4i
a° 0°
II II II II II
fuc?0(uN° I
CID O
=r
O
W
z
C
A
$$

i
w
47Nr N
(1)
m
cA °
D C-
F-
FT-1
' Z
eC ? T
CIO
?4? tll N 1
Jill!
m
N70? / / m
O ?
IRS

N
W
r
A
r
w
r
O?
??

Henderson County
SR 1127 (Kanuga Road)
Bridge No. 356 Over Wash Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP=1127(5)
State Project No. 8.2951601
T.I.P. No. B-3475
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE Gail Grimes P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch,
NCDOT
130/0Z_ I/V 1112
??.
DATE icholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
•, r t
Henderson County
SR 1127 (Kanuga Road)
Bridge No. 356 Over Wash Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1127(5)
State Project No. 8.2951601
T.I.P. No. B-3475
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 2002
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
? ? 3d 6
Tommy er to

Projec anager !a`°yr:asoeocep?
OA P
C
age
s oil&????.2/Lfiq? o
PY ®'rP'
?eo
oe
o
?o
u
e '?6
SE
? 5L r1L o
°
e
.
195613
X, 1z

Tim Hayes, PE P
414C0 ??v?'00,
Date
Principle-In-Charge
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
"L wtn??
John Wadsworth, PE
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
SR 1127 (Kanuga.Road)
Bridge No. 3,56 Over Wash Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1127(5)
State Project No. 8.2951601
T.I.P. No. B-3475
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only ;Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,'
NCDOT's- Guidelines for Best management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification,
the following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy of the environmental planning document will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
Hydraulics Unit/ Structure Design Unit:
This project will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Act. The
final bridge plans, hydraulic analysis of the effects of the replacement structure on the 100-year flood _
elevation, and notice of compliance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be forwarded to
TVA for approval.
Roadway Design/ Structure' Design Unit /Division Construction:
Aesthetic enhancement: The headwall will be extended and arched. A formed and stained faking will be
applied to the headwall, wing walls and exterior giving the appearance of stone.
B-3475 Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
August, 2002
}
Henderson County
SR 1127 (Kanuga Road)
Bridge No. 356 Over Wash Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1127(5)
State Project No. 8.2951601
T.I.P. No. B-3475
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 356 is included in the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate that Bridge No. 356 has a sufficiency
rating of 51.1 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally
obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient
traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 356 is located on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road) in Henderson County (Figure 1). Kanuga
Road is classified as an Urban Minor Collector by the statewide functional classification system.
Land use in the project area is urban, with commercial development dominant. Kanuga Road is
a three-lane facility near the bridge, which currently serves commuting and local traffic. This
section of Kanuga Road is part of a soon to be designated bicycle route system for Henderson
County (part of TIP Project No. E-3417).
The existing bridge is a four-span structure with an overall length of 46 feet (14 meters) and a
clear roadway width of 30.4 feet (9.3 meters). It was constructed in 1952 (Figure 4). The bridge
consists of a continuous reinforced concrete slab supported by reinforced concrete post and beam
bents with vertical reinforced concrete abutments. Bridge No. 356 is not presently posted for
single vehicle (SV) or truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST).
Replacement of Bridge No. 356 was added to the TIP in 1995. The sufficiency rating at that
time was 49.7. The bottom of the slab was in poor condition with numerous areas of exposed
reinforcing steel. The footing and breastwalls also needed repairs. A continuous slab bridge
does not lend itself to rehabilitation. Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge
Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its
age and deteriorated condition.
The approach roadway consists of two travel lanes and a center turn lane near the bridge. The
clear roadway width of the approach is 30 feet (9.1 meters). The approach roadway from the
west is on a curve with a radius of 134 feet (40.8 meters) approximately 80 feet (24 meters) from
the bridge, and the east approach is tangent to the existing road (See Figure 2 & 2A). The
existing horizontal curve only provides for a safe speed of approximately 20 mph (30 km/h).
The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) {60 kilometers per hour (km/h) 1.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 1

Land use to the north (upstream) and to the south (downstream) is urban and commercial. An
overhead power line is located north of the existing bridge. The power line crosses Kanuga
Road just west of the bridge. A 2-inch (50-millimeter) gas line is attached to the downstream
face of the bridge. An 8-inch (205-milimeter) sewer line is located at the downstream face of the
bridge at stream level, and a 6-inch (150-milimeter) water line is attached to the underside of the
bridge near the upstream face. A 36-inch (900-milimeter) concrete storm drainpipe enters the
creek at the upstream face of the bridge and an 18-inch (450-milimeter) metal storm drainpipe
enters the creek approximately 10 feet (3 meters) downstream of the existing bridge. It is
anticipated that the utilities will be impacted during construction of this project.
The 2002 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 11,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 16,500 vpd by the design year 2025. The percentages of truck traffic is 5%
dual tired vehicles (DUALS) and 2% TTST (Figure 3).
Four school buses cross Bridge No. 356 each day.
There were nineteen accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 356 during the period from
June 1997 to May 2000. These accidents consisted of twelve non-fatal injury crashes and seven
property damage only crashes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 356 will be a reinforced concrete box culvert
with three barrels at 10 feet (3.0 meters) by 9 feet (2.7 meters) and approximately 80 feet (24.4
meters) in length. The structure will be replaced on existing alignment.
Bicycle accommodations (14-foot lanes) will be included on the replacement structure as well as
on the approaches to the new structure. Sidewalks will also be provided across both sides of the
proposed. structure.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 14-foot
(4.2 meter) out side travel lanes and one 12-foot (3.6 meter)
center turning lane. The proposed grade will be
approximately the same as the existing roadway (Figure 3).
During construction, traffic will be routed to an off-site
detour. The off-site detour is approximately 0.6 miles in
length, along Lilly Pond Drive, West Allen Street, and Main
Street. Truck traffic will be routed on to White Street.

Rendering of Proposed Structure
B. Aesthetic Enhancement
Aesthetic enhancement is proposed in response to Context Sensitive Design. The headwall will
be extended and arched. A formed and stained facing will be applied to the headwall, wing walls
and exterior giving the appearance of stone (See Figure 6).
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 2
C. Build Alternatives
Alternative A replaces the bridge with a triple barrel, 10 feet (3.0 meters) by 9 feet (2.7 meters)
culvert on existing alignment. Alternative A provides curb and gutter with sidewalks along both
sides of Kanuga Road (SR 1127). The approach work extends approximately 360 feet (110
meters) to the west and approximately 240 feet (73 meters) to the east of the existing bridge.
Alternative A was not selected as the preferred alternative because of the impacts to the local
business. Seven businesses would have to be relocated. (See Figure 2)
Alternative C (Preferred) replaces the bridge with a triple barrel, 10 feet (3.0 meters) by 9 feet
(2.7 meters) culvert on existing alignment. Alternative C minimizes the approach work. The
west approach will provide two-foot (0.6 m) valley gutter along the right side of Kanuga road up
to the new structure and sidewalk will be provided across the structure. Curb and gutter with
sidewalk will be provided on the left side of Kanuga Road. The approach work extends
approximately 270 feet (886 m) to the west and approximately 150 feet (492 m) to the east of the
existing bridge. (See Figure 2A)
D. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternative B replaces the bridge with a culvert on existing alignment. During construction,
traffic will be routed off-site. Alternative B provides curb and gutter along both sides of Kanuga
Road (SR 1127), but sidewalk is only provided along left side of Kanuga Road. The approach
work extends approximately 360 feet (1181 m) to the west and approximately 240 feet (787 m)
to the east of the existing bridge.
Alternative B was eliminated from fiirther study because it does not provide any improvement in
the design or substantially reduce the right-of-way cost.
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and
closure of Kanuga Road (SR 1127). This is not desirable due to the service provided by Kanuga
Road.
Use of an on-site detour was not considered a reasonable or feasible alternative due to the
impacts on local businesses.
E. Preferred Alternative
Alternative C was selected as the preferred alternative because it minimizes the impacts to local
businesses and is more economical that Alternative A (Figure 2A).
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report the drainage area of Wash Creek at the proposed
crossing is approximately two square miles (5.2 square kilometers). The length and opening size
of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determine, by a detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the final design phase of the
project.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative C as the preferred alternate.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1] 27 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 3
F. Anticipated Design Exception
The posted speed limit on Kanuga Street is 35 mph (60 km/h). This section of Kanuga Street is a
business district where vehicles are turning in and out of parking lots. The approach roadway
from the west is on a curve with a radius of 134 feet (41 meters) providing a safe speed of
approximately 20 mph (30 km/h).
Due to the existing the horizontal and vertical constraints the proposed design speed is 20 mph
(30 km/h). A design exception for the proposed design speed of 20 mph (30 km/h) will be
required.
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
ALTERN ATIVES
A C
Structure Removal (Existing) $ 11,300 $ 11,300
Structure Proposed 115,750 115,750
Roadway Approaches 169,050 163,100
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 133,900 130,850
Engineering Contingencies 70,000 79,000
ROW/Cont. Easements/Utilities 1,707,500 132,000
------------ - --- ----------------
TOTAL $2,207,500.00 $632;000.00

