20050742 Ver 1_Application_20050503

.•~o
d ~yra~
~~ 'Rs
~,,,,,,,,s•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~n
~ ~v
4~ ~~
~~, v,~,
os ~, ~;
9
2 ' er`
~z'~~,
lp~,F , /,
~~u~9 S
9~~~'~-
DEPARTMII~IT OF 'I~ANSPORTATION ~a~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO 11PPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 2, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 O ~ 0
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Ms. Angie Pennock
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madam:
SUBJECT: Nationwide 33 Permit Application for the replacement of Bridge No.
53 over North Branch Hungry River on SR 1799, Henderson County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1799(1), State Project No. 8.2952101, TIl'
Project No. B-3666.
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 53 over the
North Branch of Hungary River on SR 1799, with a new bridge immediately east (downstream)
of the alignment of the existing structure. The new bridge will be approximately 95 feet in
length and 27 feet in width. The new bridge will consist of two 10-foot travel lanes, a 2-foot
shoulder on the east side, and a 5-foot shoulder on the west side. The approach roadway will
consist of two 10-foot travel lanes with 2-foot shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure during construction. The south approach is approximately 240 feet in length,
and the north approach is approximately 370 feet in length.
IlVIPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No permanent impacts to Waters of the United States, in the form of wetlands or surface waters,
are anticipated as a result of project construction. There will be temporary impacts of 0.002 acre,
due to the construction of two temporary workpads, in the North Branch of Hungry River. North
Branch Hungry River is located in the Broad River Basin, subbasin 03-08-03, DWQ
classification is C Tr, and DWQ index of 9-29-30.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
The existing bridge is a three-span structure with an overall length of 76 feet and a clear roadway
width of 19.1 feet. The bridge consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams with timber caps and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTIuENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONWENTa. ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMNGTON STREET
1548 Mal SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

timber piles on concrete footings. Bridge 53 will be removed without dropping components into
Waters of the United States during demolition.
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
Bridge No. 53 will be a three span cored slab bridge. "Guidelines for Construction of Highway
Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North Carolina" (October 27, 1992) will
be adhered to throughout the life of this project. The temporary workpads that will be used
during construction will consist of Class II Rip Rap. Temporazy fill azeas will be restored to
their original contours. The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the rock
causeways, will be completely removed. The entire causeway footprint shall be returned to the
original contours and elevations after the purpose of the causeway has been served. After the
causeways are no longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all
materials. All causeway material will become the property of the contractor. The contractor will
be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all materials off-site.
AVOIDANCE & MINIlVIIZATION
The construction of this project will allow sufficient space for wildlife to pass under the bridge.
There will be an in-water work moratorium with a 25 foot land disturbance buffer, from October
15 to April 15 for this project to avoid impacts on trout reproduction. Traffic will be maintained
using the existing bridge before demolition. Deck drainage will not be allowed to dischazge
directly into the North Branch Hungry River. Best management practices (BMP's) will be
utilized to minimize water quality impacts. In compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we
have incorporated the use of BMP's in the design of the project.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened aze protected under Endangered Species Act §§7 and 9.
As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 8 federally protected
species for Henderson County (Table 1). The biological conclusion of "No Effect", was reached
for all federally protected species for this county at this site, and currently remain valid.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Henderson County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS BIOLOGICAL
CONCLUSION
Clem s muhlenber 'i Bo turtle T S/A No Effect
Alasmidonta raveneliana A alachian elktoe E No Effect
E ioblasma ca sae ormis Oster mussel E No Effect
Helonias bullata Swam ink T No Effect
Isotria medeoloides Small whorled o onia T No Effect
Sa 'ttaria asciculata Bunched arrowhead E No Effect
Sarracenia 'onesii Mountain sweet itcher lant E No Effect
Si rinchium dichotomum White irisette E No Effect
KEY:
STATUS:
"E" Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
`°I" Denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
`°T(S/A)" Denotes 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).
2

x
r
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Sincerely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the construction of the temporary workpad will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the workpad.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we aze providing two copies of this
application to the North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
We anticipate that the Corps of Engineers will request comments from the North Cazolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to authorization. By copy of this letter and
attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NCWRC forwazd
their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.html.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone] or cdmanleyna,dot.state.nc.us.
The "cc" List:
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Mazla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Harold Draper, TVA
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mazk Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. B. Setzer, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Mazk 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 (Cover Letter Only)
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
3

Office Use Only: O ~ O ~ ~ ~rm Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. 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
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ^
S. 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
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3147 Fax Number: 919-766-9794
E-mail Address: thorpe(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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page I of 8

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
boundazies outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge Replacement over the North Branch of Hun~y River, Henderson
County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3666
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Henderson Nearest Town: Dana
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 53 over the North
Branch of Hungay River on SR 1799
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 19' 13"N. 82° 19' S4"W
(Note - If project is lineaz, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that sepazately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Rural
7. Neazest body of water (stream/river/soundlocean/lake): The North Branch of Hun~y River
8. River Basin: Broad
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.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: A 76 ft. bridge crossing the river for vehicular traffic.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:-
Replacement of existing bride on new alignment immediately east of existing bride with a
three span cored slab bride. Cranes, Earth moving equipment.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace bridge no. 53.
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.
None
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.
None
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of S

