20051357 Ver 1_Complete File_20050627

M STN[ a?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 14, 2005
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Transition Manager
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Sir:
"?kcy
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 320 over Shaw Creek on SR 1212 in
Henderson County. Federal Project No. BRZ-1212(4), WBS Element:
33208.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-3663.
The purpose of this letter is to request that the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) provide confirmation that you are willing to provide compensatory
mitigation for the project in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed July 22, 2003 by the USAGE, the NCDENR and the NCDOT.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to remove and replace Bridge
Number 320 carrying SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaw Creek in Henderson
County. A 45-foot single span bridge will be replaced just south of the current structure.
This project is scheduled to let November 15, 2005.
RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SECTION 404 AND 401
OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
We have avoided and minimized the impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest
extent possible. We propose to provide compensatory mitigation for the jurisdictional
stream impacts by using the EEP program. We estimate that there will be impacts to 43
feet of Shaw Creek. There are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. The project
is located in the French Broad River basin in Hydrological Cataloguing Unit 06010105,
DWQ Index # 04-03-02, and is classified as cool water.
Please send the letter of confirmation to Ms. Angie Pennock, (USACE Coordinator) at
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Michael Turchy
at maturchy(a-)dot. state. nc.us or (919) 715 - 1468.
Sincerely,
/ffl-L- Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/attachment
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Angie Pennock, USACE
Linda Fitzpatrick, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Omar S. Sultan, NCDOT, Program Management
Laurie P. Smith, CPA, NCDOT, Program Management
r
rA?Ji
r ? osyste_?m
P y?r
P PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Ms. Angie Pennock
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Pennock:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter
O S l -3 S`7
V'?
11 il?a
vG
B-3663, Replace Bridge 320 over Shaw Creek on SR 1212; French Broad River
Basin (Cataloging Unit 06010105); Southern Mountains (SM) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
proposes to provide high quality preservation to compensate for the unavoidable 43 feet of stream impacts
associated with the subject project in the following manner:
Stream Preservation (10:1) in Same Eco-Region
Needmore Site, Swain County 430 feet
The subject TIP project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22, 2003. The
compensatory mitigation for the project will be provided in accordance with Section IX, EEP Transition
Period, of the Agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
[phone].
Sincerely,
7 B.
Wi iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Phil Harris, Office of Natural Environment, NCDOT
Mr. John Hennessey, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3663
IACDM
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
n
Y
Fosstem
PROGRAM
July 19, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-3663, Bridge 320 over Shaw Creek on SR 1212, Henderson County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide stream mitigation for the subject project. Based on the information supplied by you in a letter
dated June 14, 2005, the impacts are located in CU 06010105 of the French Broad River Basin in the
Southern Mountains (SM) Eco-Region, and are as follows:
Stream Impacts: 43 feet
As stated in your letter, the subject project is listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of
Agreement among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
dated July 22, 2003. The mitigation for the subject project will be provided in accordance with this
agreement.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at
919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
? .sue ?-
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Ms. Angie Pennock, USACE-Asheville
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-3663
LT-
NCDEE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
.I
A ? n?
.? ?1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTVENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NEC HAEL F. EAsLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
l
V2
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
051357
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Applications for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 320 on SR 1212 (Homestead Road)
over tributary over Shaw Creek, in Henderson County. Federal
Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4), State Project No. 33208.1.1, TIP
No. B-3663.
Please find enclosed a copy of the categorical exclusion for the above referenced project.
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 320 on the existing alignment with a 45-foot,
single span, cored slab bridge. As Homestead Road has no outlet, an on-site detour is
necessary to maintain traffic. There are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project area.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Permanent Impacts: Construction of the proposed project will result in total of 0.01 acre
of permanent fill in surface water. This proposed impact is unavoidable due to the active
railroad track immediately adjacent to the bridge.
Temporary Impacts: The onsite detour will result in 67 linear feet of temporary
dewatering. Three 72" corrugated metal pipes will be used establish this temporary
detour. Once the new bridge is completed, all materials used for the temporary detour
will be removed completely from Shaw Creek.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
July 19, 2005
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
f
Bridge Demolition
The existing bridge is a single-span structure with an overall length of 41 feet, and a clear
roadway width of 19.1 feet. It was constructed in 1961. The bridge consists of a timber
deck, steel I-beams, and timber piles, caps and abutments. Bridge No. 320 is structurally
and functionally obsolete and has a posted weight limit for single vehicles of 10 tons and
13 tons for truck-tractor semi trailers. All measures will be taken to avoid any temporary
fill from entering Waters of the U.S. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal will be implemented.
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible. The design of this project
is severely constrained by the proximity of an active railroad crossing and an onsite
detour is necessary due to Homestead Road having no outlet. However, the temporary
detour has been designed to a minimum width, which includes two 9-foot travel lanes.
The new bridge will be a single- spanning structure, however there will be permanent fill
associated with lining the unstable banks near the southern bent due to the inability to
secure the bridge foundation in close proximity to the railroad tracks.
Water Resources
The water resource impacted for project B-3663 is Shaw Creek. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources classifies the Shaw Creek as "WS-
IV". The designation of WS-IV denotes waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; point source discharges of
treated wastewater are permitted; local programs to control non-point source and storm
water discharge of pollution are required. The classification date and index number for
this portion of the creek are 04-03-02, 6-20, and the bridge is located in Hydrological
Cataloguing Unit 06010105.
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I,
WS-II, or watershed Critical Area (CA), within 1 mile upstream or downstream of the
project study area.
No special restrictions are required for in-water work other than those outlined in the
NCDOT guidelines, "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters". This
section of Shaws Creek is not designated as a trout stream by NC WRC. As commented
by WRC in the January 2003 CE, WRC has, "No specific concerns other than the
minimization of impacts to water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat."
Design Standards in Sensitive Waters was inadvertently added as a commitment for this
project. There is no environmental concern warranting these standards for this project,
and this commitment, in consultation with NCDOT's Roadside Environmental Unit, has
been removed.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
January 29, 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists eight federally
protected species for Henderson County (Table 1). A description of each species and
biological conclusions are provided in the referenced CE document. The Bog Turtle is
listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of appearance to other rare species that
are listed for protection. This species is not biologically endangered or threatened and is
not subject to Section 7 consultation. Therefore, no biological conclusion is required.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Henderson Countv.
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological
Conclusion
o turtle Clemm s muhlenber ii §/A) /A
Appalachian elktoe 1asmidonia raveneliana Endangered No Effect
Oyster mussel ioblasma ca sae ormis Endangered No Effect
Bunched arrowhead a ittaria asciculata _ Endangered No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant arracenia 'onesii - Endangered No Effect
Small-whorled o onia sotria medeoloides Threatened No Effect
Swam ink elonias bullata hreatened o Effect
[ftite irisette isyrinchium dichotomum Endangered o Effect
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."
T(S/A) 1- Threatened due to similarity of appearance 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. '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.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of tributary to
Catawba River 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 the temporary dewatering of Shaw Creek. 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). The NCDOT requests
that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages
2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two
copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Michael Turchy at maturchy(,dot.state. nc.us or
[phone].
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA TVA
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, DEO
W/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Vcrsion March 05
200113sr
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 ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, 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: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: 1598 Mail Service Center
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address: maturchy(a-)dot.state.nc.us
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:_
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
JUL ? 1 MP9 Page 1 of 8
DENR - , , :h ;uALITY
VJM AN1C ANl (?T(JRl.h•JATER RRAW
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.
Name of project: B-3663 Replacement of bridge no 320 carr nng SR 1212 over Shaw
Creek.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3663
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN)
N/A
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Hendersonville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.):
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35 20'05.20" ON 83 32'04.26" °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Shaw Creek
8. River Basin: French Broad
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Residential/ Agriculture
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replacement of bridge no 320 over Shaw Creek with a new, single span bridge on the current
alignment A temporary detour will be used to accommodate traffic as SR 1212 has no
outlet Earth moving equipment cranes etc will be used during construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace the functionally and structurally
obselete bridge.
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.
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Due to the close proximity to the
active railroad track 0.01 acre of fill is necessary to secure the streamback. A temporary
bridge (temporary impacts) are necessary as the road has no outlet and an on-site detour is
necessary.
Page 3 of 8
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of 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.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
es/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)
No Wetland Impacts

Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:None
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
indicate on ma
Stream Name
Type of Impact Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
linear feet Area of
Impact
acres
1 Shaw Creek Permanent Perennial 20-25' n/a 0.01
2 Shaw Creek Temporary Perennial 20-35' 67' 0.02

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 67 0.03
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acres
None

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
Page 4 of 8
6
List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project
Stream Impact (acres): 0.03
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.03
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 67
Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. 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): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
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
completely spans Shaw Creek.
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.
Page 5 of 8
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP 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/ncwetiands/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 Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for. the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0
Page 6 of 8
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. 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 ?
3. 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 ?
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", 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.
I Impact Required
Zone* c , I Multiplier I
1 I I 3 (2 for Catawba)
1 2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
Page 7 of 8
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. Impervious surface will not significantly
increase as a result of this project Water will be controlled off of the bridge deck and will not
fall directly into the stream NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be followed throughout
the construction of the project
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.
N/A
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 El No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ? No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
h!tp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. 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).

/t.,/a5
I Applicant/Agent's Signature I Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
BALFOUR
\ (UNINC.)
/ POP. 1,772
13 ? 14•
131 1312 2:'o5
i 3
?F., 2caE END OJECT 024 13l
2015 2015
h4a :
? 130
13
2205 20,E
q50
21 t' ?20J 13'-
2n-
,I
12 2C-5 -,?271
1 2111 12 , 1.D-?
Horsesho i 12 f `, 12 Mtn. 12
12 ; -, !'.°_?_ ,?L •: i 152
BEGIN PR ' EC sourHERN
y
T '121 t
AY.j
F
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
VICINITY PROJECT: 33208.1.1 (B-3663)
MAPS BRIDGE N0.320 ON SR 1212
(OLD HOMESTEAD ROAD)
OVER SHAW CREEK
SHEET I OF (D 4/14/04
NORTH CAROLINA

f S/

U

i
O
a
z
w

U

z

O
H
>
A

s
O

? M
W U
A W
w ~'
x ?:
A.

A

?F
M w
z 0
x
C7
A A
go

U

a
x

?