The estimated cost of the project as shown in the. 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement
Program (T.I.P.) is $450,000, including $30,000 for right-of-wayand $420,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Hendersonville, NC 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI)
(Hendersonville, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; formerly
the Soil Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1980), and recent aerial photography and design
plans.
The site was visited on January 24, 2001. The study corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
substantial features. The study corridor is located on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road) at Wash Creek in an
urban area of Hendersonville, NC. The study corridor is nested between Kanuga Road approximately
0.3 mile (0.5 kilometer) to the west and NC 25 approximately 0.2 mile (0.3 kilometer) to the east (Figure
1). The study corridor spans the channel of Wash Creek and adjacent uplands along an east-west
orientation for a distance of approximately 850 feet (259.3 meters). An approximately 50 foot (15.3
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1 127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 4
meters) wide corridor along Wash Creek is vegetated. The remainder of the study corridor
(approximately 93 percent) is impervious surface. Within the study corridor, the vegetated buffer along
Wash Creek supports a maintained, disturbed plant community.
Actual impacts will be limited to fill boundaries and are expected to be less than those shown for the
study corridor. Special concerns evaluated in the field include:
1) Potential protected species habitat and
2) Wetlands and water quality protection in Wash Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford et al. (1968) with exceptions for updated nomenclature. Jurisdictional areas were evaluated
using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation
guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin* et al. (1979). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and
distributions were determined by supportive literature (Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et
al. 1985, Menhinick 1991, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality
information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2000a, 2000b).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Henderson
County (March 7, 2002 FWS list) was reviewed prior to generation of this document. In addition, NHP
records documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing
field investigations.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is underlain by Henderson Gneiss intrusive rocks and occurs within the Blue Ridge
physiographic province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized as a broad, rolling, inter-
mountain plateau. The study corridor is located on uplands and across the floodplain of Wash Creek.
The elevation of the study corridor is approximately 2100 feet (640.5 meters) (National Geodetic
Vertical Datum [NGVD]) (USGS Hendersonville, NC quadrangle).
Soil mapping units underlying the study corridor are Codorus loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts) and
Hayesville loam (Typic Hapludults). The Codorus series occurs in depressions in wide floodplains and
on narrow floodplains. This series occurs along the Wash Creek floodplain and extends outward to
approximately 175 feet (53.4 meters) west of the bridge and approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) east of
the bridge. The Codorus series is moderately well drained to somewhat poorly drained; permeability is
moderate. Codorus soils are non-hydric in Henderson County, but in depressional areas may have
inclusions of the hydric Toxoway (Cumulic Humaquepts) and Hatboro (Typic Fluvaquents) soils. The
Hayesville series occurs on broad, smooth ridge tops at lower elevations. This series occurs all upland
areas of the study corridor where the Codorus series does not occur. Hayesville loam is a well-drained
soil with moderate permeability. This soil is non-hydric in Henderson County (SCS 1980, NRCS 1996).
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 5
C. Water Resources
Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 04-03-02 of the French Broad River Basin (DWQ 2000).
This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105 of the Tennessee Region. Structures targeted for
replacement span the open water stream associated with Wash Creek. There is no direct involvement of
additional streams or tributaries. Wash Creek has been assigned Stream Index Number 6-55-7 by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2000b). The nearest tributary to Wash Creek is an unnamed
tributary, which joins Wash Creek from the west approximately 1400 feet (427.0 meters) upstream
(north) of the study corridor.
2. Stream Characteristics
Wash Creek is a well-defined stream with moderate flow over a gravel/sand/silt substrate. Within the
study corridor, the stream is entrenched and channelized, but maintains a slight riffle/pool structure. At
Bridge No. 356, Wash Creek is approximately 8 feet (2.4 meters) wide. The banks are approximately 8
feet (2.4 meters) high and steeply sloping. The banks are stabilized with grass on the north side of the
bridge and riparian shrub vegetation south of the bridge. During field investigations of Wash Creek,
water clarity'was good, flow velocity was moderate, and water depth varied from 4 to 14 inches (10.2 to
35.6 centimeters). Bridge height above the water surface was approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters).
3. Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best usage
classification of B has been assigned to this section of Wash Creek. The designation B denotes that
appropriate uses include fishing, wildlife, agriculture, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, and
primary recreation. Primary recreation refers to activities such as swimming that involves human body
contact and takes place in an organized manner or on a frequent basis. There are no High Quality
Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water Supply 11 (WS-
II) or Trout (Tr) waters within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor (DWQ 2000a, DWQ
2000b).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed study corridor is
summarized in the French Broad River basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 2000a). Wash Creek is not
rated of designated uses by DWQ; however, Mud Creek, approximately 0.7 mile (0.2 kilometer)
downstream of the study corridor, is classified as Not Supporting of designated uses. This section of
Mud Creek has received a bioclassification rating of Poor based on fish community sampling performed
in 1997 (DWQ 2000a).
This sub-basin (04-03-02) supports six major point-source dischargers and 77 minor point-source
dischargers. Total permitted flow for the six major dischargers is 53.8 million gallons per day (MGD)
(203.9 million liters per day [MLD]). Total permitted flow for the 77 minor dischargers is 2.1 MGD
(8.0 MLD). There are no point-source dischargers directly associated with Wash Creek. Major non-
point sources of pollution for the entire French Broad River Basin are agriculture, construction, forestry,
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 6
mining, on-site wastewater disposal, solid waste disposal, and atmospheric deposition. Sedimentation
and nutrient inputs are major problems associated with.non-point source discharges and often result in
fecal coliform, heavy metals, oil from roads and parking lots, and increased nutrient levels in surface
waters (DWQ 2000a).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices. The
contractor will follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23
CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT,
Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins,
and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; management
of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water
quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in Wash Creek,
thereby protecting the integrity of these waterways. Long-term impacts to adjacent reaches resulting
from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources,
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
There is potential for components of the deck and superstructure of Bridge No. 356 to be dropped into
waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck
and piers is approximately 100 cubic yards (76.5 cubic meters). NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied to the removal of this
bridge.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
One distinct plant community was identified within the study corridor: urban/disturbed land. This plant
community is described below.
Urban/Disturbed Land - Urban/disturbed land is defined as the vegetated corridor along Wash Creek
and residential lawn at the northeast portion of the study corridor. This community represents
approximately 7 percent of the total study corridor area. Plant species include black willow (Salix
nigra), boxelder (Acer negundo), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), yaupon holly (Ilex
vomitoria), wild grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese clover
(Lespedeza striata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), wild rose (Rosa sp.), evening primrose
(Oenothera biennis), fescue (Festuca sp.), firethorn (Pyracantha sp.), and landina (Landina sp.).
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 7
2. Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
Plant community area is estimated based on the amount of the plant community present within the fill
boundaries. A summary of potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 1. Based on the
proposed study corridor area, there will be no impacts to natural plant communities.
Table 1. Area of Plant Communities within the Fill Boundaries.
Plant Community Area [acres (hectares)]
Urban/ Disturbed Land 0.041 (0.017)
Total 0.041 (0.017)
3. Wildlife
a. Terrestrial
No signs of mammals were observed within the study corridor during the site visit. Mammal
species expected to occur within the study corridor are raccoon (Procyon lotor), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata),
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), house mouse (Mus
musculus), and norway rat (Rattus norvegicus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor were European starling (Sturnus vulgaris),
house sparrow (Passer domesticus), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), northern mockingbird
(Mimus polyglottos), and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Other avian species expected to
occur in the study corridor are tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), bluejay (Cyanocitta cristata), American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), and eastern phoebe
(Sayornis phoebe).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the study corridor include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), and American toad
(Bufo americanus).
b. Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no observations of aquatic reptile or amphibian species within the
study corridor. Aquatic or semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians which are expected to occur
within the study corridor include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), green frog (Rana clamitans), spring
peeper (Pseudacris cnicifer), and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus).
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR U27 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 8
No sampling was undertaken in Wash Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual surveys of
Wash Creek did not reveal the presence of fish, molluscan fauna, or other aquatic life. Fish
species that may be present in Wash Creek include creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatats),
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), northern hog-sucker (Hypentelium nigricans),
Tennessee shiner (Notropis leuciodits), and yellow bullhead (Ameiurzts natalis). Potential game
fish which may be present within the study corridor include redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu).
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the lack of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will
not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No
substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most improvements will be restricted to
existing roadside margins. Placement of the proposed culvert will compromise in-stream aquatic
habitat only within the culvert footprint; however, normal stream flow and integrity will be
maintained to minimize impacts to aquatic habitat upstream and downstream of the project.
Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments will affect benthic
populations. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sediment during
construction will be minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
Based on a letter from N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to NCDOT (January 10,
2001), there are no substantial concerns regarding construction activities causing adverse
impacts,to wildlife and fisheries resources (including trout). Therefore, this project will not
require a moratorium on instream construction activities during the trout spawning
period. Construction activities should minimize impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat. COE recognizes Henderson County as a "trout water county"; therefore, WRC
will review any nationwide or general 404 permits for the proposed project. Wash Creek is not
classified by DWQ as Trout Waters..
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Wash Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR section 328.3). Wash Creek
is not characterized on NWI Mapping. Field investigations indicate that, within the study corridor,
Wash Creek is a perennial, bank-to-bank stream system. The area and linear distance of stream within
the fill boundaries are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Area and Linear Distance of Stream within the Fill Boundaries.
Jurisdictional Type Area / Linear Distance
Stream Area, acres (hectares) 0.015 (0.006)
Stream Linear Distance, feet (meters) 80 (24.4)
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 9
Wetlands subject to review under section 404 of the Clean water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by
the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at
or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on these
criteria, there are no wetlands within the study corridor.
Replacement of the bridge with a culvert will result in a maximum fill of approximately 0.015 acre
(0.006 hectare) and approximately 80 linear feet (24.4 meters) of stream. There is also potential for
components of the deck and superstructure to be dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction.
Potential, temporary fill associated with removal of the concrete deck and piers will be approximately
100 cubic yards (76.5 cubic meters). Upon completion of construction, temporary impacts associated
with construction activities and temporary alignments will be restored to pre-project conditions. This
project can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than those
outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. NCDOT will coordinate
with the various resource agencies during project planning to ensure that all concerns regarding bridge
demolition are resolved.
2. Permits
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874,
65916; December 13, 1996) for CEs due to minimal impacts expected with bridge construction. DWQ
has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP No. 23. However, authorization
for jurisdictional area impacts through use of this permit will require written notice to DWQ. In the
event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and associated. approach
improvements are expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031 issued by the Wilmington COE
District. Notification to the Asheville COE office is required if this general permit is utilized. COE
recognizes Henderson County as a "trout water county"; therefore, WRC will review any nationwide or
general 404 permits for the proposed project.
3. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for this project due to the limited nature of project impacts.
However, utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to
floodplains associated with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with
native wetland species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. Fill or alteration
of more than 150 linear feet (45.8 linear meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE
and DWQ.
F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Threatened due to Similarity
of Appearance (T [S/A]), or officially Proposed (P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C: 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered Species" is
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 10
defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a substantial portion of its
range", and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a substantial portion of its range" (16
U.S.C. 1532). The term "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance" is defined as a species which is
not "Endangered" or "Threatened", but "closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species" (16
U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected species listed for Henderson County (as of the March 7, 2002 FWS
list) are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species Listed for Henderson County (March 7, 2002 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T (S/A)
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E
Oyster mussel* Epioblasma capsaeformis E
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E
Bog Turtle -The bog turtle is a small turtle reaching an adult size of approximately 3 to 4 inches (8 to
10 centimeters). This otherwise dark-colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of bright
orange or yellow blotches on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al. 1980). The bog turtle is
typically found in bogs, marshes, and wet pastures, usually in association with aquatic or semi-aquatic
vegetation and small, shallow streams over soft bottoms (Palmer and Braswell 1995). In North
Carolina, bog turtles have a discontinuous distribution in the mountains and western Piedmont. The bog
turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and habitat
alteration. As a result, the FWS officially proposed in the January 29, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR
4229) to list bog turtle as threatened within the northern portion of its range. Within the southern
portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is listed as T (S/A) because of
similarity in appearance to individuals of the northern population.
No bogs or other habitat suitable for bog turtles exists within the study corridor. NHP
records do not document bog turtles within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor,
and bog turtle was not observed during the site visit. T (S/A) species are not subject to
Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. However, the proposed
project is not expected to affect the bog turtle.
Appalachian Elktoe - Appalachian elktoe is a small, subovate- to kidney-shaped freshwater mussel that
grows to approximately 3.1 inches (8.0 centimeters) in length, 1.4 inches (3.5 centimeters) in height, and
1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) in width (Clarke 1981). The shell is thin, but not fragile, and exhibits slight
inflation along the posterior ridge near the center 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,
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 11
pyramidal, compressed pseudocardinal teeth are present, and an interdental projection is present in the
left valve. Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer shell surface) is thicker and dark
brown in adults. Individuals may be variably marked with prominent to obscure greenish rays. The
nacre (shell interior) is shiny, blue to bluish white with salmon, pinkish, or brownish coloring in the
central portion of the shell and beak cavity.
Appalachian elktoe is endemic to the upper Tennessee River system in the mountains of western North
Carolina and eastern Tennessee. In North Carolina, this species may now be restricted to the Little
Tennessee and Nolichucky drainages (LeGrand and Hall 1999). Recent N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission surveys have documented this species in the Little Tennessee River in Macon and Swain
Counties, Cane River in Yancey County, Nolichucky and North Toe Rivers in Yancey and Mitchell
Counties. A new population has recently been found in the Little River near the Henderson-
Transylvania County line (personal communication, Mark Cantrell, FWS, 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 (0.9 meter) (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
Within the study corridor, Wash Creek is a large stream characterized as having shallow water, a
riffle/pool structure, and moderate flow over a gravel/sand/silt substrate. Therefore, suitable habitat for
Appalachian elktoe does potentially exist within the study corridor. NHP records do not document the
occurrence of Appalachian elktoe within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. The nearest
known population occurs in the Little River approximately 9 miles (14.5 kilometers) west of the study
corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that the Appalachian elktoe has
not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor;
however, the study corridor does contain potentially suitable habitat for this species. Based
on habitat types within the study corridor, this project could potentially affect Appalachian
elktoe, and surveys for this species may be required. BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and HQW guidelines (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) will be strictly
enforced during the life of the project. NO EFFECT
Oyster Mussel - The oyster mussel is a small, freshwater mussel reaching approximately 2.1 inches (7.0
centimeters) 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 riffles and fast water less than 3 feet (0.9 meter) 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. rufilineatum), dusky darter (Percina sciera),
and banded sculpin (Cottus carollinae) (FWS 2000).
The oyster mussel is endemic to the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages in Alabama, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Within North Carolina, the species was known to have been
abundant in the early 1900s in the upper Tennessee River system of the mountains of western North
Carolina and Tennessee. Currently the oyster mussel survives in nine tributaries of the Tennessee and
Cumberland River systems in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 12
This species is now considered to have been "formerly reported" from the French Broad River (LeGrand
and Hall 1999). Much of the historic range of this species has been impounded by projects of the
Tennessee Valley Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other populations have probably
been lost due to pollution and siltation. All known populations are small and vulnerable to disturbance.
Within the study corridor, Wash Creek is a large stream characterized as having shallow water, a
riffle/pool structure, and moderate flow over a gravel/ sand/silt substrate. Therefore, suitable habitat for
oyster mussel does potentially exist within the study corridor. Oyster mussels have been documented
within the French Broad River basin historically. NHP do not document the occurrence of oyster mussel
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that the oyster mussel has not been
documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor; however, the
study corridor does contain potentially suitable habitat for this species. Based on habitat
types within the study corridor, this project could potentially affect oyster mussel, and
surveys for this species may be required. BMPs for the protection of surface waters and
HQW guidelines (Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds) should be strictly enforced
during. the life of the project. NO EFFECT
Swamp Pink - Swamp pink is a perennial, hydrophytic herb in the lily family with simple leaves in a
basal rosette. Small scale-like leaves or bracts are found on a hollow flowering stem which may be 16
inches (40.6 centimeters) tall in flower and 24 inches (61.0 centimeters) tall in fruit. The inflorescence
consists of pink to lavender flowers borne on a raceme without bracts. Fruits consist of three-lobed
papery capsules. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist.through .September.
Flowering occurs in April. and May, with fruits present from May through July (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 1999).
No swamp or bog areas occur within the study corridor. Therefore, suitable habitat for swamp pink does
not exist within the proposed study corridor. Swamp pink is not detectable during the dormant winter
season, when the site visit was undertaken. NHP records do not document swamp pink within 1.0 mile
(1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that the swamp pink has not been
documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and the study
corridor contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on a NHP record search and
habitat types within the study corridor, this project will not affect swamp pink.
NO EFFECT
Small-whorled Pogonia - Small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10 inches
(25.4 centimeters) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves with pointed tips
are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem. Typically a single,
yellowish green, nearly stalkless flower is produced just above the leaves; a second flower rarely may be
present. Flowers consist of three petals, which may reach lengths of 0.7 inch (1.7 centimeters),
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR H27 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 13
surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1 inch (2.5 centimeters) in length. Flower production occurs
from May to July and is followed by the formation of an erect ellipsoidal capsule 0.7 to 1.2 inches (1.7
to 3.0 centimeters) in length (Massey et al. 1983). This species may remain dormant for periods up to
10 years between blooming periods (Newcomb 1977).
Populations of small whorled pogonia are sparse and widely distributed. The species is found in open,
dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest and along stream banks. Examples of suitable habitat
conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small whorled pogonia has
been found include oldfields, pastures, windthrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-
permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). Suitable forest is
generally of second- or third-growth. Soils are often sandy or stony, acid, nutrient-poor soils overlain by
leaf litter. Beyond the common characteristics, of soils, sparse ground cover and open canopy with
persistent breaks, myriad exceptions and local variations occur (FWS 1992). In the mountains and
Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in association with white pine (Weakley
1993), or at scattered locations in the mountains, Piedmont, and Sandhills (Amoroso 1999), including
wooded slopes and streamsides (Radford et al. 1968).
Much of the of the Wash Creek riparian zone within the study corridor is sparsely vegetated and open,
and therefore may provide suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia. A systematic survey for small-
whorled pogonia was conducted by ESC personnel within the proposed alternative area and during the
flowering period (on June 7, 2001); however, no specimens of this species were found. NHP records do
not document small whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that small whorled pogonia has not
been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor; however,
the study corridor does contain suitable habitat for this species. A systematic plant survey
of the proposed alternative did not locate this species. Based on a systematic plant survey
conducted at the site and on NHP records, this project will not affect small whorled
pogonia. NO EFFECT
Bunched Arrowhead - Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14 inches
(35.6 centimeters) in height with simple, basal leaves. Two leaf forms are produced: phyllodes (blade-
less) early in the season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the season (Kral 1983). The
phyllodes are linear, distinctively flattened, spongy-tissued, and are up to 4 inches (10.2 centimeters)
long and 0.8 inch (2.0 centimeters) wide. Later leaves may be spoon-shaped or narrowly oblanceolate
and strap-like, growing to lengths of 14 inches (35.6 centimeters) and widths of 1.6 inches (4.0
centimeters). Unisexual flowers are borne on an erect flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each
whorl subtended by three bracts fused at the base. Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large,
distinctively crested achenes. Flowering has been reported to occur from May to July, with fruits
present from May through September. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
through September (Massey et al. 1983, Kral 1983). Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow
water in or along shallow, sluggish streams flowing through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983).
Typical substrate is reported to be siliceous and micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content
(Kral 1983). The current distribution is restricted to Buncombe and Henderson Counties in the
mountains of North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville County in the upper Piedmont of South
Carolina.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 14
No swamp or bog areas occur within the study corridor, and Wash Creek is not characterized as having a
silt/muck substrate. Therefore, suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead does not exist within the
proposed study corridor. Bunched arrowhead is not detectable during the dormant winter season, when
the site visit was undertaken. NHP records do not document swamp pink within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that the bunched arrowhead has
not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor, and
the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on a NHP record
search and habitat types within the study corridor, this project will not affect bunched
arrowhead. NO EFFECT
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant - Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial,
hydrophytic herb growing to 30 inches (76.2 centimeters) in height with hollow, trumpet-shaped leaves.
The pitcher chamber is narrow but expands sharply along the upper quarter of the length. An ascending,
cordate-shaped hood is held high over the exposed pitcher chamber orifice. Solitary flowers are
produced on erect flowering stems. Petals are dark red to maroon on the outside, with the inner surface
often yellow-green tinged with red. Flowering has been reported from April to June with fruits formed
by August. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through August (Massey et
al. 1983). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is treated as a subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher
plant (S. rubra). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is found in mountain bogs and along streams on granite
rock faces. The current distribution is restricted to Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in
the mountains of North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South
Carolina.
No swamps, bog areas, or granite rock faces occur within the study corridor. Therefore, suitable habitat
for mountain sweet pitcher plant does not exist within the proposed study corridor. NHP records do not
document mountain sweet pitcher plant within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that the mountain sweet pitcher
plant has not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor, and the study corridor contains no suitable habitat for this species. Based on a
NHP record search and habitat types within the study corridor, this project will not affect
mountain sweet pitcher plant. NO EFFECT
White `Irisette - White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows to 16 inches (40.6
centimeters) tall. Stem leaves are at least as wide as the winged stem and may reach 5.5 inches (14.0
centimeters) long and 0.2 inch (0.5 centimeter) wide. Basal leaves reach one-third to one-half the height
of the plant and may be up to 7.5 inches (19.0 centimeters) long and 0.14 inch (0.4 centimeters) wide.
White irisette differs from other blue-eyed grasses by having three to five nodes with successively
shorter internodes between dichotomous branches (FWS 1995). Four to six flowers with white,
recurved perianth units are borne per spathe. Flowering occurs from late May through July. White
irisette is found in dry to mesic, open oak-hickory forest on mid-elevation mountain slopes at elevations
from 1300 to 3300 feet (400 to 1000 meters) with aspects ranging primarily from southeast to southwest
(FWS 1995). White irisette grows in shallow, circumneutral soils, especially over weathered
amphibolite. White irisette is reported to grow best on regularly disturbed sites, such as power lines,
roadsides, and woodland edges, which mimic suppressed natural disturbances and maintain open habitat
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 15
(FWS 1995). The current distribution is restricted to Forsyth, Henderson, Polk, and Rutherford Counties
in North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville County in western South Carolina.
Vegetated, open areas within the study corridor are characterized as urban/disturbed land dominated by
lawn grasses. These areas are maintained on a regular basis. Therefore, suitable habitat for white
irisette potentially exists within the proposed study corridor. A systematic survey for white irisette was
conducted by ESC personnel within the proposed alternative area and during the flowering period (on
June 7, 2001); however, no specimens of this species were found. NHP records do not document small
whorled pogonia within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NHP records indicate that white irisette has not been
documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor; however, the
study corridor contains suitable habitat for this species. A systematic plant survey of the
proposed alternative did not locate this species. Based on a systematic plant survey
conducted at the site and on NHP records, this project will not affect white irisette.
NO EFFECT
2. Federal Species of Concern
The March 7, 2002 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for
the species listed. FSC species listed for Henderson County are presented in Table 4. NHP files have
no documentation of FSC listed species within the study corridor or within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of
the study corridor.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR l 127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 16
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern listed for Henderson County (March 7, 2002 FWS list).