1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:0.002 ac. of temporary fill for a
workpad.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear feet
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporrry impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at htt~:/lwww.fema.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed:
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
'ear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Im act Perennial or
Intermittent?
lease ec'
I temporary fill 0.002 ac. Hungry River 25-30 ft. perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.eov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.ma~guest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site:
Page 4 of 8

4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(~ applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond es
ba , ocean, e c sound,

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. 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.):
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 maybe 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.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT "Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters" will be strictly enforced durinf the entire life of the project
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 Mazch 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but aze not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Cazolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgade.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/lineaz 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.
No proposed mitigation.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regazding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): zero
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): zero
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Page 6 of 8

lX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federaUstate) funds or the use of public
(federaUstate) land?
Yes ® No ^
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® 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.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC ZB .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ^ No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
*
Zone Impact
uare feet
Multiplier Required
Miti ation
I 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8

If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application?
Yes ^ No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sui~ciently 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).
..___.
-~ S o 5
plicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

--
~,
~~
~1' ~~~1'~ ~ 11
~~~~
.~ > ,
~~ ~ ,-
.-
,~~~ ,
~ To ~ -_~
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 33211.L1 8-3666)
BRIDGE N0.53 OVER
NORTH BRANCH HUNGRY RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1799
SHEET OF
~/13/0~
NORTH CAROLINA

r
./~'
"rri
y
O
"~
W
0
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
.,
;` ~ ~
.~
~~
..
.~
•~,_ .~,
~~-~
~~
~~ ~ ~
,- ~~.
.~ ~ . .
~ ..
A ..
, ..
~ G~ ` . ~ .
~~
/ ~ ,
,,,,
„„
~,
,_ ,
~~ ~
~~~ ~ ~
~~ „ Z
~~ ~~
O
~ '~ ~ ~
~ ~ r ~ ~-1
~ ~~ - Z
i i,
~~ i
i~ ~ CA
ii i
~~ i ~
~i Z
-~ n
~~ _
~,
~,
~~ _
~~ ~ ~
~. i i C
i i ~ T i t Z
z ~, ~ z , ,
~] i ~ m ~ ~
dx ,ti 'r ~~
~ ~ ~ C '~ ~
..~ z~ ,,
0
n x z N 0 0~
x o~z ~ II
~i~w;~ A ~ ® -1
~ O
ozo„ o c~
,3 °' cn D
~~ v
~~
~ m
Z
v

~~~~~~
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
/'`~L
WETLAND
L
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
~, DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND . _ _ _ WOODS LINE
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER ~~ ROOTWAD
• ~ ~ ~
~ DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
• ~ ^ CLEARING
-T -~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
~- TOP OF BANK
---• WE EDGE OF WATER
- - ~ - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT

RIP RAP
- - F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- - J- - - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP, DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- • EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - ~ - - - WATER SURFACE
xx xxx x X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (L S)
GRASS SWALE
® DENOTES IMPACTS TO
BUFFER ZONE 1
^C\~ DENOTES IMPACTS TO
~\\\\\\~l BUFFER ZONE 2
DENOTES AREA TO BE EXCAVATED
N~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT:33211.1.1 (B-3666)
BRIDGE N0.53 OVER
NORTH BRANCH HUNGRY RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1799
SHEET OF
~ / 13 / 0~(

~~®~~~~ ll ®~Y~Y 1~1 ~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
REFERENCE NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 Paul Edward SEa6r P.®• Bo: 196
Dana, NC 2872
2 Hungry River, 1..I..C. 1901 gendale Rd.
PoEomac, MD 2085
~~~~~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HENDERSON COUNTY
PROJECT:3321L11 (B-3666)
BRIDGE N0.53 OVER
NORTH BRANCH HUNGRY RIVER
AND APPROACHES ON SR 1799
SHEET OF ~ / 13 / U~

o~
x
o
w~ ~N
_
~ w~
U~
~~~''''!!~(x
~ ~
d~"'M
(ra~„~
~ xo~o~z
0
~U~
~~
:
v~
O
xz
~ xw
°
x~
Q o°
z
M
U owF~"o 0
~zwQ~a
x~~
d
A
H
~-
a az w
z°Q

0

m
m'
~£
3
LL

~~~
,
~
~~
~~ o 0
Z N 0
-~
C C U
M N Q
~ O O
.
WU E
LL ~ .-. N
O N
°
~~ p
~ •
~- °
~
~
=on
o
0
a_.
LL

C c w~
v o 0
G -Z
LL, ._.
~°
N
` C
~
O
U
~
~
w m O
O
L m
U~
~
W C N
O ~
a
~
~ U
O C
>
V > v
W C

Q
a _ N
LL
~
G _
E°10 0 0
m~v
~ c
''AA
V+
0 ~
Z ~v
c
~ ~ o O
Q LL3~
J
H
W
m

m
~ ~ U
U ~
7 ~
c~+i
O
O

O ~
J
O
O N
r
~ LL ~
r

m ~ J

(~ Z ~
O

~°as,x
0
F
f
N
w
A
w

~!^ 9 mmrn$$~i °Qrcb~~
~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~r ~
~~ ~ ~~ m~~ ~ ~rn a~~~rn
`? ~~~~~~~ ~~ x~rnr
~~~~ ~g $~~r~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ N~ ~° ~ wnt
r

f ~
~ O
~

... ~\