O O
O
O

\?
(y

,
w
x
ca
F ?

u F"

M
ti??y
??Os
a',Oy
?OH ? W
? ? \bys ? ? U

a
z ?
z
v
F
U
W
LIJ

a
J
O
a
H
D
O
00+0/ O
Z q

-1 # ? Ih _ t'4?? I ??' ???.?.4 `~`? ??• 1 ?? r fh.`4 rFr / ! i
rr 3 /1 fl ++, l? •?- , ?.? V.r ? (?? YY ?.-?r-??.r- 'r ?', --,JI '.h+'--_- ? ??r ,1?
d r }ry r
w
!d"r M r ./1 r
ID a
i
f JO rr' q? . 1 _ 41
? \ y y1+ ? ,-+r 1 '' 1 y ! ,ry-r tN/`r'+`?y
4?` .?; ° I I rr } r r
4
'+
jo k 4. N. ! ftit i -tiv.- T - t f
llJ"'
.,;
fr # (.?
471
r ? rte,{` iM ? ??' !P
v.
N CD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
®P®
PROJECT: 33208.1.1 (B-3663)
BRIDGE N0.320 ON SR 1212
MAP (OLD HOMESTEAD ROAD)
OVER SHAW CREEK
SC ALI 199 _ 10009 SHEET 3 OF 4/14/03,
a ?..\; .o o a o o
n Nz ° N N N N
_ 3 z
a` ? I 1 .= I I ; ? ? I
f
?
? %?.\ aoa ;. •
`
r
i•'
• I
I II ? :
I f !' 1 I j ''
' I 1
! l: i
,
?
l.?
I I
::. bL880 3.
!
- O
O
G? ?$ -¢zn,. _. .,.'. '.
, i ,::, `I
1 : ? _::I'll 'i:: I .,.;
i .
, 1. ,. q
. -
-
3'
° Ly ?q \'.
?? h? ,? .
I I { .L
I I
P { , ..I
! i I L. i
L f I t h t!!17
?' H0110 d ON ,Q
r
:,?
\ -?? ?I _ I+ 11 ?,. AZ
I 6021
7 I
1 I I 1 I I I-
'i Zi=173

?
ow
0 5
Jz
?JN \+g - ?
°
I !?
:?
? I j I
I
aV'!/9'ON
.I I
I
1 t I' .

> 8
3 z8 x
_ .
1
.eJa ?fl
Z??m \
-0•- «
Q ?
:
i• ?
I I

, i! .4
?.

I

-guv
.
Gy
w
o ?
_
.J I
/ ?_
??\\`s
0 o
Nm \
??
`

{

I I
?
I

I

I II

I I II'.:
I
/

} I
'; !
I
I I
°
. n
o
fi
\y?
CJ
?

II'.I I
II

I'

I

I L:

I' I. 1'

I
I
I

1

i i I I li. I

.
V,

I

O

, I
41

I

t

_

?

r)
E
J? '...
r
o
? ?
fLI
I
I I
I
t
?
O?
I IEi
p.. Lam.
?
p
aQ7
?
? _"I ' ! l i I.t' ? CY .
f.f;

W

? o
•```??`??-. "... f /• WU
bs` /. \' c
.
j
`
?\ '``

`
?

'

i

I

i

I

?

,

I

11W

1

?co;

?

?
,
.
Z
i
. -•-•. r^
?1
`?
I

I I l

I'

I.
I

I r

'

L_I
I
I.
I
O

+
,

w r
?° FIiiE '? 1:, Inca ° -s 'Qs.
Z ? ?y1 f Z d'9? `-
?zL°? ?M c ---
y 7
E I

?

? I

..= l

1

':I I I I I j

I I I I ', I I' 1
m °
o'--- o
o,
... ...
,,,, I
I

1 I I I l i I `
M,, `

I 6?r 7,OZ C30-
t

I
y?'tir.. \
8 coy, ?/? ?; ?w•=: "'. Zw3°1

«((???? i.

l . 1

?

?

69'
11

Z j.=V.7 V ,

I
(

i / I

f I.,. I.. ,

. I. :. .I w

Q +
z? (Q.

t
}
I _
} -I I,• (

( d619tON

I'
I I: f ! ! I ?l ? • j
°m w ''
I, . I`
o
° n j :. )
' 11 1
{? _ I i!1 I ?
J -, i ?I *
p ..n QI ...
nl.
J t I- + N
U ?L U i :. I II f? V, O
+

\L v 1

.
$' ??? ° u

i1 C13
¢?OCr3

h a o* o

1
I

l
I

,
tt ?II:t V-1
I.?.

.
Q

.
I

Vi
i

1;,
•' I
, 1??__ _,
W II, on__ z
Q VP U) N N u7 tn? N 4
!'
I Ri
l! Q j. ?
Q._I l f
a ..
.
'? ?°° ;
' ?'
Ij SrWwW ¢
• q II 11 II 11 II 11 11 :.iO?
4 \

v h? W? \ 1
-
F.

' `

-

,

'I

I

o
I ..
.-
1 ql W

` V

02V'`O
U 2 G'

w

1

ll..: I HN

I'

IIf
Il . .

jlll
,ll I: I

'
f 1

m

.IN L

'

O CL
p

ti
\
-_
1 f 1 1 ...
O
1 JJJ"' , !?
o 1= - -.i J .
vt -
~ ? ? ¢W --Q 41 UL 4W L.1g9A It-' I t..,:I I +

"""`?,,

? wa?11rVU_i c? c?

S? -a-
?
i , 30
'84,91 NI 3

?
{

i
\ 1
,?. ?, ; I w w o
a. w 4 I 1 . I • , "
- , J I . .

?
W
?
i
I
m?
t? 3? ua .\ w?`s \
• Wr IW =? W
W
???W
ooooggbb? I ! ' I I o
Q r
•
I o
u
fl
W°

.? Z
~
?y\

,\
N
•
:r

1. \ Y
r!

i

1. 1 1 M

I (V

- r O

I I O I ;O
O
O _ O

f\ O

p O

° I

, r
ZZ
~° LL 'r 1
-°
Z
M1
+
?
•
.
\?? .. •.
I
k g

Ji ,.,

?,

w i <

°

J-.

1

N

1

N
-.1 I

I'

1 ?I N -

I' CV

jII} I6.,
I

I N

_ 1

i

j,tV N

N

N

.~ _. '
. i
? h
w
- :c o
O
l
I
' tI
r
:: ':I O
t t_..L
I O O
O
O
?, ti?dMi •
IIIfSZ
a')0e1?us,t•. ? ? ?`- i+ IA.
fl ° o I C)
N o
S. Cy !o
I I 'N ;

.? a v ? xo i
`
?
•? \? k `?
I " Ln 'I
? N
? O ?
-F Q O
i ' ' I
' ? (.: I ' 1
I I I . j : , I I
-:.
t I
angy. ul
O
Q ";NCN?vNg?iN I„ 6/L8 Z = 73
?$ rr
+-
Z 11 II 11 11 II' II II. II 11 i LZ Sl- -7-
.
8
\ F. , 11
d
y " g ?'`
rt
\ M'99( Z _ 73 -
? ;
\
? 4
v 2
I I
I
i?
'
I
00,00

/- +
?
/

k
° w < Z) c

Q
f~ C7 O 2
? ~ 0 1 _
f I -'

t ,
I
t
{ I I-_ I I I l i ?_
1?/ ; ?ah

l
l dS d

K
k a? /
? ??
? b
Q f^
W j U W W W W
'in I
w!,'. i
i I I 1 I, I 1 I I I I

'
r ¢ vI S
t 1
k /
o
t \N OW`a O 2 ? U C7 U

LLJ
W ??? O?•?t
!?
Q-
Q
I1 I,
1 N01.

I
I
Qjtl' NO

?
I I
;ON3{:! I I Ii

I I 1
I:
?
?
\'
I! L.
ZZt ....
.. ..
.
) .
Ibf680'2 1
O
I
\
Z
x
?????ErEr
I
090014
9
°
Oi
:
W WO g ? ?
QN3
,a

-------
-. - ou o`Z?s3?ew o,° z z, us
., ce
?-?•: - .. c- ¢ -8 if) ' f ( 'v I t 411 I? 11 j v1
o

ZNZ E3 0 4 •i i; '

x ?"

fi=x . "

}
oo l
'

2` '-9

4

I I.

nI:I
JI'

7 la_7 I-q

'? ?. II

I

i
C,

r
?
CD

O
M
• , . - I ? s f

1 ?O W a (Z tt
L'i

V, 41 ,
,

I r 130

t!9 193

'

Ir

? -.II U .,1 IV.1?• lq+el. -7 1

-
-- ---_
__,`y?•,.',
-?._"?r.:.Jw` - ' .. ?,p _ • , Cl) N

L•IW
?
t
o di
ti
x

I
:: i 1

.:

,

i
-
I f co

I:Q o
1 I - 1 I : N N
r

,Q1
V-

a

cC

J

a
,

a?
?

O
i

• n.(? - _ Vii`
II
i `I
`` WF
-
C
N'n in??U
o
J
a W o
hii I
I
t J
0580'
173i? Iu:?n
:1..
U 1

ci
l
O N
II
N
r-
?y 4
.
f f" 1 Z e • II
W
1
-i r x w
m L

!' 3?7Va9 a
- w?
N1939r
Yi I l
a
?; 1
a
?, f
f v< `
Jjd
IL t a?x 1 1 ?vtiWo f ?. I.
' I I
( Q:
' l- w
V qi?
od1
W l W o?G ?
, I I o
INO
na1SN0
4 N1939i.I It
N ? a
" e 1

,,,•
cl?
< r
¢ J ?Ib

Q
$L
p? oW
Qj?m ?,O

c„
?
Zj?
'

I
,
11.

I I
( 11
I I:I; ,..

W
IL
ZWa-Q u .
IN
pu>'.po

O
W

:=. 11_ SU

•,R •
?
s ?'

<7•
?u?1jr?F-¢??
N

I

m

.1

I'l 'I!'

C

nh

+
-u Q

d V- ?
cr: _ W
- '
??? _ .. '}
v1 W
Q
C9 w
w
? 11 O 0 a?
N

l I

: 1- !: I

I (. .?-:I

1 I ? : j t

U?
v? ?.
? n n u u

u II u u u

u
?
?Llj
_Z WV)
J Ul=
?Q W ??
?V.??n:."a «

m w
p_W fi:z
N `rb ¢O
NW

::

I
I.t I l
I'I_',
??
2

W.t
Q WQ

,
QL lj
W

N
`IL F-J

s O_

-? Zu 11 II..... f =c

°
W Q?h? i a a
J
I; o x V a++
•
-
°
O 4J
O
?i rn •? V)

N ?N

I i
I

' ! I ..1 I

I ' I.I

I WU

N WU?UW

I^ q3 O t?c?c?
j OW

/.- o

a O

+
_

Lcn W
O
.I
,u• , y
S
1
d `±

...
o- .? h
m
m
W
Ln J
`wN
1 aW
.I
I

j

j

'

i
I
ic?
wok w
222 Q
c
aa? ti
wh ti

OO
w
?a

0
\

?\•.', w
?m? JN,•i .s, n.
?r?,?m a, LLJ gy
I ;?
°F-
'?
? I
• II J W 2
QIZ?W?
. . I: , ''T 2c?
9u L

0oo4? a.
C W
WWW
aaa o WO

a
• ?
? .+
+ Ca: . ,......I ....L ,...1_1 ----
? V
1
?,`"
Y•
?nL 1Ln
<
la u
_N W it 1^

3 e
I"
?

0
('7

Q
CN

I 0

Q

I '
01 00

:.

0
J
II
if
n 11 a
;
n
^
o

O

?