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Green salamander Aneides aeneats no E
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis no SC
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii yes SC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia no T
French Broad crayfish** Cambarus reburrits yes W2
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia yes E
Diana fritillary butterfly** Speyeria diana no SR
Schweinitz's sedge Carex schweinitzii no E
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta no E
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis no C
Butternut Juglans cinerea no W5
Rough rush Juncus caesariensis no E
Gray's lily Lilium grayi no T-SC
Fraser's loosestrife*** Lysimachiafraseri yes E
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons** Marshallia grandflora no C
Sweet pinesap** Monotropsis odorata yes C
Bog asphodel** Narthecium americanum no E
White fringeless orchid Plantantherea integrilabia no E
Divided-leaf ragwort** Senecio millefolium no T
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata yes C
* E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate; P = Species has been
formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern; W2 = NC Plant Watch List: rare, but
taxonomically questionable; WS = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and
Hall 1999).
** Historic occurrence in county - last seen more than 50 years ago
*** Obscure record date and/or location of observation is uncertain
3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C), Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999;
LeGrand and Hall 1999) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act
(G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202 et seq.). NHP
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 17
records indicate that no state listed species have been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to continent on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on October 10, 2000. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated December 8, 2000 the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is included in
the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated February 5, 2001 stated, "We
have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on
the project as currently proposed." A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 18
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether
minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state,
or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
The project is located in Henderson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional emission
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. The project's impact on noise
and air quality will not be significant.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area
Henderson County is not currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. However,
the City of Hendersonville does participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. The project site on
Wash Creek is located in a detail study flood study area. Attached is a copy of the Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Figure 5, on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-year flood plain in the vicinity of
the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR It 27 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 19
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials to involve them in
the project development with scoping letters. A newsletter was also mailed to local residents
explaining the planning process and the selected Alternative.
A Local Officials Meeting and Citizens Informational Workshop was held on October 29, 2001
between the hours of 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM at the Whitmire Building of the Public Works
Department located at 301 Lillpond Road in Hendersonville. The purpose of this workshop was
to present information, answer questions, and receive comments regarding the Replacement of
Bridge No. 356. The local officials endorsed Alternative A as the preferred alternative and asked
that additional funding for aesthetic enhancements be provided. See appendix for comments
from the City of Hendersonville.
Aesthetic enhancements will also be included in this project. The proposed enhancements
included are:
? The headwall will be raised to form an arched wall along the length of the structure.
? The raised arched headwall and the visible exterior of the culvert will be cast-in-place
concrete that will be shaped and stained to look like natural stone.
On March 25, 2002 a special meeting of the city council was held in the Council Chambers at
City Hall in Hendersonville, NC. The purpose of this meeting was to conduct a informational
meeting regarding the alternative selected for the replacement of Bridge No. 356 on Kanuga
Road (SR 1127) and proposed aesthetic enhancements to the proposed structure.
The council members found the aesthetic enhancements to be favorable, however the council
members were concerned that the quality of the stained cast-in-place stonewalls may not be
acceptable.
The Public Arts Committee asked to be given an opportunity to present alternatives to the cast-
in-place wall. The city council and NCDOT agreed to give the Public Arts Committee 30 days
to develop alternative aesthetic enhancements for the proposed replacement structure. NCDOT
informed the city council that the city would be responsible for any additional cost incurred by
the enhancements out side of standard construction techniques. Also, any enhancements must
comply with state safety guidelines.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
US Fish and Wildlife Service:
Comment: "Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculate) and the federally threatened small-whorled pogonia (Isotrria medeoloides) occur
near this project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or on-the-ground activities. "
Response: A survey was conducted for these species. This project will not affect the small
whorled pogonia or the bunched arrowhead.
B-3475 Replace Bridge No. 356 over Wash Creek on SR 1127 (Kanuga Road), Henderson County.
Page 20
n
a?
64 ?•25
25 N
S i
Sixth 4ve yr
64 64
W E i
HEN ERSO ILLE 25
1180 S 25
POP. ,913 N%
3 7
1764
1127
__?RAILWAY
1171
< _ ?? 176 1764
11172
list %V
./?e 47"lt LEGEND
O N
*--*-Studied Detour Route
at Flat
klc