~~~~~
~~~" ~~ ~
. ,~
~~~~~
$ ~~~
Z
8 m ~,
~ c *~u n N

1
~~~~w
~
~
'
3
~N~~rn
`"
`~ ~ ~O
r
Ao rr :~
~ z ~
°.,'
,~.
~ ~ ~'
c
~~ r
~ ~'I ~
rl
D
m

I~
' o
~
i~
IV 8
f11ay~
~
~
~ a
+~ ~
. ~
~
_
a
o~~rnrn P "' ~
~
",~
~rv~rr
r
~~~ ~ /
w
~~~V;
1 .. ~. ~.
/ ~
~
~y
•'/
i ~
71 i 9
~ ~ - '~ ~ f /
~ j //

~~
- .,
~ ~
i~
rpt ~ ~~/ ~
/~ - • pi°-

1 1
z \

~ 1
_ ~
\
_
j \
~. ~+ ~ * x•
J ~,i V \
~
W <
~f O pp
f p
w
~3
ma ? ° ~
i
`

~ fi s ~ \
~
f1N N O
O ~ sO
T
E \
+ I
ono N yo /S c I 1
°~'w ~ v
v _
~ ~ z \ ~ 1 x x
~ ~zc~ s O
o y I 11
i
`~ I ~
~za ~ m ~ $ I \I s
~
_ v ,
v~ ~ ~ I / I
a ~ ~ ~. 1 .~ 8
~ p
G~ D ~ d ~ * 8 \ p
8
m ~ m ~ 1 I
r m \ " ~ I )
~y f
.
N I ~ ~, .
0
~ ° (' I

9 I
\ I 1
_ ~ ~ ~ ` I

m
€cm
r
~
D
~~ I
N ~
P
~ / I
~ '
QD
_ _ ~ ,b
A ~
~ /
3 I
a o I

~~ ~
'
3
r ~ ~~~ I
I
j q
N I

' ,~
~ ~ t~ ~ I I
N a y* 5
~j ~ 1

6 `~
;i i
~~ ~
°o '~ ~' 1
I 1
C ~
~~ , ~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ I $ 1
~ ~
*
~ ~
~~ =
~^ 1
i
~ G
al ~ #+j
=l" ~ i
~ S €~(~*1 Mi
~ ~ r
~Z~
~ i ~~~
~
~ H ° a~~ I
s I t s
~'~
~ ~ ~
(
~ ~
~ ~ ~oW
.
~ ~
~'
~ J#=
~ m
4
E ~ ;[ L E~ir~g
~~
? ~ o =
r ~
~ ~ ~
'
i;'
_ y n o
= p~z2
~~ 7Jd Y~~~~ - ~ r ~~'
' _
~ ~ s
1`,_-~
~`I~oD~
uururin
[[((
V1~~~~A
~~~

_ti
~~hoD v
r111r~
~
~
~~
~~
$
§
_~
~-I~oD~
rrrrgy
~~~~
~~
~
O
~
~~~
ti
~~~oD v
rrrru:
V~~~~ a
~~ ~~~
~"
r
~~~op v
rrrlrLn
#~~`4~
~~~~d
A
~
~

~.
~'~~ 13

:~
PP~~
~i 7~
$~ ~ ~~
~~ ~~~
~z
a ~ ~
-tee
~r $
Z~ ~ A
0

REV190N5
~,°~<X

I ' ~

~ ~
~
i o
n
~
.. ~ ~

o + `" n
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~

N m
~
l
r
- r
~
!
~
~
~
~
~
q~
pp

- - -
a~~~N r S O

r ~ D Z
W ~
W ~(n
C
~
j~ ~
,~
m ~
~ ~
c
1

-
~ ~ l
~
A
i
~
A ?r~
~ ~ ~IV ~
~ ~ V
~ ~
~ o
_ r ~N G
t~ W
V1D~1~
s
~ ~

.
,~
2
~ ~
a~ .• .. ~~~
d7

~~j f~l ie~ .. 4 i
~
r T
p
V
1 a
zOOjj t5
..
~
~ ~
L
~ 1 ~
{
~
~
Oj~ / !! ~
I ~ / ,
/ d
f' ` / '

~~~~ i
~~ ~ ~

~ ~ iii

o` m ~
. 8 .
~ ~ ~
r
.. ,
V
J
~ ON C
X03 ~
m ~ .~
° o vmi
T
(~ N O
m
~~ N
41 ~
~ $An ~
~~ ~
m
yAy N
D
~~
N~
oA
'~ v°
n
m
N
O
N
a~
6