O
44 N ct? N N s CV N N N

bb/LI/B I I 'ru• •u'0i

J
00 o
O
I O

I
O
i po I
p
O?
O O
10

N

N ?
<< Z Z

a

$
O
s

?' E
N
Q? N 4=?

I

?

r

?

{

1__

If

I

(

j

1

II

1

-

Ii
1

t

?(' I f

L,
I'
,bL"9801
r

) I1I

x-1.73

l

o

0

w (7
\ ° o Y? } I {
1 I ,
1° I
i , I
;i
. i Ili
I. I `HD1J0 d
1.,. ON3

.

'
M { i I I 8 . 6
(7L
N1
I 1
C
1
:IAI99
Z.

0
N `

M
4p
¢?,? \s\\ ??p u?Q` . lJ N r. :,.. 1 I 1 r 1 I 1 I i O
- I -

?
•
j,.
t

??

.

1

o
'? I
[{ II-.? II j 1 I L. ?..I r
t ? ?
i I 1 I •
i
?' 1 a awm ?``?. 1 r , I I ° o f i
?? I1 I I i I I'

C
?r
J
?
s
I J {
:
I
I
'
L:
r
t vW
x
o
1 I
• I o
0
,
1
;
Z
?
\ _ , ? l 0. ---- --- +
[??
5?
^
-p
' ?
/.
o?`?
---
II
`?.•
?
?OU
?
1 i ll I I.` Ii I? II I I' i I.I• I I ?-. 1'`? U v
4
y
`?
?
"•'?
1
?'?t:
"?" u
?ij
i i
iY
'' 11 tt
\ o- o??
t: 'd °oV- /
?

.

111

1-

}

I

I

j.[:

I ?

1 1::

11

1 .1

1 I

I ! '

' I I

_

LI . a
s`
? o
,
? '? I .. I 1
??\
..... ......?
„""'.',•..
?r?
'? ZLo ?3' a?¢?
%
"
°
ro.CC ??a It
t:
.
I i
. Il.l`?
F596 ?QZI.
l +wa30- ( l I:
! I.
4 I I i.

i I

ELI O

O
,
OOfS/ S ZW3
?SW? ?_-?? -$ a

`
l
:

+

It ?b9'

0?;;=11' I

I

j

;
w
A
+

cl)
? ? `
<?
?
?? { i . ..: f. : I I
z,
,
??o ;: ?? ?
?
?
? /
?----,.' i =" . 1. I
- b
i ? N
Q?t { , I I?tl }
11i ( I
I ,?
II I
:? i I I i
co?
•
J ,
w Wo'?ca
W F3 a W``` \ O.°oN

? N V1 In V1 vi Vl
It
1
, IN
O
O
+
t<L ?
` _ N h
Q w lf 1 11 l I I I {. I I, I. o I J
\ r i
\ i , ?° Z
?'
W W Q VP to tp N N v1 t? N i r l i ( ? a r r
? I Q I .? LIZ.:
oo I
±/: ,,7 : ¢
1 aS?? It it II It II A II 11 I . :
-•titi \? ?''??? '

\ 1
?i w tv I 1 '

? 1 . °o.

Jti ? to 2 ?i W 2

U ?? V' O I I

I

??l

?? 11?
( "1 + ; I
I
`1,
??
1
}' l ? I
a?
,
`> Oi ' i i •
ii ? ,
ti
„

j.

: ,
lJ
, -?
o
Q~ 1??¢O
LLJ R I

I !

I' ?

11-

I. .

I?w .
.
.
.11
'Iplll;? .
N
`
W
.

O
L -
LJ

Lu Low 9t 01
CL (L
2
3U)
' 0 1
1/0

'

---

-
Z

C)
W\ '

\
a
?
1
$ I

i
c

0
All
x??o

aV) (O'nlOnggW
W
W

.'

I.? I I

+
¢ z.
ca\ ?
?
> O
O o

V0 L° ••Z
3 0

~

d

r
M

I
10
i
I? +
O
_
•,
o _ l
Cz+9 °
±

\
`t X

L I
i

N

I

i
r

I
_
1
I

I

N

?

L
i
I o

L
' Ili CD

I
0
C

i
'
. + € ?j :: N
I .:
i t - : N N N .
•.i..
N

1

I O •(

^l ?j

.( I b

O

I i'

}

] o ?: 1

1
1

l l:? O
i. o

_ o I o

f + f
0 0

F I..? co
- 0. 0
0 0 10

,...
,1

' , 4 •1.??N1?8k?

? g? u ``? I
Q I L.I ... - .I:: , .L.. I ry ;: ( I1 N 1 _ N
i I ifl 1.?. N
I , ! I • N
: I
N
i
1

o
' Z ? O N
°
;?
°
rn to N (? I I I 1
t l i
l'
I t : I
' I 1 1
``
won ?o
0
z.
1?, $ X
\ / 1 Ql * l4 I '- 1 I ,
1
I
;

_ ''
om
O°?
>V ,?~

X

?•

N C N N N
Q
11 u it n 11 u g n x

!

1

I

I

I

.1

1 I II- I

.:I .6rL9

.. 00'LZ z 73

! 7-

,
, ? • C? I I t? : 1 al ti 1 1l I N. o
y
N - X

? \
2 trj 4J
i
-I

AI
1 '+ -co

?? `Jtl y

G'

73

+
: ?nI O
?U x Ot o f - ! ?-i 1I ll?
/
?
_°7k L?
?? ??¢axQ 1'` ' 1
I I
- I }
i I
?
? t
I I' 1!l?NJ d5/d
NX \A\ k to

k a3
rv
/ b ¢WU¢????

M6L WOW Iw

Iw X '

! -

a 1 : f T

I:I ; . .l
I, I I:, }
t :I 11.
\ ?. 1N1'N?
X k
\ <d
W W O V w
W x g 2 2 1' N 01 1
Onb1SN0 I ON3.
I I,
11. I I

lu l \ _??
W W O ?Oo ?o
ztzt
z
{
I
t
?:
?er so
?l i
y?'

I I ,
Z
\ ?
????? , 1 o
,.,.,, \
'

4 x
o 8 g
o o a
i 1 I

!
I a
I 13I7v

?
,ON3 ' g
I i.: j -
..Q-

_

v
-
???_/ s
r rob, Ur)!s]
tls 1:T _ I :.:.,1. It 1: I:.$
p? i
It
nAy e70 7,21
-- =,:: .L•.•.?.'__ ?
? f

o$

O

•

T

?

1 tN

-•
1 t

m

1
-
-
?`
¢ r i *
N r_ ,
: I I,I;._ I 1 W
I ,
.

sue; ° 1 R / i s

a
1 zvm os1
?s? h O
U

? 0 W
? N2

a?
[?
?? o
1(?0

of
1._-

I t r j i
1 I I

II .I..ti w
1.?. ?c+ Q
I C:(,* i .i
1 rl`

I i.,
1 `?

(", a. I
?. I

n
?

1}
' o
O

..
- ,
N

` • I y
Ol .' w
vl y
I O
V)l?J
II ?(r.W?l
`
_
{ 1
(N t 11
II.-?1 i_
II1 1 jil
! i l
`
1 111.
:Ili I

t .I„

I 1
`
'
r
• •. ?/
1? t,? -?J ?1. ?\
?n?
A:,'? `.+\ m- y •. I
11
j i 8 fib:
R>R '?
oo O 1
?
l¢7
OW ??oOW
01
z f
-( h(I_-
V?. l
lJlj3 .
I
I I I'-1 I
. i _
jli,
.. ... I
rv

,Z

Yo 11 W
W ti

ova I x?
o Ln
7i o U

Ili ,?
L 1

_I II
L

!0 ON
N
t

.l ?..

$"I
1 ...

.
t

P ,i rs°'' ti

o
-
1 1
W
is- *j W ((
W o? Nv7
?? I
,... -
?
t l I..I
o
1 1 I^
1:.IQ
1 .lomrn
.:.iN4N
^
-j
J)
'aq
a (r- Cc
O
O
FI?pl7 r
O?`?`??- -
•
?
)
- N14) I NaCrU?Q 11
7
:I 1 I :i 1-?. I ror6ao (l731 _
1

I i?liJV

tII?N

01
Ol
t.
O.N

N
f,
•
?• `fir B
-??' 1 n
f„J' -_ F:r c?:m i g • 11 J 1 2 W W O
¢i ,, Z :t

C] 2 I I fD U I_ (l O
I

I
I

:.I f

.

+
I -
)30V?f
1
I I
N10391

I' 1 ?: +

f
W>

-? 1 . i :
>c, W J

{ I,
o

F-
, 1
o JW

h
1 1 _'j r=1 I I I i 1 I I" ! i
$ ova ?` : W W = I o ' NOI

I ndiSN0

,..
.
fN19,39
!f{
{
I

.,?.

W
^

t:
3Ua?..
I?
E,a 1z N
Iz
L?
co L" . 1 1 ?-1' I
I J
t
:
I
I I c
c?? R
$
¢ S j
a
A'7r
?
.
°
I
.
.
.
11
11
?o
N
+
w
:Z(' U Ci
? 0?71NIr¢? .-1 xl l_I._. I I I i '' Rm - v ,$
N N ??
N
N

rJ
W o Q

_J 1- Q_ li
..Jd ??w •
1
"7 h -
v1?vl
P 1n 11 LZ LL 11 C9 w
I Q O
OW xN LLJ

1

l

I I •.. 1

?

I :•I I

'

V Q

Y N p N II z

11 M II II II

II

3 w???
(
??
a
At <8
f
I
N
?
2 xw 2; 2
0wb0
.
S
.-' Vl-
w
`tI
??. NID ?
orlN`W
11 It
it
h ??
oc^°•,M

°
^o,,o

m p?(•
II O?NQ:2 LLB
Cvm? O9
°N
WO
'

I

-

'
?0
?E
1
tiu
U,:j

U
>>a2?R
?

W
W

i

^

O
J
I
Lt.
?
s
` O J
`-
? Z

I p
p
d O ?
_ C;

S
I`
?
oC

c
{o
°
a
u I? o K

do in \
0pp??? +

??V?j lp?

II I Z!
l I,

I I. I I
t

I-I I

I I I i
1
I
?1

t N
¢=WWH
p
¢0?
3
8VC
?
zZZ v
a44 2
Ott

o
+
_
li
l1)
'm
co
v
-? -
a a
_ _
+ y
.- i W

m
X

-
-+ N

W ,n J `• W
1 W1?N

• II J2W2

,
_-?I

I

1

1 1 I

I
, -

I

I
?

t
m

w
xx?

xUU

?

a 4 a 4

o o
o
?o

i
W
Q R a

W

ti

O

O

•-

am•
Q
3
?
-<
..
n Q
+
4) f W
mz 1 CII_UVI

1
'.
I

,. L. I

.f
In t,l vl

o?o8
I?
W
W W
aaa a
8

Q
+
I i t o
o to I O
?t t o
f? o
N o o
O o ?
i\ ? II t' 11 't it ?
Y n .
` I
n
44 .-
1 N I
N
N O
N O
N O
N O
N

.su• vu.w
>b/L[/8 I I
E

? N N •'` O
? ? V V
Z ? 0
cn N p?