North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 356 ON SR 1127
OVER AN WASH CREEK
8-3475
0 kilometers 0.4 kilometers 0.8
0 miles 0.25 mites 1.0
FIGURE 1
y
_ \
_ m
m --4 f >
11 \0\I'? Z
.I n N A <
?1 N
I, ? Z N v
°
N ?
-enrg
m
/
'ice \ `?}? \ y?_ / '
r
r '
? II r I ,
1
-------------
/ I m / b + y
j ?,;/ I ? I ? hex
!
- J I ? nnn
1 ?
1, c Y
i'
'
, ! I V V V
15+00 cn cVn o
!
\ cq
O
J ?_ ? ?aaug uo?8atysoM
1
\ I -----------------I --------
I•!
o o, b 1 1
o o ?,
-4-- o
J I --------- I I I
I j
I I
1 ? I
1 I
I
I ? 1
---1 ; .
l ..
oo•os+u lod -7
_ o o (¶ ?' -------------
a ,
II I
•
Ir 1 I _
uoeNB
II {. 1 \ 10'uoMaaH a+aN` ? e`?1 ?s? ?,la 9y?? !o n
a
I ` I ?r0 j apaa.?? a vaeM ?9 ys ? ?? ??z ? eogl.
oNf7
pO . %r'? d f) 1 y , ,34eY9ti1'
A
I i\ n
I I ? ? y II ; i9 Nose ?C?y"QN ??Q?D { 9F ifp i ?se? 6 e ? ._.; i' .
is ud-1.16\-
Q I 9 Temp $i? 0"ISryN???!3. ?' °8 .. . ±lhaManOS,
lo C?? ?? W 9
_ H
?V p? J I `.' j n Wn?gaRh o g. (?Ia y - rr I,
a?Cy+ I I 1 bnuboro $t Q? }$ M? )
W _
_ 1 Z 1~u?y`?! ?MI - _?IIG'%? -}moo -?'b
_:??M,:
-Utd
N' y? ?wC
1? ?? ? ? 1 I ? I yio 90 6D I9..n_ !?6lPQ4S ? c ?P `??'y} _:N
IS Olel$ 9n9
cn
0
N
3
b b O ? ? ??
N
C

b
N °` `' aC

3\
,-------
I' i
1
T \.j? 1

/4„ - 00
? I
\ !? (XanuBa` `
I l RO??

a
I 10 ,

N

O
3
1
L
0
N

r
3

z z ? two
O

N oOV x O On
0
N
vim zy
I?.CC

t?
I? I
Ig
to
12 "?
JAI
i ,
I
,
;x"
I I

Y A A X ?
? ? Q N

Z
?O m m fil ?
m v O N

A r
1 o a m
> v
m
> > '

N A
m { 7

L
> v
z N
O

T Z
v
zz
v ?
N C
A
P
Y
z
v

c
1
m
A
I,
I

6f, /L#7 lc/ 7- x
C
,_ - can
0
tc yyy
wwoQw
15+00 p o yo
C) O O O `./

?IIII
i
i
\L
00
0

b
co y
`J
o? II r
I N a
V I
1
I
I
e
I
II
11 III<?
I
I Z
? I
I
I
1
,
1
I ?
:Lb
tom
L4
.till
r?
CO)
,p us4azaH % 's'?, -. 'o`x ?r•' VaIWt?,S••• -. ?f:.u uw...
• end syeM 1 ?-tieVs?''$ • ??_-,.?z...S._"O_eou

?g .$6 ?t`71 t5 ?_•- .a'?- 19 wltsnfN ?-?
g
Te rypn
bnseborn SI ! ?..' - _:q.V- I_ -ks- .e u? ? MP_.'c' •:`
. _., ytllsf,
d
?sfQ ot?
s?
s`
III ? ? ?p???Ms
wwleg
is LOMM
? C saayg uotBuiY+'oM
-- - -
r •
I
III III I - ---i
_ll I I ? ,
.? nn•nc+u ina -?-
s
? rn
-1 > v Z N
O Z --4 Z
0
O
LTI V ?J
0 Ka
C) O O h h`
(n (JI W N L
N
n v v v
u n
O II A A
Z ___ -? _. O
O cn
o, O O
o o N N Fr
X °o o° v ? AJ p, f hi p?
ca m
Z
p O O Z
CA (A CA m m m 0 N Co N CO
O >-1 x 3
D 1 1
O N O N
X O1 O)
CD n ? w ?
0 Lnn D - X O
O Z Z Z O'p ? ?O 3
fl X G1
rn o a? ?v a?
k?vv?o 0? Z mo o
II II O vi to a C^ C) OZ O m O m E- N la
p 7c 7c 0 N^ nP O w m 3 m -o O
3 A m m m m n v, ?O O ?O
(1 O p• O o Z -4 z
r 7 X n r 'v m?_
3' n r ?n mn
Gl
°c m w c m "' D? W N >r t-4 N
'" f1 v, O rn r?
t-j u D rn X D am.
X -0 X -V
O O
,o rrr cn ?, o n 5.
-I ? a 3: o ? C m n0 n0
N 0 m _
II n = N 2 n 2n
U3 2 O = O
N II C? ?O ? 2 N N ? A V1 N 'p A
m N m
H 2
N _ ?zC D r) 3 r) 3
o ?' 2 1 O _ O
II Z ?N Z
rn
o, =r <
c
N
O
N
m
cn o
® ? cn X cv
70 ;"z:_ 3
o= o
p G7 m Mrooz -o
M Z a '+ 0 1a 3 Q
??CC 0 ; o ?
?? DZm yoa R ' v Q 7C
Z ZON pin '1 3
OyC)w0 ?taba O N
N Z R -t ? r
v
2 D 0 '..4 O
W O
O -0 -0 vd
cVi,m OZC d?pd
'n ? cn Z w a b
C
X N '°
rn v
C.) n