at ~~
~; ~g ~i ~~
N A d C
3~
~ '
~
i
b ~ S! ~g
c~
s
!P
~
.
to
K
a_ ~? • a ~
a ~ ~~~
6
g
s
~$~i~1 • ~
i
g~~~
~
~ ~
~~ ~a '~'~
'$ $" ~:
~~ : ~~~ u
~ ~~ i ~
n~ `~ ~
_ _ \ ~r~
.,
~'" ~
~ ..
~~ g
1N ^ \
\ ~ ~ .
\ ~
~ . ... _w
1
'4
r q ~o
~ ~ €cm
r~
~~~
> ~n
m ~ n
$ = x.
a = ~.
;.~
o0
s N ~~~
::
~i
°o Z
o i
3
i 8 '~ ~~~
rm
~ °cD
N $~P
s LAW
m g
~~_
~X~
.~ o 0
o ~ ~~
7 y
~~HN ~ ~ I
g~Z
~~>~ ~ ~ ' i
n ~ ~l ~ ~ • ;
1
i
~ ~
~~ k
1'\~
\111 ~
~/
~. //jam-
.• ~,
~~~ . ~ 7
~~ '~ ~~,
/ / ~ /m ~ ~ ~ - f ~
~ ~ I / x ~ ~ ael+
~ ~ Iql t°
N
O ~ ~~~N
V4
~~~oD~
`~ ~~~
a~ ~~
~ _y
8.
y ~~~oD~
~ !' ~'i~
~o
g~' ~~N
~:. ~ Y ~QN
~. ~~ ~~ ~
x• ~~~~°~
yo i
~~ ~ ~ ~~~
.~ ~`I~oD
" ~' ~!!rn
A ~ U~~~~
~.~ a ~cG.,` a
. ~ ~~8
~ .g` ~~'w
~ ~ '~ ~
~
~
~ •'~ QOfOp
~
~ . ~~I~OD~
~
$ ~ .. 1 j .
1
I
1 ! ! ! ! ~

~ / ~~R
gs~

.: _
I ~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ' - ~ 1. s ~
-
~ ~j~j
'~`i1~~$
~~~~~~
~ ~ x~~~
I / ~~ O,
/
n3 ~ ~
~ ~
; ~
~
~ I wdA
~~
S

i
/,

a
* ~~
~x

g~
,

p8

.;' ~ 2
~~ r ' I ~ ~
1 ~ ~ 'e~ ~~ ~
~ ~ =:~i ~C
:l.r
I , ~ ~ ~ ~~
_ ~I ~"~
I ,~>
i i ~ ~ ~~ ~"
,l
~~~~~
~,~.
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~
8~
z
cn
4
~m"
` ~~
4~
i
S
~~~J
~ ~
H~
.Q / /
4~
~ '~ ~
>_ ~1
I
1~I
~l
t
8~q ~ w
~" ~~
a~ ~ ~
~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~
Z
0

.am .r.~.
.n.c•
C011ITRACT.• C201230 TIP PROJECT.• B 3666
N N
u` 0 ~ ~'
~_ 1~
O = O ~ O !V
N N '~'`Y1~i
° ~y ° °
L

?~ gg
vo o -~ ~
~p70~ N
'' n n
~ ~~ ~ O p
<-~v~w
° ~`7

`~~~ ~
,
u

+
~ n uuuun
~:
~ '~ ~
~ A~o•~~o.
~~yeo°O~` b

1
° 3 y

~
a s s
0

r z ~
m

~
'~ ~ O
D
~
~
Q
`m ~
H
~_
~ -<

'9
'9
~
b

O
~7
O ~ y
m
o~
P
o~ ~

a
a
~
a y

II o~
II
II
0 0
N
N N
N ~
O
3 ~
m ~
m

~ ~ ~~
_~

~
~~

~ V
~~ o~
$~
~~
~
A y -

~

O :
~~
~ ><;
~ ~ $ n~
Z

~
~~
~ S
e

m n

~ ~
.0
m
~ h
rr!
m

~Q
6
~

'! y
y

~~ ~ H

~~
Y ~~

y

~~ ~Ox
~

~~
1 ~
~~
~~ ~ ~~

~
~y
ti
~~
.~
x x
_ _ ~~
' ~ i
/ \ ~ ~~
` ~'~
~cog0 Z C \ \ ~~
~d~Owo O~ ` Q~
Cuu w A ~ ~ a ,• •
ry+ZW nl C S ~
nn~~ u ~Z ~ '~ ~ ~~ R
~m~~~ ~ r ~~ ; ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
n.~ u o =
~ a a~ ~ -~ - \_^
c a
'~
u ~ ~
it ,
.,
• LJ
~` ~O
~ ~~a~~ ~S
~~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~
m
L7
OZ ~ ~
S ~
m m bti~~ + ~` Z Q M'y M"M~
o
o ~ n -• Z MCI
''~ ~ ~+ 5 .G) 'O w F~
v ~ ® ~
~o ~ 5 ~~
~ ~ O~FAC \~\ ~ ~ ~ Z 7
v \~ z -~ v O ~ ~-/
tm
~ ~ O ~ ~
o z a m ~ ~
n M
v ~ _ ~ ~ ~ Ny
~ n x
~ ~ ~ ~ a~
I ~ Q ~
~ ~®
a ~~ .~ ~ ~ r
-+ ~
o
v
rn
Z
v
t

~°
w
~"~ C1
~ N
r
is
i~ .~r
.. ;

_ ~ ~
l~
~ ~ ~o

i ~ ' ~ r 3~
~
~ ~

iOATES !TIMES
OFILEf

~oNs
O '.