N cx
w u E
LL
i
a Zo c3
`
N
O
N
O
E C
° O O

F-
U) -
U) -0
C U
C O cJ O

Ll..
Q
(n E
C = U
t
? O O
O
p
Zv O
iT

Cr)
N

I' L N y O
U?

L
L ^
.
.
W c
° cc
ra

CL
-
U
> y m
O
U
w c

N
D
jj
C
.
O
^^
1L d
? O
y
y
C

Q N
C
CC
N C)
_
O
>

LL)
W o ?

m
m O
CL
O J
L7 2
W
H
U
? m O
w
a
_
N O U
U

O N
?
V
C)
_ F
c O J w
O O D
f0 O O+ O
LL f2 +
M

• N
J
47 O ..- N i¢-
(n Z
H
PIR(OPER"FY. TOWNIE RS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
NORFOLK SOUTHERN 99 SPRING ST. S.N.
1
RAILWAY ATLANT.-?L, GA 30303
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33208.1.1 (B-3663)
BRIDGE NO.320 ON SR 1212
(OLD HO.IESTEAD ROAD)
OVER SHAW CREEK
SHEET OF fop 4114104
G Z
9g g
M r^r
C C4 N
r
C'l
y[q
t 0000
N N aO /
" G
M r) C.) LLJ
09
CL.
04
{- \
N I I \`\ \ W r
7 m
P-? u - a0
b CI!] c+ On
in 0
Uzi 4
cn \...
10
10
N ?..
I \
-
90 o^
o
® [t? C-01 in Z a.
+ i ©4
F4 o1.
C4
r Z
U^V
UIL
0 CL
O
m
,°? W z ll 1 \\W9
4
P,.N•{ -
?> rf
h Z /
O - W
46
g? Nei °s
O d,
N wccl d
• IV
of
tOH
Ox ??
?O

W

? a

O
"
N
a{ W
? a
4 Z ?

z
<" ..1 [>]
b W; ``o
8 ¦
.; LL

z
1 o
c?
{. ?
u a LU QQ
c?

Z
IN .4o
r ?Ln
e

W
J
?
<
Q
LO
0
0 0 0
u n u

U
?4
o

uj
o
a
G
O o

;
F F a

3 ~

owe ?i'{ Z

Z
? z
9 o
o
$
3
L
? N
P
Q o? 0MC4
C4
n n u n n u n
y oo?Orr-moo
W C4 N O U
Q c
? p

U.
O O p
H

'" LU
H
IL. w
U.
W O
K ? d
a

W) r
E99E-C7 ?JL????88d1 ?I1L L611O#L7f'T% ?.ILu1Ny1L1voo
J

al-I I?'
OW
m
fl
W
• LJ \y'?ZIS
y1y'yy OV"*sr
i?
r ?
?U'rri
U.
n•5
m
O2
O?? ?a
1 v
Id C?
x
i?
J
r?
4
•
?.
yx? ? 4\
O
r `
z?*
:?
I

a
?7 rr
i
I
V ep? ?I
•I , 1 N
^I 1
I of
` ? I s
? y
I
1
I
I
J

d ?

R?3

3513i1r?S. - -v
b

4 0
f? W
?
?
W
3
3
? ? 0«
3x5
m 2vWI

1
1 cc,
W

`` .(
Ole
x5
N
k
1
71
r-a
p
?I I F
i
OQ ?? V1n
1 4 1 4 4 1 II 11 1
C-) 4
aM
aW?"?xW?aW
W xW1??.==-ce
WW
??owv$?aaa
/k \ N;V'04??'r S Q 1 N 1 N N 1 4 u 1
k/ ?
e6s
..r aw xwwaW
gar wl`ax?4oc?5o
????g?aaa
oe a31s3nnv o:, a,-?' .
o ? n {,
Cc? C?
i

V? a n a 1 1
I ?4o.Ihcc O O d d
? 1?

8
1 as +
lit
RAM
J
?
+
to IA
g
o a a a 1
4o.lti?
O

.
I
I

D O O 8
J? w
??
6? ? 8^ d ? ? d ??? d gV
a€ ff' "
rsf ?8
+
? a ?
Ci I h "
? ??
0
? ?
{?Q
rs FS c
j+
r
I-
i .

I "',
g

t
J $ NSA •
YI ? a.y S I
? bl
h
oa 4 4 4o
3
w
tlN b, 4 b
a ? wioN
o n W
a 1 V1?1 &??1????.
QO..Ih?6(? $ N * ? y. W t
Wh
N 1 ? a ? V
^. . ? ?, ?Z 1 J80 C1h11
0
?O??WMOO 1 0 ?-`
In a 1 1 1 1 ??jj 1VV Q?? Q4J ? p?
?QO?Ih cc
C51/1 X2 ?y?W1 jIC
t:z
4
Tu ZNw
R 4 ?9
vv4 p N ? W
Zz4a.ll,xcSvg ° * 2
W?IaWWI
?Q 1 Ia?
^14N ?2 I?dO?{i?
b`aQC?
a o
40.1???O3i c
cjQ] II 1 a a a 1 t 14 1
tj
m? ??????CC¢ W W6
°' ????$$aaa ? 3?
c
c
V
r
c
c
u
r
c
r
H t
A
llp,
c
c
c
r
c
C
C
C
r
C
C
V
r
c
r
C
C
r
N
c
c
-I
C
C
c
C
C
$3hi11 4

Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
01- 1 C_ 03 n6 • tam'
DATE ?regory J. T orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE Donald J. Voelker
Acting Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
OF Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
P-VH.CAgo
?.QOF .SS/oy.
:•Q ?:?' o/ YllgRao
Clifton T. Register, PE 2% X392 % Date
Project Manager'
onow .R
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(:?L 0-
Jo Wadsworth, PE
Pr ect Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) ?C.
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek ?.,
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Pe t
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Condi '
NCDOT's Ines f agement Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, esign
tandards for Sensitive Watersheds est Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Re ,
ner ns, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 320
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 Unit/ Division Construction:
Access to the fire departments draft point will be provided.
o`2' A
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet
January 2003
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 320 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 bridge 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. 320 has a sufficiency rating of
39.6 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. Bridge No. 320 is considered structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more
efficient traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 320 is located on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaw Creek in Henderson County
approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) southeast of the community of Horseshoe. Henderson County
is a trout county; however, Shaw Creek is not a designated trout stream.
SR 1212 is classified as Rural Local. Land use in the project area consists of isolated residences, limited
agricultural properties, and a railroad corridor that extends parallel with Shaw Creek. Development is
somewhat restricted by the severe terrain. SR 1212 is a two-lane facility that serves local traffic and
terminates in heavily wooded, mountainous terrain.
The existing bridge is a single-span structure with an overall length of 41 feet (12.5 meters) and a clear
roadway width of 19.1 feet (5.8 meters). It was constructed in 1961. The bridge consists of a timber
deck, steel I-beams, and timber piles, caps, and abutments. Bridge No. 320 has a posted weight limit of
ten tons (10.16 metric tons) for single vehicle (S V) and 1.3 tons (13.2 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi
trailer (TTST).
The approach roadway consists of two lanes with a clear roadway width of 18 feet (5.5 meters). Just to
the south of the bridge there is a railroad track that parallels Shaw Creek and crosses SR 1212 at a skew
of approximately 119-degrees. Approximately 340 feet (104 meters) south of Bridge No. 320, SR 1212
is on curve with a radius of approximately 120 feet (37 meters). Approximately 200 feet (61 meters) to
the north of Bridge No. 320 SR 1212 is on a curve with a radius of approximately 255 feet (78 meters).
The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) [40 kilometers per hour (km/h)].
An overhead power line is located on the upstream (east) side of the existing bridge. Telephone poles
are approximately 100 feet (30 meters) north of the bridge. It is anticipated that the utility impacts will
be minimal.
The bridge replacement will involve an existing at grade railroad crossing located approximately 20 feet
(six meters) south of the existing bridge. This portion of railroad is owned by Norfolk Southern
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 1
Railways and is part of their TR-line that runs from Hendersonville to Brevard. One train per day passes
over this crossing and it is protected by railroad crossbucks.
There is a gravel area adjacent to the northeast side of the bridge. This is a fire department draft point,
which allows water to be drawn from Shaw Creek in the event of a fire in the vicinity.
The 2002 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 210 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
ADT is 300 vpd by the design year 2025. The percentages of truck traffic are two percent DUALS and
one percent TTST.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 320 during the period from July 1, 1997 to June
31, 2001.
This section of SR 1212 in Henderson County is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in
the T.I.P. as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
The Henderson County Public School was notified by a scoping letter and a request for the number of
buses crossing Bridge No. 320 on a daily basis. Two buses cross Bridge No. 320 twice per day.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 320 will
be a reinforced concrete box culvert with three (3) barrels at 8 feet (2.4 meters) by 8 feet (2.4 meters)
and approximately 53 feet (16.2 meters) in length. The culvert will be buried 1-foot (0.3 meters) below
the streambed to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. The
length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined, by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during
the final design phase of the project.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 9-foot (2.7-meter) travel lanes and 2-foot (0.6
meter) turf shoulders (See Figure 3). The proposed grade will be approximately the same as the existing
roadway.
Railroad crossing signals will be provided to address safety concerns at the crossing.
Access to the fire departments draft point will be provided.
B. Build Alternatives
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel culvert on the existing alignment.
Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour located west (downstream) of the existing bridge. The
detour structure will consist of three 72-inch (1800-millimeter) corrugated metal pipes (CMP)
approximately 52 feet (15.8 meters) in length. The on-site detour approaches will consist of two 9-foot
travel lanes (2.7 meters) 2-foot (0.6 meter) turf shoulders. The total length of Alternate A is
approximately 315 feet (96 meters).
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 2
Alternate B replaces Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel culvert on new alignment west (downstream)
of the existing structure. The new alignment will be on approximately a 636-foot (110-meter) radius
curve. Traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structure during construction. The total
length of Alternate B is approximately 885 feet (269.7 meters).
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative because of the impact to existing farmlands.
Alternate C replaces Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel culvert on new alignment east (upstream) of
the existing structure. The north approach will be on approximately a 636-foot (194-meter) radius
curve. The south approach, will tie-in to an existing compound curve. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing roadway and structure during construction. The total length of Alternate C is approximately
1,195 feet (364 meters).
Alternative C will require a design exception for horizontal curvature. This alternative also has greater
impacts to local residential properties.
Alternate D replaces Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel culvert on new alignment west (downstream)
and parallel to the existing structure. The south approach, will tie-in to an existing compound curve.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing roadway and structure during construction.
Alternative D was not selected as the preferred alternative due to the impact to the existing farmland.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and closure of
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road). This is not desirable due to the service provided by SR 1212.
Investigation of the'existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that this bridge can not
be rehabilitated due to the timber substructure and inadequate load capacity.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A was selected as the preferred alternative because of the following reasons:
¦ minimization of approach work,
¦ lessens impacts to potential environmental and archaeological resources,
¦ and minimizes impacts to residential properties and farmland.
The Division Construction Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
A design exception is not anticipated for this project.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 3
IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
Alternative A
referred Alternate B Alternate C Alternate D
S(Existin) $ 6,400 $ 6,400 $ 6,400 $ 6,400
cture Proposed 90,300 74,200 74,200 93,000
roaches 181,050 286,900 . 349,400 251,800
ur Structure 22,500 0 0 0
Temp. ur Approaches 160,500 0 0 0
us and Mobilization 179,250 165,500 194,000 128,800
Engineering Contingencies
LEnee 110,000 92,000 101,000 70,000
t. Easements/Utilities 77,000 60,000 112,000 69 ,000
TOTAL $827,000.00 $685,000.00 $837,000.00 $619,000.00
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program is
$300,000, including $25,000 for right-of-way and $275,000 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 (Horse Shoe, N.C. 7.5 minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory mapping (NWI)
(Horse Shoe, N.C. 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), soils
mapping (SCS 1980), and recent aerial photography.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by N.C. 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 (Kartesz 1998). 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; and 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 (May 31, 2002) was reviewed prior to generation of this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing field
investigations.