77
'uCj
m t l i F,,,' ? t

rAF 88M
002 M1i:
\ 1 n i Ohm 1
OyD
\ Ilm / DO ?I
\`--- X1'1-1 fr _ - J L FcO3
133415 \
1 r m
no ' o
N
I?o I
1 m
1!yG ?!C II
Ism ^'
/ BLS ? 1?
L
I I /1
G
/ ?? ?µ1MStlM ?1 - `:
133tl1 11

o ?
?? a s Z S?
O lTf ? r r "T1
o o r

' m
O 77 Z
o o _
o
? n
v r m ^1
o ©
v v
z rn
9 3 u D
?_ [?7 ?' p °° a
x 0
c
?

m
3
c? 71
W y
c OC
??
m
A C'! b
O ? r
-1 r < ?C
r
> ^' m m
m '_' i z r
? C'7 '
v

T. -
?
p C m
co °
A 0 3

T
1 N W 6
V,
7"
s
A
?Iuflc? Z-

S ' 1? -t? 7
O.i ??Y LA. 1 is
r %-1
_Jl (I _Z
osooi.d
o
QTA OPT
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
February 7, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements - Avery County (B-3808); Henderson County (B-3475, B-3662,
B-3663, B-3664, B-3665, B-3666, and B-3857); McDowell County (B-3673); and
Watauga County (B-3709 and B-3710)
We have reviewed the subject projects and are providing the following comments in accordance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act)..
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, and it does not include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of the projects. Therefore, our comments are. limited primarily to the known
locations of listed species and species of Federal concern. When the categorical exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects, we can then offer
more substantive comments.
Enclosed is a list of species from the four counties involved. This list provides the names of
species that are on thdPederal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, as well as
species of Federal concern. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our response to
give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any are found
in the vicinity of these projects. Our records indicate the following:
Henderson County
Project B-3475. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and the federally threatened small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) occur near
this project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further
planning or orr-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further
consultation will be required.
i
Project B-3665. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii) occur in the vicinity of this
project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further planning
or on-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further consultation will be
required.
Projects B-3662 and B-3664. These projects occur in the general vicinity of Mud Creek, an area
with several occurrences of bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) and mountain sweet
pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii). Currently there are no known locations of these species in the
immediate project area. However, a lack of any systematic surveys throughout the Mud Creek
drainage may account for the apparent absence of these species. In the areas affected by these
projects, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable habitat for
these species.
Projects B-3666, B-3663. and B-3857. Our records for Henderson County indicate no known
locations of listed species in the project areas. However, we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
McDowell County
P o,?ect B-3673. Our records indicate known locations for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
near this project: Habitat assessments and surveys of suitable habitat should be conducted in the
project area for this species. If the bog turtle occurs in the project area, it should be protected
from impacts.
Watauga and Avery Counties
Prgjects B-3709 B-3710. and B-3808. Although our records for Watauga and Avery Counties
indicate no known locations of listed species in the project areas, we recommend conducting
habitat assessments in the affected area of each project. Any suitable habitat should be surveyed
for these species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no
adverse impacts occur.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-01-278.
Sincerefy'i';
i
Brian ole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Stacy Harris, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Mr. Owen Anderson, Mountain Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC
27699-1621
,i
Henderson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Conc... Page 1 of 2
Updated: 05/31/2002
? U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
HENDERSON COUNTY

Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)i
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonia raveneliana Endangered
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana FSC*
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus FSC*
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia FSC
Vascular Plants
Bog asphodel Narthecium americanum Cl*
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC*
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachiafraseri FSC**
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Gray's lily Lilium grayi FSC
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiflora FSC*
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta FSC
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii Endangered
Rough rush Juncus caesariensis FSC
Schweinitz's sedge Carex schweinitzii FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/henderson.html 6/4/2002
Henderson County Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Federal Species of Conc... Page 2 of 2
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC*
White fringeless orchid Plantantherea integrilabia FSC
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
KEY:
Status Definition
Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened - A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.,"
Proposed - A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
C1- A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient
information to support listing.
FSC - A Federal species of concem--a species that may or may not be listed in the future
(formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing).
T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator)--a species that
is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for
its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to Section 7 consultation.
EXP - A taxon that is listed as experimental (either essential or nonessential). Experimental,
nonessential endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened on public
land, for consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
**Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
* * *Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
""Historic record - obscure and incidental record.
'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle
(from New York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from
Virginia south to Georgia) was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A)
designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the
southern population. The T(S/A) designation has no effect on land-management activities by private
landowners in North Carolina, part of the southern population of the species.
http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/henderson.html 6/4/2002
d..+SfA7r (Y ('J
.,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM r
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
arz
Deputy State Hist c Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge #356 on SR 1127 (Caswell Street) over Wash Creek, B-3475,
. Henderson County, ER 01-8264
Thank you. for your letter of December 6, 2000, concerning the above project.
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of architectural, historic, or
archaeological significance which would be affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the
project as currently proposed.
The above.comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618. (91.9) 7334763 •715-4801

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook pr
Deputy State Histo ' Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127 over Wash Creek, TIP No. B-3475, Henderson County,
ER 01-8264
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2000, 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, since a survey has not been conducted in
over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
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 building over fifty years old on or
adjacent to the project, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no known archaeological sites within the project area. Based on our present knowledge of
the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which maybe eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator

Federal Aid ABRSTP-1127(5)) TIP #13-3475
Z>
Project Description: Replace Bridge No.356 on SR 1127 over creek
On December 8, 2000, representatives of the
Q•'~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
Q/ there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
?,? Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
[La there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative, IMCDO'II
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
.`-
County: Henderson
tZIC1co
t t Date
f 7
Date
/c tr
Date
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative, SHPOA
State Historic Preservation Officer
if a survev report is prepared, a final copy of this Form and the attached list Nvill be included.
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwbod, Executive Director
MEMOR.ANDUNI
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and E onmentalAnalysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Owen F. Anderson?ouCoordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Scoping for Bridge Replacements , B3662, B-3663, B-3664, B-31665, B-
3666, B-3673, and B-3857, Henderson and McDowell Counties
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our continents are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves nine bridge replacement projects in western North Carolina.
Construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources will depend on the extent of disturbance
in the streambed and surrounding riparian areas. We prefer bridge designs that do not alter the
natural stream morphology or impede fish passage and provide for wildlife passage under the
bridge. We prefer that existing bridges be replaced with another spanning structure. Bridge
designs should also include provisions for the deck drainage to flow through a vegetated upland
buffer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. In some cases, we are specifically concerned
about impacts to trout waters. Environmental documentation for these projects should include
description of any streams or wetlands on the proj6ct site and surveys for any threatened or
endangered species that may be affected by construction.
B-3475 - Bridge No..356 on SR1127 (Caswell Street) over Wash Creek, Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3662 - Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) over Featherstone Creek in
Henderson County.
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat:
MA;m, Address- DIVision of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center -Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
NCDOT Bridge Scoping 2 January 10, 2001
Henderson and McDowell Counties
B-3663 - Bridge No 320 on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaws Creek in
Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3664 -Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 (Brookside Camp Road) over Mud Creek in Henderson
County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3665 - Bridge No. 265 on SR 1791 (Ballenger Road) over North Branch Bat Fork Creek
in Henderson County
No specific concerns other than minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and
riparian habitat.
B-3666 - Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road) over Hungry River in Henderson
County.
This bridge appears to be located at the edge of the Pisgah Game Lands. This reach is
classified as trout water by the Division of Water Quality and is designated by the NCWRC as
Hatchery Supported Waters. The new bridge should span the adjacent floodplain and provide
sufficient space for wildlife to move under the bridge. An inwater work moratorium from
October 15=April "15 is requested for this project.
B-3673 - Bridge No. 17 on US 221 over Second Broad River in McDowell County
This stream is Classified WS-IV. No specific fish and wildlife concerns other than
minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat. The new bridge should
span the adjacent floodplain and/or provide a wildlife movement corridor under the bridge...
Because the Corps of Engineers (COE) recognizes all of the above counties as "trout
water counties", the NCWRC will review any nationwide or general.404 permits for the proposed
pr9jects. The following conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
1. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Structures should be inspected and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events. -
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used to minimize
impacts to downstream aquatic resources. Spoil materials and wastewater captured in
the cofferdam should be pumped out and disposed of on upland sites.
NCDOT Bridge Scoping
Henderson and McDowell Counties
January 10, 2001
4. If concrete is used during construction, -a dry work area must be maintained to prevent
direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects
water quality and is highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
5. Grading and backfilling should be minimized, and tree and shrub growth should be
retained if possible to ensure long term availability of shoreline cover for gamefish and
wildlife.
6. In trout waters, instream construction is prohibited during the trout-spawning
period of October 15 to April 15,to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
7. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
8. If multi-celled reinforced concrete box culverts are utilized, they should be designed so
that all water flows through a single cell (or two if necessary) during low flow
conditions. This could be accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end
of the other cells that will divert water to a single cell during below bankfull events.
This will facilitate fish passage at low flows.
9. Notched bales should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15-foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, reduce flow velocities,
and to provide resting areas for fish moving through the structure.
10. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural river bottom when
.construction is completed. Temporary causeways should not block more than 30% of
the stream width to prevent an impediment to fish movement.
11. Equipment operated near surface waters should be inspected daily and maintained to
prevent contamination of waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or
other toxic materials.
12. Stormwater should be directed to upland buffer areas or retention basins and should
not be discharged directly into streams.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment during the early stages of these
projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (828) 452-
2546.
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Harris, RE.,. PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, Biologist, USFWS Asheville