N
W

w
o~
V
r
Q N
AiV IO
m
N~ ~rJl
-~
~; > :.
`p -~ : ; n
~~n IN
y
v~
Nv
oA
^o
v
N
O
N

7 j ~~
~~ ~~ Ir ~~
N ~ ~ ~~ t~ d
N ~ ~ ~~ #~ +
c ~s
s *# °~ ~ #'
E ~'
a a
~- i~~ ~ ~ ~
1
~~ ~' e
~~~~=
~~ ~~
~mas~x '

~t~ 1~~ ~s~s~~1h~j ~nm
Y ~ ~ ~ ~ IA ~ ~~~,~~
Z~ AI'

r w ~~a~~a~~
~ $ o ~
`"

I

I ~
~
/ o
n
~

a w n

~~~~~
~a~
~ ~
~
s
coo+N
~
~[
~"
?~
f'-
$~0
11
[
~
fy~ W ~b a ~
D
` ~ Z
~Q
`q!
~~ D
-1
~'~~l
D

1
I
n t
C
m
V

Oj 1 I Z ~
~j, y
C
{~

~j~a
a N P
wa~ ~
.. .
.
_
- x
a

~
~ ~; ;, ~
c
~ ~
\ ~,_~ ~,,
~
f,
bb
m
~ r
m $
N
r
~ ~
n
arm
~ a
~~
'^ ~ ~QA
of b V'~
~y8 ; ~ ~.
y 6 O
M 11 www
O N •~~
ti H A77
r ~
~ €~°m
~ yy~~~~
N ~ S~+p~W
a5 L l
~7 ~ ~
5 n o
s ~ ~~
~p
~~
CC ~
7~
~ ~
aW~
~ ~ /
~/ 1
-.~
ii
~~~~~~~
~~ ~ .~.
ay N `m`
Z •~ NNy
~~~~
~ ~ma
1 1
N~
/~__~''
1
s '(8~~`
1 H~
sb ~
1 \~
_ ~