B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 4
The site was visited on January 23, 2001. The project corridor was walked and visually surveyed for
significant features. Actual impacts will be limited to cut-fill boundaries and are expected to be less
than those shown for the project corridor. Special concerns evaluated in the field include:
1) potential protected species habitat and
2) wetlands and water quality protection in Shaw Creek.
B. Physiography and Soils
Hendersonville and its surrounding area are underlain by the Chauga Belt geologic formation located
immediately east of the Brevard fault zone. Area soils are underlain by intrusive rocks, which were
formed approximately 524 million years ago. These rocks consist of Gneiss and Monzonite, which
generally weather to form acidic soils. The Chauga Belt is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic
province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized by moderately to steeply sloping terrain with
narrow floodplains along drainage ways. The project corridor is located within a relatively level, narrow
floodplain valley surrounded by steep valley walls. Elevations in the project corridor range from a high
of approximately 2120 feet (646 meters) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) along slopes to the
north of Shaw Creek, to a low of approximately 2070 feet (630.1 meters) NGVD within the stream
channel.
Based on NRCS soil mapping for Henderson County (SCS 1980), the project corridor is underlain by
three separate soil series: Codorus loam (Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts), Tate fine sandy loam (Typic
Hapludults), and Elsinboro loam (Typic Hapludults). The majority of the project corridor is composed
of the Shaw Creek floodplain, which is mapped as the Codorus Series. A small section south of the
floodplain along steeper slopes (seven to 15 percent), is mapped as the Tate Series. Slightly rising
slopes north of the floodplain (zero to three percent) are mapped as the Elsinboro series.
The Codorus series is characterized as a moderately well to somewhat poorly drained soil with moderate
permeability, which typically occurs in slight depressions within floodplains. This area is subject to
frequent flooding events associated with Shaw Creek. The Codorus series is considered non-hydric but
having inclusions of hydric soils in depressional areas within the floodplain. Typical depressional areas
may contain the Toxaway series or Hatboro series; both are listed as hydric soils for Henderson County
(NRCS 1997). Field investigations concluded that no hydric inclusions or depressional features are
located within the project corridor.
The Tate series is described as a well drained, moderately permeable soil typically found along smooth
foot slopes and lower coves. This soil was mapped along the steeper slopes to the south of the Shaw
Creek floodplain where flooding is not a concern. This soil series is considered non-hydric for
Henderson County (MRCS 1997).
The Elsinboro series is described as a well-drained and moderately permeable soil. The Elsinboro series
is typically found on low stream terraces. This soil was mapped within the residential areas surrounding
the floodplain of Shaw Creek and is commonly used for development purposes. Flooding occurs much
less frequently in this soil series. This series is considered non-hydric for Henderson County (NRCS
1997).
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 5
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The project corridor is located within sub-basin 04-03-02 of the French Broad River Basin (DWQ
2000a). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 06010105 of the Tennessee Region (Region 06).
Structures targeted for replacement span the open water stream associated with Shaw Creek. There
is no direct involvement of additional streams or tributaries. This section of Shaw Creek has been
assigned Stream Index Number 6-50 by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2000b).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Shaw Creek is a well-defined, high order, perennial stream with moderate flow over sand, gravel,
and cobble substrate. The Shaw Creek contains a wide, flat floodplain encompassed by steep valley
slopes. Several low order, intermittent headwater streams drain to Shaw Creek from the adjacent
side slopes. Shaw Creek, at the Bridge No. 320, is characterized by a drainage basin encompassing
4.4 square miles (11.4 square kilometers). Within the project corridor, Shaw Creek appears to have
been straightened and entrenched. Bank-to-bank width averages approximately 25.0 feet (six
meters) wide while bank height averages approximately six feet (1.8 meters) above current water
levels. During field investigations, water clarity was good, flow velocity was moderate, and water
depth was approximately five to 14 inches (13 to 36 centimeters). Shaw Creek has very low
sinuosity but has a well-defined riffle pool structure. Stream banks have been stabilized by the
growth of a thick shrub riparian zone.
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 WS-IV has been assigned to Shaw Creek. The designation WS-IV denotes waters
protected as water supplies, which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds.
Specific local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are
required. Water use for the WS-IV classification is listed as suitable for Class C uses. Class C uses
include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis.
No designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I
(WS-1), or Water Supply H (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) of the project
corridor (DWQ 2000b).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project corridor
is summarized in the French Broad River basinwide water quality plan (DWQ 2000a). Based on
DWQ data, Shaw Creek is currently not rated; however the French Broad River at the confluence
with Shaw Creek is currently Fully Supporting. Shaw Creek is not rated for ambient water quality;
however, the French Broad River, approximately 12.4 miles (19.9 kilometers) downstream of the
confluence with Shaw Creek, has a bioclassification rating of Good-Fair based on
macroinvertebrate community sampling (DWQ 2000a).
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 6
r
Sub-basin 04-03-02 of the French Broad River Basin overall supports 166 permitted point source
dischargers. 16 of these discharges are permitted for greater than 0.5 million gallons per day (1.9
million liters per day). Major discharges within the French Broad River basin are located well down
stream and within Hendersonville. The remaining dischargers within the sub-basin consist of minor
discharge facilities (less than 0.5 million gallons per day [1.9 million liters per day]). One minor
non-municipal discharger has been located approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) northwest of the
project corridor and one minor facility is located on the French Broad River approximately 0.25 mile
(0.40 kilometer) downstream of the Shaw Creek and French Broad River confluence. Both facilities
are located downstream of the project corridor. Shaw Creek is not directly impacted by any major or
minor dischargers. Major non-point sources of pollution for this sub-basin include agriculture,
urban, construction, forestry, onsite wastewater 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 are other potential nonpoint source concerns (DWQ 2000a).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. General Impacts
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 streams by catch basins and roadside
vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Shaw 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's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the
project.
b. Impacts related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 7
h
There is little potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into waters of ..
the United States during construction. The bridge is composed completely of timber and
steel. Therefore, no temporary fill is expected to result from bridge removal. 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.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
All plant communities within the project corridor have been substantially disturbed. These
communities have been separated into two distinct categories: residential/disturbed land and
successional field. The differentiating component between these two communities is the presence of
regular maintenance throughout the residential/disturbed community. These plant communities are
described below.
a. Residential/Disturbed Land
Residential/disturbed land covers a substantial area (approximately 55 percent) of the project
corridor. The majority of this plant community is characterized by maintained grasses
subject to regular mowing and maintenance such as roadside shoulders and individual yards
associated with residential structures. Grasses appear to include planted fescue (Festuca sp.)
and rye (Lolium sp.) with numerous invasive herbaceous species such as crab grass
(Digitaria sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), and clover (Trifolium repens). Residential yards also
include woody, ornamental species such as white pine (Pinus strobus), eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), Norway spruce (Picea abies), and azaleas (Rhododendron sp.).
b. Abandoned Succesional Field
Approximately 45 percent of the project corridor contains abandoned successional field
within the floodplain of Shaw Creek. This area is dominated by herbs and shrubs with a few
trees scattered throughout. This community is not regularly maintained but may be affected
by occasional overbank flood events. The dominant shrub and herb species include
goldenrods (Solidago spp.), blackberry (Rubus. sp.), rose (Rosa sp.), rose mallow (Hibiscus
sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), fox-tail
grass (Setaria sp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), clematis vine (Clematis sp.), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Trees identified in this community include black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styracif lua), and black willow (Salix nigra). Where this community approaches the banks of
Shaw Creek, more mesic species dominate. Additional species along channel banks include
tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina). Areas adjacent to the railroad appear to be maintained regularly by vegetative
clearing; however, a dense thicket of the above mentioned vegetation has grown along
portions of the channel bank.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 8
2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Plant Communities
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present within
the projected right-of-ways and temporary easements. Permanent impacts are considered to be those
impacts that occur within the proposed right-of-way. Temporary impacts are those impacts that
occur outside the right-of way boundary but within the proposed temporary easement or impacts to
communities that will be reestablished. A summary of potential plant community impacts is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Potential Impacts, Areas are given in acre (hectare).
Plant community
Alternative Impact
Successional Field Roadside/
Total
Corridors Type Disturbed Land
0.32 0.26 0.58
Temporary (0.13) (0.10) (0.23)
A Permanent 0.01 0.01 0.02
(0.004) (0.004) (0.008)
Total 0.33 0.27 0.60
(0.13) (0.11) (0.24)
Temporary -- 0.14 0.14
-- (0.05) (0.05)
0.48 0.02 0.50
B Permanent (0.19) (0.008) (0.20)
Total 0.48 0.16 0.64
(0.19) (0.06) (0.26)
-- 0.52 0.52
Temporary -- (0.21) (0.21)
C Permanent -- 0.38 0.38
-- (0.15) (0.15)
Total -- 0.90 0.90
-- (0.36) (0.36)
-- 0.14 0.14
Temporary -- (0.05) (0.05)
0.36 0.02 0.38
D Permanent (0.15) (0.008) (0.16)
Total 0.36 0.16 0.52
(0.15) (0.06) (0.21)
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 9
No undisturbed plant communities occur within the study corridor. Existing communities are either
recovering from a severe disturbance (abandoned successional field) or are actively maintained
(residential/disturbed land). Total plant community impacts are greatest for Alternate C because of
the dimensions of the proposed alternative; however, Alternate C impacts will be limited to
roadside/disturbed community. The majority of impacts associated with Alternative B are
permanent.
Permanent impacts to plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are generally restricted
to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. No area of natural
plant community is expected to be impacted by the proposed project. From an ecological
perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. Minimal additional
fragmentation of plant communities will be created, as the project will result primarily in alteration
of community boundaries.
3. Wildlife
a. Terrestrial
Due to the dominant surrounding residential/disturbed communities, only species adapted to
anthropogenic disturbances are expected to occur in the project corridor. White-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and racoon (Procyon lotor) tracks were observed. Other mammal
species that may frequent the vicinity include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern mole
(Scalopus aquaticus), eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), red bat (Lasiurus borealis),
and eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the project corridor include the Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), white-throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and yellow-bellied sapsucker
(Sphyrapicus varius). Other bird species expected to occur in the project corridor include
those habituated to road noise, open areas adjacent to dense thickets, as well as successional
fields. These species may include American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), field sparrow
(Spizella pusilla), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), common yellowthroat
(Geothlypis trichas), and tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor). Species expected to hunt
over open areas and roadways, such as turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American kestrel
(Falco sparverius),and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), would also be expected in the
project corridor.
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some
terrestrial reptiles which might be expected include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), American toad (Bufo americana), eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and spotted salamander (Ambystoma
maculatum).
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 10
b. Aquatic
Limited surveys resulted in no observations of aquatic species within the project corridor.
Aquatic or semi-aquatic species expected to occur include northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), green frog (Rana clamitans), and blackbelly
salamander (Desmognathus quadramaculatus).
No sampling was undertaken in Shaw Creek to determine fishery potential. Visual surveys
of Shaw Creek did reveal the presence of fish, however species were not identified. Fish
species which may be present in Shaw Creek include creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
river chub (Nocomis micropogon), northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), white
sucker (Catostomus commersoni), and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus).
c. Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement is not expected to result in a substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial
animal populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most permanent
improvements will be restricted to existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to be inconsequential for replacement
of Bridge No. 320 over Shaw Creek.
Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitat may be substantial since all alternatives
include replacing the existing bridge with box culverts. Stream integrity will only be
retained through 1) proper installation of the box culverts, 2) and restoration of the reach of
stream impacted by the temporary detour. Each alternative is designed to result in
maintenance of regular stream flow. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and
suspended sediments will affect benthic populations. BMPs and stringent erosion control
measures will be implemented to minimize temporary impacts to downstream habitats from
increased sediment during construction.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Shaw 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).
Field investigations indicate that within the project corridor, Shaw Creek exhibits geomorphological
features (substrate change, continuos flow, and continuous bed and bank) characteristic of
jurisdictional streams.
Field investigations involved the survey for wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" within the project corridor (33
CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 11
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent)
of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping indicates that the Shaw Creek floodplain does
not exhibit characteristics of a wetland system (Cowardin et al. 1979), and field investigations
confirmed this assessment. No features containing hydric soils, neither a predominance of
hydrophytic vegetation, nor evidence of hydrology at or near the surface were identified within the
project corridor.
Currently, Bridge No. 320 shades approximately 0.01 acre (0.004 hectare) of "Waters of the United
States". Impacts to Shaw Creek associated with the project alternatives will involve fill in the
existing channel for permanent structures. Anticipated impacts to linear distance of stream and
stream area are shown in Table 2. Linear distance of stream impacted by the replacement culverts is
obtained from the length of the culvert, approximately (45 feet [13.7 meters]). Stream area is
calculated as culvert length by stream width at the point of impact (16 feet [4.9 meters]).
Table 2: Potential Open Water Impacts (area and linear distance of stream impacts) are
approximated based on proposed construction impacts (fill from culverts). The existing Bridge NO.
320 shades approximately 19 linear feet (5.9 meters) of stream and approximately 0.01 acre (0.004
hectare) of stream area. Areas are depicted in acre (hectare) and linear distances are depicted in feet
(meters).
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 12
Each alternative have similar stream impacts and include three barrels to allow normal stream flows
and conditions as well as flows associated with major storm water events (floodplain culverts).
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) No.
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.
Henderson County is under the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). This project
will be reviewed under Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority 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 at 2611 West Andrew Johnson Hwy Morristown, TN 37814-3295.
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. Fill or alteration of
more than 150 linear feet (45.8 meters) of stream may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the
COE. If construction of an on site detour proves necessary, DWQ will rewuire remediation
measures in accordance with requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/NWP No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering).
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 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 (May 31, 2002 FWS list) are presented in Table 3.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 13
Table 3. Federally protected Species listed for Henderson County (May 31, 2002FWS 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 rSiWrinchium 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 darkly colored species is readily identifiable by the presence of a
bright orange or yellow blotch on the sides of the head and neck (Martof et. al. 1980). The bog
turtle has declined drastically within the northern portion of its range due to over-collection and
habitat alteration. As a result, the 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, and within the
southern portion of its range, which includes North Carolina, the bog turtle is proposed for listing as
threatened due to similarity of appearance to the northern population. The proposed listing would
allow incidental take of bog turtles in the southern population resulting from otherwise lawful
activity.
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 is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). T S/A species are
not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion is not required. However, this
project is not expected to affect the bog turtle as no bogs, marshes, or wet pastures occur within the
project corridor. In addition, Shaw Creek is characterized by moderate to fast flow volumes, with a
sand and gravel substrate, which is an unsuitable habitat for bog turtles. NHP records indicate that
bog turtles have not been documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor and no
bog turtles were observed during field surveys.
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, pyramidal, compressed pseudocardinal teeth are present, and an interdental
projection is present in the left valve. Juveniles are yellowish brown, but the periostracum (outer
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 14
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 approximately 8 miles (12.9 kilometers) southwest of the
study corridor (USFWS, July 11, 2001). The Pigeon River once supported a population of this
mussel, but now is reported to be severely polluted and no longer likely to support the species
(TSCFTM 1990). Suitable habitat for Appalachian elktoe is well-oxygenated riffle areas with sand
and gravel substrate among cobbles and boulders. Current is usually moderate to swift and depth is
no more than 3 feet (0.9 meter) (Parmalee and Bogan 1998).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Because habitat for Appalachian elktoe exists within the
project corridor, detailed surveys will be necessary to determine whether individuals are present
within the impact area. NCDOT Environmental Specialist visited the project site on March 5,
2002. Freshwater mussel surveys using batiscopes were conducted from approximately 1000 feet
(304.8 meters) upstream and downstream of the existing bridge. No mussel species were
observed. 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 that grows to approximately 2.1
inches (7.0 centimeters) in length. The shell is dull to sub-shiny and yellowish-to green-colored 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 characterized by sand to boulder substrata and moderate to swift currents.
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
sclera), 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. 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 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Because habitat for oyster mussel exists within the project
corridor, detailed surveys will be necessary to determine whether individuals are present within
the impact area. NCDOT Environmental Specialist visited the project site on March 5, 2002.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 15
Freshwater mussel surveys using. batiscopes were conducted from approximately 1000 feet
(304.8 meters) upstream and downstream of the existing bridge. No mussel species were
observed. 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
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 centimeters) tall in flower and 24 inches (60 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. Flowering occurs in April and May, with fruits present from May
through July. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist through September
(Massey et al. 1983).
In North Carolina, swamp pink is found in mountain swamps and bogs. Swamp pink occurs along
small watercourses in permanently saturated, acidic, organic soils or black muck which is mostly
sphagnous (Porter and Wieboldt 1991). Swamp pink does not tolerate prolonged inundation, but can
survive infrequent and brief flooding. In North Carolina, the current distribution is restricted to
Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania Counties (Amoroso 1999).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Swamp pink occurs in permanently saturated, acidic,
organic soils or black muck which is mostly sphagnous. Soils within the project corridor
are mineral, well drained soils; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs within the project
corridor. NHP records indicate that swamp pink has not been documented within 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor, and swamp pink was not observed during
field surveys. The proposed project is not expected to adversely impact swamp pink due
to the lack of potential habitat. NO EFFECT
Small-whorled Pogonia: Small-whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10 inches
(25 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), surrounded by three narrow sepals up to 1.0 inch (2.5 centimeters) in length. Flower
production, which occurs from May to July, 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).
Small-whorled pogonia is widespread, occurring from southern Maine to northern Georgia, but is
very local in distribution. In North Carolina, this species is found in scattered locations in the
Mountains, Piedmont and Sandhills (Amoroso 1999). Small-whorled pogonia is found in open, dry
deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or along stream banks. Examples of areas providing
suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub layer with a sparse herb layer) where small-whorled
pogonia has been found include old fields, pastures, windrow areas, cutover forests, old orchards,
and semi-permanent canopy breaks along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). In
the Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in association with
white pine (Pines strobus) (Weakley 1993). Based on Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records, this
species has not been documented to occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the proposed
alternatives.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 16
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia does exist
within the study corridor; however, based on a NHP record search and a systematic
search conducted within areas of suitable habitat and during the flowering period, this
project will not affect small-whorled pogonia. , ^ N L
f rI ,
Bunched Arrowhead: Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14
inches (35 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-tissue, and are up to 4 inches (10
centimeters) long and 0.8 inches (2 centimeters) wide. Later leaves may be spoon-shaped or
narrowly oblanceolate and strap-like, growing to lengths of 14 inches (35 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 achene. Flowering has been reported as occurring in May
and June (Kral 1983) to as late as July (Massey et al. 1983), with fruits present from May through
September (Massey et al. 1983). Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in April and persist
through September (Massey et al. 1983).
Bunched arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish streams flowing
through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983). Typical substrate is reported to be siliceous and
micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral 1983). 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Bunched arrowhead occurs in shallow water in or
along shallow, sluggish streams flowing through mountain swamps or bogs. No wetlands
or bogs occur within the project corridor, and Shaw Creek exhibits moderate to high flow
velocities; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs within the project corridor. NHP records
indicate that bunched arrowhead has not been documented within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the project corridor, and bunched arrowhead was not observed during the
field visit. The proposed project is not expected to adversely impact bunched arrowhead
due to the lack of potential habitat. NO EFFECT
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant: Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial,
hydrophytic herb growing to 30 inches (76 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. 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.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 17
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Mountain sweet pitcher plant occurs in mountain bogs
and along streams. No wetlands or bogs occur within the project corridor and Shaw
Creek exhibits moderate to high flow velocities; therefore, no suitable habitat occurs
within the project corridor. NHP records indicate that mountain sweet pitcher plant has
not been documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor, and
mountain sweet pitcher plant was not observed during field surveys. The proposed
project is not expected to adversely impact mountain sweet pitcher plant due to the lack
of potential habitat. NO EFFECT
White Irisette: White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows to 16 inches (40
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 inches (0.5 centimeters) 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 inches (0.36
centimeters) wide. White irisette differs from other blue-eyed grasses by having three to five nodes
with successively shorter intemodes 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 (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. Based on NHP records, this species has not been documented to occur within 1.0
mile (1.6 kilometers) of the proposed alternatives.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Suitable habitat for white irisette does exist within the
study corridor; however, based on a NHP record search and a systematic search
conducted within areas of suitable habitat and during the flowering period, this project
will not affect white irisette. K;PUTAA
Federal Species of Concern - The May 31, 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 project
corridor or within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 18
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern listed for Henderson County (May 31, 2002 FWS
list).