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 11, 2000
r
MEMORANDUM
Ar4*
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qualit
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele GUdG r
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127
over Wash.Creek in Henderson County, T.I.P. Projects B-3475.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated December 6, 2000, in which you
requested Scoping comments for the above project. The DWQ index number for the stream is 6-
55-7 and is classified as Class B waters.. Class B standards apply to surface waters that are for
primary recreation including frequent or organized swimming. The Division of Water Quality
requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in Higher quality waters.
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and other. aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be
aware that floodplain culverts are required.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Since the project is located in a trout county, please be aware that trout moratoriums set by
the NC Wildlife Resource Commission may apply, based on their findings.
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
nU I
Al! u 3 0 2002
- STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
----------------
DEPA.RTN NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 29, 2002
Memorandum To: John Wadsworth, P.E., Project Manager
Consultant Unit
Attention: Rachelle Beauregard, Permit Specialist
From: Sharon Snider, Section 7 Strike Team
LYNDo TiPPETr
SECRETARY
Subject: Freshwater mussel survey report of unnamed creek for proposed
replacement of bridge # 356 on SR 1127, Henderson County; TIP
# B-3475.
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No. #356 over an
unnamed creek in Henderson County. Two federally Endangered freshwater mussel
species, the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana) and.the oyster mussel
(Epioblasma capsaeformis) are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring in
Henderson County.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists Tim Savidge, Jeff Burleson and Sharon
Snider visited the project site on March 05, 2002. The creek, a tributary to Mud Creek,
exists in a heavily urbanized setting; no water flow was observed at the time of the visit.
Mud Creek was surveyed at two sites near this project (B-3475) and no mussels were
observed. The project creek habitat was examined and deemed to be unsuitable to
support mussel life.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the unsuitable habitat of unnamed creek at SR 1127 and the Mud Creek
mussel survey results, it is apparent that the Appalachian elktoe and the oyster mussel do
not occur in the project stream. Additionally, there are no known extant populations of
these two species in the French Broad River downstream of the project stream. It can be
concluded that project construction will not impact these two species.
cc: Stacy Harris P.E., Consultant Engineering Unit Head
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION SUILOING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE: WWW.OOH.007.STATE.NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
MARCH S, 2002SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 1 $
March 25, 2002
Special Meeting of the City Council
Council Chambers - City Hall
Present: Mayor Fred H. Niehoff, Jr., City Council Members: Barbara Volk, Mary Jo Padgett, Londa
Murray, Ron Stephens
Staff Present: City Manager Chris Carter, City Clerk`Tammie Drake
Others Present: Stacy Harris, Tommy Register, Jay Setzer
The purpose of the special meeting was to conduct an informational meeting with NCDOT regarding the
alternative selected for the Kanuga Road bridge replacement project.
The meeting began at 11:00 a.m. with City Manager introducing Tommy Register and Stacy Harris of
NCDOT. He explained the City Council passed a resolution recommending Alternative A as the preferred
alternative for the bridge replacement on Kanuga Road subsequent to a meeting held October 29, 2001. He
explained Alternative C has been selected by NCDOT as the preferred and chosen alternative for the bridge
replacement. He stated NCDOT representatives are present to explain why Alternative C was chosen. He
stated the design of the bridge from an aesthetic standpoint will also be discussed.
Mr. Tommy Register addressed the Council and presented a rendering of the proposed bridge replacement
project. He stated Alternative A should not have been presented and offered as an alternati ve for the
project because of the expense (cost of approximately 92% more than Alternative C) and impact to local
businesses. He reviewed the design implications of Alternative C including two-foot valley gutters for access
to businesses' parking lots, 14-foot outside lanes (two feet provided for bicycle access/curb and gutter), a
12-foot center lane, and two five-foot sidewalks are provided on the structure. He stated the arched head
wall was extended. He stated a stained facing could be applied to the head wall giving the appearance of
stone similar to the culvert upstream on Allen Street. Discussion followed on the sidewalks proposed,
existing sidewalks, current travel lane widths and the right-of-way. Mr. Register stated the proposed
sidewalk will tie into the sidewalk on Uly.Pond Lane. He stated they will not be adding sidewalks where
none are currently existing.
Mr. Register explained the bridge will actually be a culvert with three 8x10-foot open barrels with a similar
appearance as it has now. He stated the inside of the head wal[ facing will have the same rock or stone
appearance applied. There was discussion on the life and quality of the facing. Mr. Carter reiterated the
importance of the quality of the facing and that the quality of the construction is monitored.
Ms. Brenda Coates, Member of the Public Arts Committee, suggested the possibility of opening up the space
so travelers are aware they are going over water. She also suggested the possibility of decorative metal
railing or implementing metal designs in the facing and repeating that design in the sidewalk possibly using
enhancement funds. Ms. Hams explained the bridge is very small with not much opportunity for opening the
space. She explained any design must use bridge building industry products and must meet safety
standards. She explained there is a minimum length for decorative metal railings and the size of the bridge
would disqualify this option. She stated this may also require the City to enter an agreement to participate
in the cost and maintenance. Mayor Pro Tem Padgett requested a sign be placed on the bridge identifying
Wash Creek. Mr. Setzer explained the current trend is to reduce 'signage but the request will be
investigated. There was also discussion on whether actual rock could be used. Mr. Setzer explained that
$ MARCH 5, 2002SPECIAL MEETING PAGE 2 $
option may be cost prohibitive and would require more maintenance. He estimated the facing will last longer
than actual rock. There was discussion of the color and texture which varies by vendor/contractor. Council
Member Stephens suggested providing the Council with an opportunity to view the alternatives presented by
the lowest responsible bidder. Mr. Setzer stated the contractor will work through NCDOT and will be open to
the suggestions of the City Council.
Discussion followed on the amount of water flowing under the bridge. Mr. Register explained the proposed
project will have more water conveyance than the existing bridge does.
There was discussion of the plans for traffic during the construction. Mr. Register explained traffic will be
detoured onto Lily Pone Lane, West Allen Street to Church Street. He stated there may be a temporary
signal at Allen Street and the island may be adjusted. He predicted up to 7-12 months for completion of the
project. Mayor Niehoff also suggested a route (White Street) for large trucks.
Ms. Coates asked if the Council would consider appointing a committee to discuss the aesthetics and
enhancement of the pedestrian walkways and make recommendations to the Council and NCDOT. Mayor
Niehoff commented any group, i.e., Public Arts Committee, could present ideas and suggestions to the
Council for consideration which will be presented to NCDOT.
After discussion of the time line for designing the project, Mayor Niehoff asked the representatives of
NCDOT to allow one month for Council's consideration at which time they will be notified whether to
continue with the design presented or an alternative will be presented for their consideration. Ms. Hams
agreed, stating the design work is now on hold and but agreed they will wait until -a .recommendation is
received by the Council. She stated this will move the completion dates back. She further explained they
want to ensure the environmental report shows they are coordinating with the City. By consensus, the
Council expressed agreement with lane widths, sidewalk width and basic design but asked for
one month to consider alternatives for the aesthetic design of the bridge and walkways. Ms.
Harris stated NCDOT is willing to wait for one month. She stated NCDOT will consider the alternatives
presented by the Council after one month. She explained the State will be willing to pay for designs using
materials classified as industry standard but if not, the City will be required to participate or possibly pay the
entire cost.
*Utility Line Extension Agreements: Mr. Ezra Allman presented the following utility line extension
agreements for Council's consideration.
Waterand SewerLine Extension for Woifpen Subdivision, Phase 6.•This project will provide water and sewer
service to property located in the Hendersonville Corporate Limits off U.S. Highway 64 East. The project
requires approximately 1,700 lineal feet of six-inch PVC, C900 water lines. Fire protection will be provided
via the installation of one additional fire hydrant located inside Phase 6. He reported water pressure and
flow in this area as follows: static pressure = 95 psi., residual = 60 psi., flow = 860 GPM. It also requires
approximately 1,610 lineal feet of eight-inch SDR-35 PVC sewer lines and the installation of 13..precast
concrete manholes. The intended use of this property is residential with 24 residences proposed. The entire
cost of the proposed water line extension is to be paid for by the owner/developer, Nappier & Turner
Construction Company, Inc. of Hendersonville, North Carolina. Based on this information, Mr. Allman
predicted the Water Department can support the additional connections and recommended approval of the
project contingent upon approval of the final plans and specifications from the Water and Sewer
Department.
JIczcj1
OFFICERS: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
Fred H. Niehoff..Jr.
yor
Ma The City of Four Seasons"
yo Padgett
Mary
Mayor Pro-Tern
Chris A. Carter
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
City Manager
Tammie K. Drake
Fred H. Niehoff; Jr
City Clerk .
January 14, 2002
Mr. William Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
CITY COUNCIL.
BARBARA VOLK
MARY JO PADGETT
LONDA MURRAY
HENS
JI,c1,!sJ? 71 `M'.

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 10, 2002 regarding the replacement of
i ' Bridge number 356. .
I will discuss your letter with our City Council at its next meeting. In the meantime, I would like
to share my thoughts with you. 1 am completely at a loss to understand if Alternative A was not a
viable approach, why was it even developed for our consideration. The City of Hendersonville is
in no position to pay for the additional cost of over $1,500,000 to accomplish Alternative A. An
additional one cent of property tax raises only $86,000, so you can understand that this is not
feasible.
In recent years, the City of Hendersonville has undertaken programs designed to play catch-up
with our sidewalk situation. We have spent almost $2,000,000 for new sidewalks and repair of
existing ones. We require all new developments to install sidewalks. So we are certainly not
interested in seeing a bridge constructed on a main artery that does not have sidewalks on both
sides.
At this time I do not know what the reaction of the City Council will be, but I would expect that
they will ask DOT to go back to the drawing board and arrive at a more satisfactory approach. Or
perhaps we can ask for some enhancement funds to make up the difference.
I will keep you informed.
Sincerely,
Fred H. Niehoff, Jr., Mayor
City of Hendersonville
Cc: City Council
Chris Carter, City Manager
145 Fifth Avenue East P.O. Box 1670 Phone: [phone]
Hendersonville, NC 28792-4328 Hendersonville, NC 28793-1670 Fax: [phone]
uxuw rfhrnfhandersonville.oro
OFFICERS:
Fred H. Niehoff. Jr.
Mayor
Mary Jo Padgett
. Mayor Pro-Tern
Chris A. Carter
City Manager
Tammie K. Drake
City Clerk