O ~ ` p~IP \ ~ ~'
Sg°~

~ r~ ~ ~ 1 I II
I ~
~ wl
a I
;~> 1~ ~ ~ *
1
~
~ ,I
i
.I ~ ~ 8
I / ~ a+ I
~ ~ ~ S
~ ~ .
I
l
w 1 r
i 8
r ~
~ /
~~~~ 76. 1
I ~ ,~~~~ }.~
~Q
b ~
w \ I
/
l~
~ I ~
~ ~ i
~ t
a~ g
1~
1\ 1
1' FYI
I~
t
I
4
~~~1
1Q~~ lc~~'
N ~ NI"
a M~
S~~
/~~ ~-
~.. ~ 7
~/ /~ ~f~
i ~ ~/ / ~ t ~
~ ~.
. ~ ~~ ~ - J
~ i iyI ~
~ , 1$ ~' a~
~/ ry I I \ V
~ ~ $ ~ F~
~~ ~--
/ ~-
N
o $ ~ ~~~~
~~~oDv
~} 4 M N q ~ u/
yy ~(~~
v~
1:
8 a~~oD v
~~~~~~
~ ~~~~~o
~~ ~~~ ~
~ti~op~
x' ~~ aaaapti
~ ~~~~ I
~~~
aa~ap
z .. _ .I~~~wo
V
\ • ;~* ~~w
$ ~i
20~Op ~`u`~p
aaaaa~n
1~
n
~~7p x pi
/ ~, i ~= I ' ~ ~i 8
i ~~ O ~ ~ 1"
,;' I ~ i 3
E~ "~ ~ ~~
1 I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ j ~ ~~
I I F~ ~
I I ~ ~ ~
I~ I
I I
1 ~, I
M1 .~ ~ I I
I I $ ~o
~ ~~ ~~~
t ~ p~
a~ ~ ~
T ~ ~. :. ,ti
~~
Z
0

r
Henderson County
Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road)
Over North Branch of Hungry River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1799(1)
State Project No. 8.2952101
T.I.P.. I. D. No. B-3666
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNTIED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
~'
Da--
AT Gregory J. rpe Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Cv~3~~d 3 1// ~
DATE (~,,, J John F. Sullivan, III
'Y'"` Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

Henderson County
Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road)
Over North Branch of Hungry River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1799(1)
State Project No. 8.2952101
T.I.P. No. B-3666
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
June 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
ZN CAR
••QOFESSi~•.!y~
~ as o3 Q~P -- = ~ s~~ q~
-~~
Date Clif n T. Register, PE n ; Q2~92
Project Manager ~,~~~~ ~Q,••.•;t~
~ .,OINE~~~~g .
r. a _
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(o - 2f~ • ~Or~
Date Jo Wadsworth, PE
Pr ect Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Henderson County
Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road)
Over North Branch of Hungrx. River "
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1799(1)
State Project No. 8.2952101
T.LP. I. D. No. B-3666
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,. Design
Standazds for Sensitive Watersheds, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification,
the following special commitments have been agreed to-by NCDOT: -
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch:
A copy' of .the environmental planning document will be submitted to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).
Hydraulics Unit /Structure Design Unit:
Deck drainage will not be allowed to discharge directly into the North Branch of Hungry River:
Sufficient space will be provided for wildlife movement under the bridge.
Division Construction:: -
"Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing Trout Waters in North
Carolina" (October 27, 1992) will be adhered to throughout the life of this project.-
-There will be an in-water work moratorium from October 15 to April 1 S for this project to avoid impacts
on trout reproduction.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
June 2003

Henderson County
Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road)
Over North Branch of Hungry River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1799(1)
State Project No. 8.2952101
T.I.P. I. D. No. B-3666
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 53 is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (T.LP.) 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".
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of
64.7 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
On September 2, 1997 Bridge No. 53 had a sufficiency rating of 25.1. Crutch bents were placed
at mid span of each existing span in order that 61-ton (55.3-metric ton) loads could cross the
bridge. The sufficiency rating was raised to 65.9. The crutch bents are a temporary solution. The
sills of these bents do not have a uniform bearing and will have stability problems over time.
The timber structure of this bridge will continue to create maintenance problems.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 53 is located on SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road) in Henderson County. Henderson
County is a trout county and the North Branch of Hungry River is classified as trout waters by
the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The North Branch of Hungry River flows into the Broad River basin, which is not in the
jurisdiction- of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); therefore, Section 26A .approval is not
required
SR 1799 is classified as rural local by the statewide functional classification system. Land use in
the project area is rural. Most of the surrounding area is undeveloped. SR 1799 is an unpaved
facility in the vicinity of the bridge. SR 1799 has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour
(mph) [55 kilometers per hour (km/h)]. The bridge is located approximately one mile (1.6
kilometers) west of the Polk County line..
The existing bridge is a three-span structure with an overall length of 76 feet (23.2 meters) and a
clear roadway width of 19.1 feet (5.8 meters). It was constructed in 1971. The bridge consists of
a timber deck on steel I-beams with timber caps and timber piles on concrete footings. Bridge
No. 53 currently has no posted weight limits for single vehicle (SV) or truck-tractor semi trailer
(TTST). The crown to riverbed height is approximately 11 feet (3.3 meters).
The approach roadway is gravel with a clear roadway width of 14 feet (4.2 meters) and six-foot
(1.8 meter) grass shoulders. The south approach is a series of curves with a 160-foot (48.8
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 1

meter) radius curve at the end of the bridge. The north approach is also a series of curves. with a
75-foot (22.8 meter) radius curve at the end of the bridge. This provides for a safe speed of
approximately 15 mph (20 km/h). _
There are no utilities attached to the bridge.
The 2003 estimated average daily traffic (ADT) volume is 60 vehicles per day (vpd). The
projected ADT is 110 vpd by the design yeaz 2030. The percentages of truck traffic aze two
percent dual tired vehicles (DUALS) and one percent TTST.
This section of SR 1799 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.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 53 during the period from December 1,
1999 to November 30, 2002.
No school busses cross this bridge.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based on the preliminary hydraulics report the proposed replacement structure for Bridge No. 53
will be a bridge. The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determine by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to
be performed during the final design phase of the project.
The proposed bridge will consist of two 10-foot (3.0-meter) travel lanes, a 2-foot (0.6-meter)
shoulder on the east side, and a 5-foot (1.5-meter) shoulder on the west side. The bridge has
been widened to the west side to improve sight distance (See Figure 3).
The proposed approach roadway will consist of two 10-foot (3.0-meter) travel lanes and 2-foot
(0.6-meter) shoulders. (See Figure 3). The proposed grade will be approximately the same as the
existing roadway. The proposed design speed is 15 mph {20 km/h).
B. Build Alternatives
Two build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge aze described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces Bridge No. 53 with a cored slab bridge on new alignment east
(downstream) of the existing bridge. The new bridge will have a length of approximately 95 feet
(29 meters). Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during construction. The south
approach is approximately 240 feet (73 meters) in length. The north approach is approximately
370 feet (113 meters). in length. (See Figure 2A.) The proposed grade will be approximately the
same as the existing roadway.
Alternate B replaces Bridge No. 53 with a cored slab bridge on existing alignment. The south
approach is approximately 225 feet (69 meters) in length. The new bridge will have a length of
approximately 90 feet (27 meters). The north approach is approximately 165 feet (50 meters) in