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Green salamander Aneides aeneus no E
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis yes Sc
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii yes Sc
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia yes SC
French Broad crayfish Cambarus reburrus 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 Lysimachia fraseri yes E
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiflora 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
2. 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), Proposed (P), NC Plant Watch
List: rare but taxonomically questionable (W2), NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline
(W5), (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 records indicate that no state listed species have been documented to
occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project corridor.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 19
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 at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included
in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and to afford the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on September 28, 2000. All
structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the State Historic Preservation
Office (HPO). In a concurrence form dated June 18, 2002 the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural resources either listed on 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 SHPO, in a memorandum dated February 8, 2001 stated, "We have conducted a search of. our files
and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural importance within the planning area... There
are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area." 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 significant
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-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 20
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 the proposed bridge will be replaced at the existing location 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.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no receptors located
in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
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.
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. The project
site on Shaw Creek is located in a' designated flood hazard zone. 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 substantial adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 21
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. Scoping letters were also sent to various agencies including,
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) on December 6,
2000.
An on-site meeting was held at the request of Mr. John Norton, Property Owner, to discuss the impacts
to his property. Mr. Norton explained his objections to the previously selected Alternative B. He has a
small farming operation and the affected fields are extremely important in providing feed for his live
stock. He asked that NCDOT take his concerns in to consideration and reevaluate the alternatives.
NCDOT agreed to reevaluate replacing the bridge on site and to minimize the on-site detour. Also, a
new alternative (Alternative D) was evaluated, replacing the bridge downstream on a parallel to and as
close to the existing bridge as possible. On Monday, December 16, 2002, a second alternative selection
meeting was held and Alternative A was selected as the preferred alternative by all in attendance.
Alternative A minimizes impacts to Mr. Norton's farmland and minimizes the amount of approach
work.
IX. Agencies Comments
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services
Comment: "Our records for Henderson County indicate no known locations of listed species in the
project areas. "
Response: A field survey was conducted for the bunch arrowhead and mountain sweet pitcher plant no
occurrences of these species were observed. Biological conclusion: "NO EFFECT".
Other Comments: Based on available information, riparian areas within the project corridor constitute
potential habitat for Appalachian Elktoe and Oyster Mussel.
Response: NCDOT Environmental Specialist visited the project site on March 5, 2002. Freshwater
mussel surveys using batiscopes were conducted from approximately 1000 feet (304.8 meters) upstream
and downstream of the existing bridge. No mussel species were observed. NO EFFECT
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality
Comment: "...if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish
and aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. "
Response: The culvert will be buried one-foot (0.3-meter) below the surface of the streambed.
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Comment: December 12, 2001 "...look forward to reviewing the CE document when they are
available. "
Response: NCDOT will send copy of final CE to the US Army Corps of Engineers.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion
Page 22