CITY OF -HENDEASONVILLE
"The City of Four Seasons"
January 2, 2002
Ms. Stacy Harris, PE
Project Manager
NCDOT - Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re:. -TIP No.. B-3475, Bridge No 356, Henderson County.
Dear Ms. Harris:... ..
Enclosed are drafts of the City's proposal for the bridge over Wash Creek, that include the
following:
1) Suggestions to be considered in engineering design of bridge
2) .2 images or artist's rendition of steel frame and decorative panel inserts. This is only a
...suggestion of panels. It would be. our position to ask artists to submit these panels taking
-into consideration the history of the creek and the area .it.is. to be located in.
3). Image of steel bridge construction showing a pedestrian bridge on the outside of the
bridge.. The decorative railing could be on the outside of this pedestrian bridge or the
inside of the vehicular bridge. This latter would be our recommendation.
4) One image of a decorative railing bridge that is similar in design to what we have in
mind.
We would appreciate your reviewing our suggestions and giving us your comments on the
possibility of including these design suggestions into the engineering plan you are preparing.
I had previously called and left word for you to return my call regarding the enclosed so we might
discuss it prior to my forwarding it on. However I have taken the liberty of sending these directly
on should you be away for the holidays.
I would appreciate your calling me after you have reviewed the enclosed so that I may further
discuss them with you.
Best Wishes for a good 2002.
145 Fifth Avenue East P.O. Box 1670 Phone: [phone]
Hendersonville, NC 28792-4328 Hendersonville. NC 28793-1670 Fax: [phone]
www.cityofhendersonville.org

SUGGESTIONS:
1. Steel frame construction bridge:
A. Create a metal armature so that metaUcomposite panels can be
attached after artist has submitted proposal:
All rails to be fabricated from flat sheets of steel
All rails to run horizontally
B. Slightly curved top railing
C. Height no more than four feet to apex of curve on top railing
D. Pedestrian walkways on the outside of bridge railing with bike trails on
inside creating a more safe passage for pedestrians as well as bikers
Intent:
Apply for TEA-21 funds for enhancement of bridge for pedestrian walkway on
outside of bridge rather than inside.
As a part of TEA-21 funds and/or in addition to add to the fagade of the bridge's
railing an artist's rendition of the history of Wash Creek through a series of
panels to be attached to bridge and/or pedestrian railing.
This type of open design of the bridge permits the,following:
A. Open view for vehicular traffic since traffic moving from east to west is
tested by vehicles turning onto Third Avenue, as well as patrons exiting
from the numerous businesses lining Kanuga Road as it moves into
the "Busy Bend of Kanuga.°
B. Open view for vehicular traffic as it moves from west to east and
travels around the very sharp curve of Kanuga Road towards the more
busy intersection of Church Street and Washington Street and Kanuga
Road. -
c. Putting pedestrians on the outside of the bridge offers safety from
vehicular traffic that is more visually concentrating on other vehicles
turning into or off Kanuga Road into the various businesses lining the
roadway. Also this permits more room fora bike trail on the inside
railing of the bridge.

1
1
r. 'i .
i:` :
•y
s
a.
:• ,R:N i.
?J
:iR

Z
. ? l

?' :ice •• ire
f ..
r -
t
I ti
j-

i
.t+T.
t
i. -
ism.
? rY51+ ;
q'
Ts ?S+ -7wL 4S[ r?ti J' Y? J'?
fit'
A+r1?? M0. Fir i. '?• Y'FrN'

fati "

' CrrY COUNCIL:
C,FFICERS: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE
J. CRCITENDEN RAREFY
Fred H. Niehoff. Jr.
Mayor "The City of Four Seasons" LONDA MURRAY
Mary Jo Padgett
Mayor Pro-Tem MARY JO PADGE 7
Chris A. Carter
City Manager BARBARA VOLK
Tammie K. Drake
City Clerk
November 15, 2001
Ms. Stacy Harris, PE
Project Manager
NCDOT
Project Development.&,Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC-27611
Dear Ms. Harris:
Enclosed you will. find a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Hendersonville at their
regular meeting held November 8, 2001.
Please feel free to call me at 828/697-3005 if you have questions or need further information.
Sincerely;
Tammie K. Drake, CMC, City Clerk
CC: Mr: Jay Setzer,_ PE; Division Construction.Engineer
G:\Clerk\A-Clerk\Correspondence\YOI\SHarris NCDOT.ilt a res.wpd .
145 Fifth Avenue East P.O. Box 1670 Phone: [phone]
Hendersonville, NC 28792-4328 Hendersonville, NC 28793-1670 Fax: [phone]
www.cityofhendersonville.org
Resolution # 01-1171
A RESOLUTION URGING THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE A FOR THE
WASH CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT:, PROJECT (8.2951601)
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has completed engineering and
environmental studies for the replacement of Bridge 306 over Wash Creek on Kanuga Road
(SR1172) and; .
WHEREAS, during this process two alternatives were identified: Alternative A and Alternative C and;
WHEREAS, Alternative A replaces the current bridge with a culvert and includes both curb and guttering
and sidewalks on both sides of Kanuga Road for approximately360 Feet westward and
approximately 240 feet to the east of the existing bridge and:
WHEREAS, Alternative C replaces the existing bridge with a culvert but includes much less approach
work both on the west and east sides of the exiting bridge, but in doing so can be
accomplished with less cost and less impact to the existing businesses on Kanuga Road,
especially those located on south of the Road and for that reason is listed as the preferred
NCDOT option.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hendersonville does hereby endorse
Alternative A as being in the best interest of the City and the traveling public for reasons of
both safety for motorists and accessibility and safety for pedestrians and bicydists due to
the provision of additional sidewalks and bike paths along the new structure and its
approaches.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council desires that additional funding be pursued to enhance the
visual attractiveness of the bridge structure and its appurtenances by requesting the NCDOT
set a aside a portion of the project cost for this purpose and to pursue additional
enhancement funds solely for this purpose.
NOW BE ITTHEREFORE DIRECTED, that an an executed copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Project
Manager, Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E., in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch.
Adopted this 8th day of November, 2001.
Fred H. Niehoff, Jr., Mar, Cl[y of Hendersonville
ATTEST:
Tammie K. Drake, CMC, City Clerk
G:\Gerk\Reso1udons\Y01\NCD0T Alt A res.wpd
?•:? ice.
- ?`? a t^..?
I, Tammie K. Drake, City Clerk of the City of Hendersonville, North Carolina, being first
duly sworn, do' hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the City Council of the City of Hendersonville at their November 8, 2001 Regular
Meeting.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official Seal of the City
of Hendersonville, North Carolina, this fifteenth day of November, 2001.
SEAL Tammie K. Drake, CMC Ci Clerk
1
January 10, 2001
HENDERSON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
100 NORTH KING STREET
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. 28792-5097
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
www.henderson.lib.nc.us/county
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
David E. Nicholson
County Manager
Avalina Merrill
Administrative Assistant
I am writing in response to your December 6, 2000 letter concerning the bridge
replacement projects for Henderson County that are contained within the NCDOT's
2002-2008 Draft Transportation Improvement Program. Attached is a report that
contains our comments on these projects.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
David E. Nicholson
County Manager
DEN/abm
Attachment
Cc: Board of Commissioners
Transportation Advisory Committee Members
Henderson County Government Report on
NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
B-3475, B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666 and B-3857
January 10, 2001
Henderson County appreciates the opportunity to study and comment on the proposed bridge
replacement projects identified by NCDOT as B-3475, B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666 and
B-3857. The following report contains the County's comments regarding the projects.
B-3475 - Bridge No. 356 on SR 1127 (Caswell Street) over Wash Creek
Bridge No. 356 is located in the City of Hendersonville on Caswell Street, between Washington
Street and Lily Pond Road, in an area known as "Busy Bend." According to the Flood Insurance
Rate map for that area, the area around and including the bridge is in the flood zone for Wash
Creek.
The area around the bridge is commercial in character. Dal-Kawa Cycle Center is located
adjacent to the bridge on the south and an automobile detailing business is located next to the
bridge to the north. There are a number of other small businesses and a couple of churches in the
area as well as the Whitmire Activity Building/Tom's Park owned by the City of Hendersonville.
There is a considerable amount of traffic that enters/exits Hendersonville via Kanuga Road.
Residents and businesses around the bridge area as well as those that use Kanuga Road to access
Hendersonville will be impacted. The detour that is shown on the NCDOT map (using Lily
Pond Drive, West Allen Street and Washington Street), is approximately 0.5 mile in length.
Erica Thompson, Program Coordinator for the Start with Your Heart program with the
Henderson County Partnership for Health, Inc., has been working on a Bicycle/Pedestrian
Assessment Project in the Henderson County. At her request, Henderson County has agreed to
ask NCDOT to.consider widening the sidewalk on Bridge No. 356 when the bridge itself is
widened. According to Ms. Thompson, the current sidewalk is too narrow.
Henderson County understands that the City of Hendersonville is submitting its own comments
regarding the subject bridge project as well.
B-3662 - Bridge No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) over Featherstone Creek
The subject bridge is located on Howard Gap Road in an area that is mainly residential in
character but which also contains several churches, small businesses and an industry. The
intersection of Howard Gap Road and Brookside Camp Road is located to the northwest. Vulcan
Materials (including the APAC asphalt plant) is located at the intersection of Howard Gap Road
and Clear Creek Road, to the southeast. The Mountain Home Volunteer Fire and Rescue
department has a substation located to the southeast of the intersection of Salisbury Road and
Howard Gap Road. The bridge is located in the Mountain Home Fire District.
The "studied detour route" shown on the map provided by NCDOT requires that one travel
approximately 2.5 miles using Brookside Camp Road and Salisbury Road, both of which are
paved. The route passes through a residential area once it leaves Howard Gap Road and it is
somewhat hilly and curvy. Heavy truck traffik and others that make regular use of Howard Gap
Henderson County Government Report January 10, 2001 .
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects Page 2
Road as north-south route may find US 25 to be a better alternative. Access to/from US 25 may
be made via the new road to Park Ridge Hospital, Brookside Camp Road, Clear Creek Road,
and, possibly, Balfour Road.
Residents and business owners in the area of the proposed bridge project will probably be
impacted the most. However, there may be impacts on alternative routes due to the need to
detour trucks, including those from Vulcan. around the bridge construction project.
While it is probably unlikely that NCDOT would undertake the subject project and project
B-3664 on Brookside Camp Road simultaneously, the County would like to specifically request
that the projects be scheduled at different times. If they were to occur together, the impacts on
the area would be intensified, particularly because the bridge to be replaced on Howard Gap
Road is on the detour route for the Brookside Camp Road bridge project (described below).
B-3663 - Bridge No. 320 on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaws Creek
Old Homestead Road, located off of US 64 West, has a paved surface. The subject bridge
crosses Shaws Creek, adjacent to a Southern Railway track. One must cross the bridge, then the
track. There is no railroad crossing signal on the road.
There are a number of residences. that are served by Old Homestead Road once it crosses Shaws
Creek. The area is zoned R-30 by the County and is within a WS-IV Water Supply Watershed.
The land immediately adjacent to the bridge is undeveloped. According to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map of the area, Shaws Creek is shown to have a narrow area of flood zone which includes
the area around the bridge.
As one approaches the bridge from US 64, there is a gravel area adjacent to, but at a lower
elevation than, the left side of the bridge. 'Rocky Hyder, Henderson County Fire
Marshal/Emergency Management Director, identified this as a fire department draft point. The
draft point would allow water to be drawn from Shaws Creek if needed to fight a fire in the
vicinity.
Because there is no outlet from Old Homestead Road, the NCDOT map does not show a detour
route. Homes on the southwestern end of Old Homestead Road as well as those on Summer
Rain Drive, Kilpatrick Road and Abbey Lane will be impacted during replacement of the bridge.
Henderson County expects that NCDOT will maintain some sort of bridge so residents may
continue to use Old Homestead Road while the bridge is upgraded. Also, the fire department
draft point should be taken.into consideration during the project.
B-3664 - Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 Brookside Camp Road) over Mud Creek
Bridge No. 21 on Brookside Camp Road is located south of the I-26 overpass. Double Tee Golf
Center is located to the northwest and Wolverine Paintball is located to the northeast. Vacant
fields are located immediately adjacent to the bridge, along Mud Creek. The bridge is in a low
area that has been subject to flooding in the past. The area is within a flood zone, according to
the Flood Insurance Rate Map. It is also in the Mountain Home Fire District.
Brookside Camp Road provides access from US 25 to Grimesdale, Hickory Hills and several
smaller subdivisions. It also serves to connect-US 25 to Howard Gap Road and the residences
and businesses in that area.
Henderson County Government Report January 10, 200 l
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects Pale 3
The detour shown on the map provided by NCDOT is comprised of a loop, approximately 6.7
miles in length, which uses Brookside Camp Road, US 25, Berkeley Road, Balfour Road, Clear
Creek Road and Howard Gap Road. The detour passes over another bridge proposed for
replacement, bridge No. 20 over Featherstone Creek (see B-3663, above).- It is possible that to
avoid some of the curves on Balfour Road, some detoured truck traffic may take US 25 to either
the new road over I-26 (to Park Ridge Hospital) or to Clear Creek Road to get to Howard Gap
Road.
The replacement of the bridge may cause some inconvenience to area residents and to business
owners. According to Rocky Hyder, Henderson County Fire Marshal/Emergency Management
Director, emergency services personnel and local property owners are probably accustomed to
using alternate routes because of the flooding history of the road.
B-3665 - Bridge No 265 on SR 1791 (Ballenger Road) over North Branch, Bat Fort Creek
Ballenger Road is located to the east of I-26, between Tracy Grove Road and Upward Road.
Land Uses in the area around the bridge include Lakewood RV Park and some single-family
dwellings. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area shows the land in the vicinity of the
bridge as being in a flood zone.
The detour shown on the NCDOT map makes use of Tracy Grove Road and McMurray Road,
both of which are paved. Much of the northern end of Mc Murray Road consists of orchards and
some single-family dwellings. As one approaches Upward Road, there are some commercial.
uses, including an antique shop, a quilt shop, a produce stand, an RV supply store and the Dish
Barn. A commercial project is currently underway near the intersection of Upward Road and
McMurray Road. Since Ballenger Road is not a major thoroughfare, the bridge project is more
likely to affect local traffic. The detour will probably increase the number of vehicles
entering/exiting Upward Road near the I-26 ramps.
B-3666 - Bridge No 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road) over North Branch, Hungry River
The subject bridge on Deep Gap Road is the third bridge as one travels east along the road.
While the majority of Deep Gap Road is paved, the road has a gravel surface beginning at a point
just before the subject bridge.
The eastern end of Deep Gap Road has a few single family dwellings, however much of the land,
particularly that near the bridge, is undeveloped. Deep Gap Road has a number of curves as one
descends into the river valley. Because there is only "one way in," the NCDOT map does not
show a detour route.
Since Deep Gap road is not a "through" road, people would need to have a reason to travel its
full length. That property (or properties) accessed by Deep Gap Road beyond Bridge No. 53 will
be impacted primarily. Hungry River LLC is listed as the owner of approximately 2073 acres at
and beyond the subject bridge.
B-3857 - Bridge No. 8 on SR 1314 (Ladson Road) over Boylston Creek
The subject bridge is located on Ladson Road approximately 0.2 mile from its intersection with
NC 191. Land use in the area surrounding the bridge is agricultural, except that there is one
dwelling just to the southwest of the bridge. Other residences are located further along Ladson
Road. The bridge is located in a flood zone, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the
Henderson County Government Report January 10, 2001
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects Page 4
area. The area around the bridge is in the County's R-30 zoning district and it is also within the
WS-IV Water Supply Watershed.
The detour route shown on the map provided by NCDOT requires one to travel along Banner
Farm Road and Schoolhouse Road, which will add several miles to the trip for those who
normally use Ladson Road. The detour route also passes by Mills River Elementary School.
There is a change in fire districts as one travels along Ladson Road. Mills River Fire and Rescue
services the portion of Ladson Road near the subject bridge while the area further south of the
bridge is serviced by Etowah-Horse Shoe Fire and Rescue. According to Rocky Hyder,
Henderson County Fire Marshal/Emergency Management Director, both departments typically
respond to all calls in the area. However, for the Mills River department to respond to the area in
its district that is south of the bridge, it will have to use the proposed detour along Schoolhouse
Road, which will probably increase its response time slightly.
Other General Comments
County staff did not have a chance to fully investigate the environmental conditions in the areas
around the -bridges other than to note areas that may be subject to flooding. However, as with
any projects undertaken near waterways, the County expects that NCDOT will use erosion and
sedimentation controls and other measures to minimize negative impacts on water quality.
Also, because of ongoing projects in the County to establish safe pedestrian walkways and bike
routes adjacent to roadways, the County suggests that, when reasonable and feasible, NCDOT
consider ways to improve the bridges for these purposes as well as. for vehicle travel.
Finally, if it is not already a customary practice, Henderson County suggests that some time prior
to initiation of each bridge replacement project, it would be helpful if NCDOT forwarded
information regarding the actual detours to the Superintendent of Henderson County Public
Schools in order for County bus routes to be adjusted accordingly. In addition, such detour
information would be helpful to other County. departments and agencies. Therefore, NCDOT
should also consider sending such information to the County Manager's office for distribution.
Note: Henderson County does not participate in the federal flood insurance program. Flood Insurance Rate
Maps referenced in comments for projects in the County's jurisdiction (B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666
and B-3857) are dated March 1, 1982. The City of Hendersonville does participate in the federalflood
insurance program. The Federal Insurance Rate Map referenced in the comments for the project in the
City's jurisdiction (B-3475) is dated January 20, 1982.