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 2

length. Traffic will be maintained by an unpaved one lane signalized temporary onsite detour
located east (downstream) of the existing structure. The detour structure will be a temporary
one-lane bridge approximately 120 feet (37 meters) in length.
(See Figure 2B.)
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred alternative because:
^ It utilizes aone-lane on-site temporary detour structure located down stream of the
existing bridge.
o The detour consists of reverse curves on each approach and will require signalization.
^ Alternative B is less economical than Alternative A.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "do-nothing' alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the existing structure and
closure of SR 1799 (Deep Gap Road). This is not desirable due to the service provided by SR
1799 (Deep Gap Road).
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that
rehabilitation of the existing structure is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Utilizing anoff--site detour was also eliminated from further study because SR 1799 (Deep Gap
Road) is a dead end road.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative A was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative A maintains traffic on the
existing structure during construction. This alternative will minimize potential impact to the
stream and is more economical than the use of an on-site detour structure (Alternative B).
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative A as the preferred alternative.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
Due to the existing road conditions, mountainous terrain, location of North Branch of Hungry
River, and the horizontal and vertical constraints, the proposed design speed is 15 mph (20
km/h). The proposed horizontal alignment will be on a curve at each end of the proposed bridge
with a radius of 100 feet (30 meters). A design exception for the proposed design speed of 15
mph (20 km/h) will be required.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 3

IV. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs, based on current prices are as follows:
Alternate A
(Preferred) Alternate B
Structure Removal (Existin) $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
Structure Pro sed 199,500.00 189,000.00
Roadwa A roaches 197,835.00 155,650.00
Tem .Detour Structure - 69,300.00
Tem . Detour A roaches - 19,600.00
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 199,665.00 207,450.00
En ineerin Contin encies 91,000.00 97,000.00
ROW/Const. Easements/CTtilities 49,000.00 48,000.00
TOTAL $749,000.00 $798,000.00
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program is $550,000, including $50,000 for right-of--way, $400,000 for construction, and
$100,000 in prior years.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Cliffield
Mountain, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle, 1991), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (FWS NWI 1995), and recent aerial photos.
Bridge No. 53 was visited on January 24 and June 12, 2001. The study corridor was walked and
visually surveyed for significant features. For purposes of field surveys, the study corridor was
assumed to be approximately 800 feet (243.8 meters) in length. The corridor width is 100 feet
(30.5 meters) from centerline on each side of SR 1799 to ensure proper coverage
(Figure 2A&B). Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for protected
species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Hungry River.
Plant community descriptions aze based on a classification system utilized by North Cazolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vasculaz plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current
nomenclature (Kartesz 1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-pazameter
approach following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Wetland jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established
by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as
expected population distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of
available habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof
et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 4

nomenclature follow current standards. Water quality information for azea streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 1998, 2000). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing data.
The February 24, 2003 FWS listing of federal-protected species with ranges which extend into
Henderson County was used in the preparation of this document. In addition, NHP records
documenting presence of federally or state listed species were also consulted.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Low and Intermediate Mountain System geologic formation
within the Mountains physiographic province of North Cazolina. This system is characterized by
sharp ridges, steep slopes, and narrow, steep, wet valley floors. Exposure, altitude and pazent
materials influence soil properties. Soils were formed in igneous or high-grade metamorphic
rock and are deep to bedrock. (Daniels et al. 1999.) The study corridor is located within and
adjacent to the floodplain of Hungry River. Within the study corridor the floodplain is narrow,
and the riverside bluffs are steep. Elevations rise from approximately 1880 feet (573 meters)
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) at streamside to 2000 feet (610 meters) NGVD at the
northern extreme of the study corridor (USGS Cliffield Mountain, NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA 1980) indicates the following soils within
the study corridor: Comus fine sandy loam (coazse-loamy, mixed, mesic Fluventic
Dystrochrepts), adjacent to and including the riverbed; and Edneyville fine sandy loam (fine-
loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludults) to the east and west of the river channel. Neither soil is
considered to be hydric in Henderson County (USDA 1996).
The Comus series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable, nearly level soils that formed
in recent alluvium. These soils contain moderate to large amounts of mica. The loamy material
is 20 to 40 inches (61.0 to 101.6 centimeters) deep, with a moderately acid A horizon to
approximately 10 inches (25.4 centimeters), underlain by a strongly acid B horizon. The C
horizon extends from 36 to 70 inches (91.4 to 177.8 centimeters) deep, and consists of sand,
loam, and gravel alluvial deposits. Depth to bedrock is more than 72 inches (182.9 centimeters).
The Edneyville series consists of well-drained, moderately permeable, sloping to steep soils that
formed in residuum weathered from granite and gneiss. Slopes are from 7 to 45 percent. They
typically have an organic layer of 1 to 2 inches (2.5 to 5.1 centimeters), with fine sandy loam or
clay loam A and B horizons to 30 inches (76.2 centimeters). The C horizon extends from 30 to
60 inches (76.2 to 152.4 centimeters), and consists of saprolite that crushed to sandy loam or fine
sandy loam. The soil profile is very strongly acid throughout. Depth to bedrock is more than 40
inches (101.6 centimeters). Of the predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service lists none as hydric (USDA 1980).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within sub-basin 03-08-03 (Green River drainage above Lake
Adger) of the Broad River Basin (DWQ 1998). This area is part of USGS accounting unit
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page S

03050105 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The section of Hungry River crossed by the
subject bridge has been assigned Stream Index Number 9-29-30 by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ 2000).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
Hungry River is a third-order stream in the Broad River sub-basin. Substantial amounts of land
in the upper reaches of the watershed are devoted to orchards. Within the study corridor, Hungry
River is moderately broad and exhibits awell-developed sinuosity and riffle and pool sequence.
Width of the stream was approximately 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters) at the point of the bridge