1314
;p\ 385MOUNTAIN HOMEr
1365 (UNINC ) y 530 1528

L Home n

527
`1310 POP 1387 1378 1633
1381 ((25
?
1654
1309
1309 _ 1435
191 / \
2054 1529 26
1657'-.
_
^044 1460 1382 Hillgirt \ 1620 -
2092 2046 1380 1381
1454
132 2087 2001
\ 1309 146 2033
/j 1448 BALFOUR
(UNINC)
(UNINC

1 ?1512
POP 1 772 R
1314 1444 \
.?- 1312
1313 2085 -
? 1453
13
1508 ?
92 11
2015
2015 2086 1384
'
2084 1388
'1309 B-3 6 6 3
1311 392 Sifi

Horseshoe: 2205 2008
050
64 t1 1395 ?? 11
211 2204 1449 1396 4
4 0 150
1 02 147 ?`, 15 5
a
1211
1212
?1EEL 1307 1450
( 2060 2271
1 400 z
25 y` 1? 1 i!
O r S e S h 0 2111 \ 1215 237 130 1304 'J w 1
It n 1267 1431
1213 _ _ J 1452
SOUTHERPJ 1180 1411
1215 ??rflyhV
483
`1303 1302 1
1187 1186 1447 1300?\
1301
1188 1173
1166 1232 V
1298 11
HENDERSO
188
1297 f .
1171 1177 1
M Ili Rn
e "'t Roc
• 2 can
he RiYiY 1?
J? tf
8 IC Y
tI; ri 11 n?6
M '7da
N
I ,
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Envrionmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO 320 ON SR 1212
OVER SHAW CREEK
8-3663
0 kil m t 16 ktl m t 3 J 2
t 1 -
0 mil 10 M11 210
FIGURE 1
I l ?' I ? ? ? I''
It
P
oQ
°L 00 t9
OC W IL.
0Z cc %0
cM
U
g Z C4
Q 0 C.)
u CZ=n.
F
ui 0
a0
m
E
* . ? o. Z v
o? O Z
E N^ o
O? N = N W
Q O
E c d lw 3 ?
r, .)N. j
O QV H
O, N Z
OCL
R9 CL 41E co
O? W W
O o Z9
W 'O
ao
m O
a
N O
lr' N N CV) Z
II II II O
H
N L N
v O O
N N N de U
?
z ? Z o
2 J
5
,? 47 0 D G LL.
I?-?(its

.., _ _. 77
_.
. r`

J r ? y
'( ?P
?.i
Yek.

1 2 12 acl-os,? Bridl-w No.
Looking; north along; SR
1212 across Bridste No.
320.
Upstream side view of
Bridge No. 320.
Figure 4
FEMA Flood Map
Henderson County
B-3663
i;
r
• li
\tl
I
%
i.
11L C)i8-3qq3 n `'
PROJECT SITE
i
II
1
_.i

?
I

1
1 1 1.
i
i
r• x ?

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PR06RAM

j FL60DWAY
-- FLOOD BOUNDARY AND
i FLOODWAY MAP
HENDERSON COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
i (UNINCORPORATED AREAS)

I PANEL 80 OF 150
rut-i-to -41Snnr rwr.rtoi
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370145 0080
! EFFECTIVE DATE:
O MARCH 1 1982

_.-_.ra ? PrArnl 1`.mcrgann• \fmr.:prnrenl :15rnq•

Figure 5
United States Department of the Inteilor
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 the Federal 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 pogoriia (Isotria medeoloides) occur near
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
t
Proiect 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
Project B 3673 Our records indicate known locations for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
nearthis 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
Projects 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
Sincere;
Brian P 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
Henderson County Endangered Species Threatened Species and Federal Species of Conc Pagel of 2
Updated 05/31/2002
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
HENDERSON COUNTY

Common Name Scientific Name Status
Vertebrates
o turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)1
Eastern small footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma jloridana 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 holsionia FSC
Vascular Plants
Bog asphodel Narthecium americanum C 1 *
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Divided leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC*
Fraser s loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC**
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis FSC
Gray s lily Lilium grayi FSC
Large flowered Barbara s buttons Marshallia grandijlora 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 oogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
http //ne es fws gov/es/cntylist/henderson html 6/4/2002
Hgnderson 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 concern 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
IIn 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

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S Brook Administrator
Michael F Easley Governor
Lisbeth C Evans Secretary
February 8 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D Gilmore P E Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook Deputy State HOfficer

Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J Crow Director
Re: Replace Bridge #320 on SR 1212 over Shaws Creek B 3663 Henderson County ER 01 8266
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
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area If the replacement is to be
located along the existing alignment it is unlikely that significant archaeological resources would be affected
and no investigations would be recommended If however the replacement is to be in a new location please
forward a map to this office indicating the location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential
effects of the replacement upon archaeological resources
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act and Advisory
Council on Historic Preservations 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
cc: Mary Pope Furr NCDOT
Tom Padgett 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 276994618 (919) 7334763 715 4801
Federal Aid # BRZ 1212(4) TIP # B 3663 County Henderson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description Replace Bridge No 320 on SR 1212 over Shaws Creek
On 06/18/2002 representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
HE]/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Other
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
[3 Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
i
[3? There are no properties over fifty years old within the project s area of potential effects
There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project s area of potential effects
There are properties over fifty years old within the project s Area of Potential Effects (APE) but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property the property identified as
is considered not eligible for the National
Register and no further evaluation of it is necessary
There are no National Register listed or Study Listed properties within the project s area of potential effects
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation and based
upon the above concurrence all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121 12(a) has been completed for this project
There are no historic properties affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed
Representative N DOT Dat
7-11 L)
FHWA f6rthE Division A inistrator or other Federal Agency Date
?- 61
Representative HPO ate
"Vtb o
State Historic Preservation Officer ate
If a survey report is prepared a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included
Oil North Carolina W dhfe Resources Commission (N
Charles R Fullvdood Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO William D Gilmore P E Manager
Project Development and E yi;To ne,,r tal-Analysis Branch NCDOT
FROM Owen F Anderson 1Gioun ain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE January 10 2001
SUBJECT Scoping for Bridge Replacements B3475 B3662JONEW B 3664 B 3665 B
3666 B 3673 and B 3857 Henderson and McDowell Counties
Thi§ 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 comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401 as amended 16 U S C 661 667d)
The proposed work involves 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 project 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
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1721
?r n n - /1111 714, 7id2
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
projects 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 3 January 10 2001
Henderson and McDowell Counties
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 baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert reduce flow velocities
and to provide resting 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 P E , 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
MEMORANDUM
awn
NCDENR
To William D Gilmore PE Manager
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through John Dorney NC Division of Water Quality
From Cynthia F Van Der Wiele Clod w
Subject Scoping comments on the proposed teplacement of Bridge No 320 on SR 1212
over Shaw Creek in Henderson County T I P Project B 3663
This memo is in refetence to your correspondence dated December 6 2000 in which you
requested scoping comments for the above ptoject The DWQ index number for the stream is 6
50 and is classified as C waters The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider
the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with btidges 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 under
Nationwide 14
B The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with cot responding mapping
C There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts If mitigation is
required it is pieferable 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 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
E If applicable DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek to the maximum extent
practicable
F Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical If this is not possible alternatives
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
Mr William D Gilmore nemo
12/11/00
Page 2
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to stleams in
excess of 150 linear feet
G Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands ale impacted by waste or borrow
H If foundation test borings are necessary it should be noted in the document Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No 6
for Survey Activities
I In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules f 15A NCAC 2H 0506(b)(6)} mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream
In the event that mitigation becomes required the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0506 (h)(3)) the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands
K The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwatet management Mole specifically stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek Instead stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus
L While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval
Thank you for requesting our input at this time The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost If you have any questions
or require additional information please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone]
Pc: Steve Lund USACE Asheville Field Office
Marella Buncick USFWS
David Cox NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
n AU G 2, u .,?.
f7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT 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 Tim Savidge Section 7 Strike 'l earn
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject Freshwater mussel survey report of Shaws Creek for proposed
replacement of bridge # 320 on SR 1212 Henderson County TIP
# B 3663
The proposed action calls for the replacement of bridge No 320 over Shaws
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 Shaws Creek which flows into the
French Broad River occurs in an urbanized setting and has noticeably unstable stream
banks Freshwater mussel surveys using batiscopes were conducted from approximately
1 000 feet downstream to 100 feet upstream of the existing bridge Substrate at the site
was comprised of coarse sand A total of 15 man hours were spent during the survey No
mussel species were observed
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Given the 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 TRANSPORT TIO FAX [phone] TR NSPORT TON BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT NO E V RO MENT L A L S S 1 SOUTH W LM GTON STREET
1548 M IL SERV CE CENTER WEBSITE WWW OOH DOT STATE NC US RALEIGH NC
R LEIGH NC 27699 1548
M,E?*QNco„ti?? HENDERSON COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
100 NORTH KING STREET
HENDERSONVILLE N C 28792 5097
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
RO?NO[o?e?e
www henderson lib nc us/county
January 10 2001