F1CER5: CITY OF HENDERSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL:
Fred N. Niehoff, Jr. J. CRrrrE:VD&,4 HARLEM
Mayor "The City of Four Seasons"
Mary Jo Padgett LONDA MURRAY
Mayor Pro-Tern
-hris A. Carter MARY JO PADGETT
City Manager
Tammie K. Drake BARBARA VOU<
City Clerk
Friday, December 22, 2000
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 7699-1548
RE: Bridge Replacement Project B-3475
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

I am writing on behalf of Mayor Niehoff and City Council regarding your request for
comments concerning the above bridge replacement project.
Due to the strategic location of this bridge in an entry corridor of the City we have
several comments relating to traffic flow during construction. If it appears traffic cannot
be maintained over the bridge during -construction, even one lane, there will be significant
disruption to small businesses located on both sides. If traffic is re-routed to W. Allen
Street and Lily Pond Lane, (both City streets) the width of those two.streets, especially
Lily Pond Lane, may not carry the traffic that Kanuga (your SRI 127) handles currently.
There are events during the summer months at Whitmire Building, the recreational
facility of the City, including shuffleboard tournaments that require users to park on the
shoulder of the road of Lily Pond Lane as an over flow. Of course this would further
restrict flow.
We also think the NCDOT should consider maintaining pedestrian access across Wash
Creek during construction since there are sidewalks on both sides of the project.
We very much hope that the NCDOT will construct the bridge to accommodate wider
sidewalks since there is significant pedestrian traffic along Kanuga Street/SR 1127.
Also there are water and sewer lines that will have to be relocated. Attached is a map
showing the location relative to the existing bridge. Since this project is partially being
funded with federal bridge replacement funds we are aware that utility relocation is
reimbursable and hope the cost of the utility relocation of up to 80% will be included in
the project budget.
145 Fifth Avenue East P.O. Box 1670 Phone: [phone]
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Hendersonville, NC 28793 Fax: [phone]
umm.cityofhendersonville.org
:t
Lastly, due to volume of traffic this entry corridor handles I believe this project should be
"fast-tracked" as much as possible. Any construction period over 30 days I believe would
be detrimental to the number of small business on both sides of the bridge project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond and let us know if we can be of further
assistance.
Snc ely,
! ??
Chris A. Carter, City Manager
Cc Fred Niehoff, Mayor
Don Sides, Public Works-Director
Ezra Allman, W&S Director
2

141
41
ts
Z ?
x w
U ? J
CA
Message Page 1 of 1
4 - - rt
Tommy Register
From: Chris Carter [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:40 PM G
A a [? V
To: 'Tommy Register'
Subject: RE: B-3475, Replacement of Bridge on Kanuga Road +t
Mr. Register,
Last night at the City Council meeting I relayed to the members that any alternative
designs that they wish to be considerqd for the Kanuga Road bridge replacement need to
be submitted immediately, per your instructions and their previous agreement to do so.
I, nor they, have recieved any suggestions. So it is my opinion you are unencumbered
from any reason not to proceed with the poured in place concrete design displayed at the
meeting. But please try to put as much articulation as possible in the stamp design
because that bridge should have some aesthetic quality if at all possible.
Thank you Mr: Register for your time.
Original Message-----
From: Tommy Register [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:51 AM
To: Carter, Chris
Subject: B-3475, Replacement of Bridge on Kanuga Road
Mr. Carter
The city council. and NCDOT agreed to give the Public Arts Committee 30 days
to develop alternative aesthetic enhancements for the proposed replacement
structure. Any enhancements must comply with state safety guidelines. I have
not received any correspondence concerning alternatives to the cast-in-place
wall presented to the city. Therefore we shall proceed with the design
presented to the city. If you have any comments please contact me or
Stacy Harris at 919-733- 7844 ext 264 or stacyharris dot. state. nc.us
Tommy Register, El
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
PO Box 33127
Raleigh, NC 27636-3127
Phone [phone]
Main Office Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email tre ig sterfthme.com
Web page www.bhme.com
6/7/2002