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
SinceieJy

L L
David E Nicholson
County Manager
DEN/abm
Attachment
Cc Board of Commissioners
Transportation Advisory Committee Members

Henderson County Government Repoi t 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
i'suTJ'ect 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 traffic and others that make regular use of Howard Gap
Henderson County Government Report
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
January 10 2001
Page 2
Road as north south route may find US 25 to be a better alternative Access to/fiom 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 iritensified 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)
c',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 126 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 Goveinment Report
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects
January 10 2001
Page 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 126 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 126 ramps
yo. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road) over North Bran
"T'he 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 requites 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 Rives 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,Jlood 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 11982 The City of Hendersonville does participate in the federal flood
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
?+GCONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Y FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
A (To be Completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
12/17/01 4. Sheet 1 of 1
s of Project
B-3663 5. Federal Agency Involved
NCDOT, FHWA
Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
Henderson, NC
1RT II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date Request Received by SCS.
/ Q y 2. Person Completing Form
Coy McKenzie
Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes 4-
(If no the FPPA does not apply - Do not complete additional parts of this form No 4. Acres Irrigated Average Fa m Size
I i
Major Crop(s) 9' 6. Farmable Land in Gove nunent Jurisdiction: 7. Amount of Farmland Defined in FPPA
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
4 r) 9. Name of I oc ite Msessment?System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by SCS
oh o y
ART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Altern ortidor for Segment
Corridor A Corridor Corridor C Corridor D
Total Acres to be Converted Directly 0.22 0. 1.02
Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
:. Total Acres in Corridor 0.22 0.64 1.02
ART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
.. Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland
?. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland Z , • OY
:. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted 000 001 N
). Percentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value
'ART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
'armland to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points) j
'ART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
kst rent Criteria These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. r..,:a in Nonurban Use 15
!. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 /0.
3. Percent of Corridor Being Farmed 20 (' O D
t. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20 62 O
i. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10 -3
S. Creation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 O Q O
7. Availability of Farm Support Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20 c?
9. Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 Q O
10. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10 e' r1D
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 32-
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 2 s 25
Total Corridor Assessment (Form Part - VI above or a local site
assessment 160 D Z
3 Z
3 Z
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 s) 1 260
S?
S
1. Corridor Selected:
-' 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to
be Converted by Project:
V. t1, 1/ 1 3. Date of Selection: 4.Was a Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No
5. Reason for Selection:
m /dti?9 ?n fto?' n[tcI wl nrlrnZt l l?di?{1r?nS Tiµ-q!c 01 ICI'' i? rvr ui-C
tXr)'r;' ? ?
Si are of Person Completing this Part:
Date
1 0.2,

NOTE: Complete a form for each segment wit$ more than one Alternative Corridor
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
regory J. orpe, Ph.D.
DATE
r1p 66
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Z3/o3 ?.
DATE ? /, John F. Sullivan, III "I'?'''' Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
Cary, North Carolina
C 7-ton T. Register, P
Project Manager
2,'11212003
ate
F-N CAR
QoFESS?o••. 2,?
My's
028392 -
:e
T.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
I- __ " - tkl?
Jo Wadsworth, PE
P , ect Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
-1S-2C63
Date
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
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, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 320
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy of the addendum to 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 Unit/ Division Construction:
Access to the fire departments draft point will be provided.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Addendum GREEN SHEET
September 2003
Henderson County
SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road)
Bridge No. 320 Over Shaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1212(4)
State Project No. 8.2951801
T.I.P. No. B-3663
1. BACKGROUND
The replacement of Bridge No. 320 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 bridge location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
A Categorical Exclusion for the subject project was approved January 15, 2003. The recommended
alternate was to replace Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel culvert on the existing alignment. Traffic
was to be maintained by an on-site detour located west (downstream) of the existing bridge as shown by
Alternate A in Figure 2. Subsequent to that time, additional detailed studies have determined that a
more feasible alternate exists. This currently recommended alternate replaces Bridge No. 320 with a
cord slab bridge on the existing alignment. Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour located west
(downstream) of the existing bridge as shown by Alternative A Revised in Figure 2A
II. DISCUSSION
Alternate A replaces Bridge No. 320 with a triple barrel 8-foot x 8-foot (2.4-meters by 2.4 meters)
reinforced concrete box culvert on the existing alignment (Figure 2). Traffic will be maintained by an
on-site detour located west (downstream) of the existing bridge. The proposed approach roadway will
consist of two 9-foot (2.7-meter) travel lanes and 2-foot (0.6 meter) turf shoulders. The proposed grade
will be approximately the same as the existing roadway.
The detour structure will consist of three 72-inch (1800-millimeter) corrugated metal pipes (CMP)
approximately 52 feet (15.8 meters) in length. The on-site detour approaches will consist of two 9-foot
travel lanes (2.7 meters) 2-foot (0.6 meter) turf shoulders. The total length of Alternate A is
approximately 315 feet (96 meters).
During the final design process a detailed hydraulic analysis was performed. The proposed culvert
(Alternative A) raised the water surface elevations during the smaller flood events, design discharge
frequencies of 10 years and under. Several culvert sizes were studied and none matched or improved
existing flood surface water elevations for all storm events. Therefore, Alternative A was revised
utilizing a cord slab bridge.
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternate A (Revised) replaces Bridge No. 320 with a single span cord slab bridge on the existing
alignment (Figure 2A). The proposed bridge will be approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) in length. The
proposed bridge will consist of two 9-foot (2.7 meter) travel lanes and 2-foot (0.6 meter) shoulders.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Addendum
Page I
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 9-foot (2.7-meter) travel lanes and 2-foot (0.6
meter) turf shoulders. The north approach is approximately 135 feet (41 meters) in length. The south
approach is approximately 140 feet (42 meters) in length. The proposed grade will be approximately the
same as the existing roadway.
Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour located west (downstream) of the existing bridge. The
detour structure will consist of three 72-inch (1800-millimeter) corrugated metal pipes (CMP)
approximately 52 feet (15.8 meters) in length. The on-site detour approaches will consist of two 9-foot
travel lanes (2.7 meters) 2-foot (0.6 meter) turf shoulders.
The project length is approximately 600 feet (183 meters).
Alternative A (Revised) was selected as the preferred alternative because of the following reasons:
• A spanning structure provides a minimum match to existing water surface elevations during all flood
events,
• A bridge will span from top of bank to top of bank and avoids changes to the existing channel,
• Minimize stream impacts,
• Use of a bridge will not reduce sediment transport capacity of the stream,
• Lessens impacts to potential environmental and archaeological resources.
The estimated cost of the preferred alternative has been revised since the original Categorical Exclusion
was published. In the early stages of project development, estimates were based on the assumption that
the replacement structure would be a culvert. The revised alternative maintains the existing alignment
and replaces the structure with a cored slab bridge.
The revised estimated construction cost of the preferred alternative is as follows:
Alternative A Alternate A Revised
Preferred
ructure Removal (Existing)
[ $ 6,400 $ 6,400
ructure Proposed 90,300 66,500
A roaches
Roadway 181,050 187,600
em .Detour Structure 22,500 22,500
Temp. Detour Approaches 160,500 136,000
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 179,250 161,000
En ineerin Contingencies 110,000 95,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities 77,000 77,000
TOTAL $827,000 $752,000
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Addendum
Page 2
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. Estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-way. Project
construction does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts may be less. Potential
plant community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement are as follows:
Potential Impacts, areas given in acres (hectares):
Plant community
Alternative Corridors Impact Type Successional Field Roadside/
Disturbed Land
0.42 0.26
Temporary (0.17) (0.10)
0.01 0.01
Alternative A Permanent (0.004) (0.004)
0.43 0.27
Total (0.21) (0.11)
.38 0.26
Temporary (0.15) (0.10)
Preferred Permanent 0.01 0.01
Alternative A (Revised) (0.004) (0.004)
0.39 0.27
Total (0.19) (0.11)
Potential Open Water Impacts (area and linear distance of stream impacts) are approximated based on
proposed construction impacts. Existing Bridge No. 320 shades approximately 19 linear feet (5.9
meters) of stream and approximately 0.01 acre (0.004 hectare) of stream area. Areas are depicted in acre
(hectare) and linear distances are depicted in feet (meters).
Alternative Impact , Sfream-Area Stream Linear''distance
"Corridors ,T e . A*cres' ectares) Feet (Meters ,
Temporary 0.014 (0.006) 52 (15.8)
Alternative A Permanent 0.02 (0.01) 53 (16.2)

Temporary 0.013(0.005) 52 (15.8)

Preferred
Alternative A Permanent 0.007 (0.003) 25.6 (7.8)
R
i
d
ev
se
(
)
Total x.02
(0.008) , ?77.6 (23.6)
,
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Addendum
Page 3
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
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 (February 24, 2003 FWS list)
are presented below:
Federally Protected Species listed for Henderson County (February 24, 2003 FWS list).

Common Name
Scientific Name
Status* Biological
Conclusion
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A) N/A
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana E No Effect
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis E No Effect
Swamp pink Helonias bullata T No Effect
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides T N"t-?
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata E No Effect
Mountain sweet pitcher plant Sarracenia jonesii E No Effect
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum E ect
M_;?, IJL7AI
Mi,l All-7'A
There have been no additions to the federally protected species listed for Henderson County since May
31, 2002. The biological conclusions in the Categorical Exclusion signed in January 2003 are still valid.
B-3663 Categorical Exclusion Addendum
Page 4
1314
1310
130
? 1309 -
i
2092 2046
132 2087 2001
` 1309
IAA. /

MOUNTAIN HOME
(UNINC.)
POP. 1,387 1378
.? 1435 381 25 2(
191
14Q.. 1460 138
380 1381
\ 14
BALFOUR
(UNINC.)
• POP. 1,772
1444
114:
' 138
2064
I B-3663 1

1
554
54
1657 '•,

0

Horsesh
Mtn.
447
E\NDERSO
FW. 7,717

2015
1171
2085
J2086
1297
0 N
,?Aw
rK
,0v
11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Envrionmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 320 ON SR 1212
OVER SHAWS CREEK
8-3663
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles I.0 miles 2.0
FIGURE 1

?r
x

7 ¦
oll
IN