crossing. During the field survey, water depths along the study corridor varied from zero to 24
inches (zero to 61.0 centimeters). The banks of the stream were partly vegetated and rose from
three to six feet (0.9 to 1.8 meters) above the streambed, and flow was moderate. Persistent
emergent aquatic vegetation was not observed. The stream was clear during the field visit, with
the bed of the stream easily visible. The substrate is composed of bedrock and coarse cobble
downstream (west) of the bridge, and varied from rock to gravel and sand upstream, with pockets
of silt and leaf mats in a few calm corners.
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 C Tr has been assigned to Hungry River. The designation C denotes water
supply waters that are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and
secondary recreation. Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The
supplementary classification Tr identifies waters that are protected for both natural trout
propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. (DWQ 1998). No designated Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply
II (WS-In waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No watershed
Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the study corridor is
summarized in the Broad River basin management plan. Water quality samples in Hungry River
indicated Good-Fair water based on macroinvertebrate samples, taken approximately 0.6 mile
(one kilometer) south of the study corridor in 1995. The entire Hungry River and its tributaries
have a use support rating of Support Threatened. Water quality in the study corridor has been
impaired by sedimentation following logging activities near the stream. The Broad River sub-
basin 03-08-03, containing Hungry River and the upper Green River catchment from its
headwaters to its Lake Adger, has no major or minor permitted point-source discharges (DWQ
1998).
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a. Generallmpacts
Proposed project activities include complete bridging of Hungry River to maintain the current
water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime. This reach is classified as trout water by the
Division of Water Quality and is designated by the NCWRC as Hatchery Supported Waters.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 6

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 1) the use
of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; 2) elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; 3) re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; 4) management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides, de-icing
compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and 5) avoidance of direct
dischazges into streams through the use of catch basins and roadside vegetation. Special
restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices of Surface Waters, BMP-
BDRs, include those outlined by the North Cazolina Wildlife Resource Commission.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Hungry River, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting
from construction aze expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, "Guidelines for Construction of Highway Improvements Adjacent to or Crossing
Trout Waters in North Cazolina" (October 27, 1992) in addition to NCDOT 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
There is no potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "waters of the
United States" during demolition. In consideration of surface water impacts, this project can be
classified as Case 2. A Case 2 classification requires that no work be performed in the water
during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment. An
in-water work moratorium will be required from October 15 thru April 15 to avoid impacts to
trout reproduction. NCDOT will coordinate with various resource agencies during project
planning to ensure that all concerns regazding bridge demolition are resolved.
The existing bridge will be removed without dropping its components into waters of the United
States. No temporary fill is expected to result from demolition. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of
this bridge in addition to Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Three distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor: Montane Alluvial
Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, and urban/disturbed land. These plant communities aze described
below.
Acidic Cove Forest -Acidic Cove Forest occurs on the higher elevation slopes above the
streambed. This community grades into Montane Alluvial Forest in the lower, moister areas
along Hungry River. Acidic Cove Forest is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as
occurring at low and moderate elevations, in steep, narrow ravines and gorges and low, gentle
ridges within coves. Soils are rocky and acidic. At the Hungry River study corridor, the canopy
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 7

is dominated by eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white
oak (Q. alba), white pine (Pinus strobus), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), yellow birch (Betula
lutea), and beech (Fagus grandifolia). The canopy also includes black locust (Robinia
pseudoacacia), mockernut hickory (Carya alba) and tulip-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). The
subcanopy and shrub layer are moderately developed and include silverbell (Halesia Carolina),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), witch-hobble (Viburnum acerifolium), witch hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana), dog hobble (Leucothoe axillaris vaz. editorum), and blackberry (Rubus
argutus). Vines are uncommon, but include grape (Vitis sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), clematis (Clematis sp.), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.). The understory is sparse,
although some herbaceous species may have been present but not detected during the field
survey in January. Species noted were Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium plaryneuron), and heartleaf (Hexastylis sp.).
Montane Alluvial Forest -This community type occurs along the banks of Hungry River and is
distinguished from Acidic Cove Forest by the presence of alluvial species. The Montane
Alluvial Forest type is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring on stream and
river floodplains at moderate to high elevations. Flood-carried sediment provides some nutrient
input, and floods serve as an intermittent disturbance factor. The canopy included many of the
species found in the Acidic Cove Forest areas, including hemlock, beech, yellow birch, and tulip-
poplar. More alluvial species were also found in the canopy and subcanopy, including sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), along
with red maple (Acer rubrum), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and alternate-leaved dogwood
(Corpus alternifolia). The shrub layer included rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), dwarf rhododendron (R. minus), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), swamp rose
(Rosa palustris), sweet-shrub (Calycanthus floridus), dog hobble, and snowbell. Evergreen
species in the herb layer included Christmas fern, heartleaf, and partridge berry (Mitchella
repens).
Urban/Disturbed Land - Urban/disturbed land consists of maintained roadside areas along the
right-of--way of SR 1799. The roadside shoulder is approximately 6 feet (1.8 meters) wide. To
the west of Bridge No. 53, the road is cut into the hillside and steep slopes extend up and down
from the road. These azeas aze planted with erosion-controlling grasses and partridge pea
(Lespedeza sp.). North of the bridge, more gentle slopes rise from both sides of the road. In all
of the open roadside areas, volunteer and eazly-successional species have been established.
These include black locust and white ash in the overstory, with grape, honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and greenbrier vines. Herbaceous species include goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Indian
strawberry (Duchesnea indica), chickweed (Stellaria media), and wooly mullein (Verbascum
thapsus).
2. Wildlife
Tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were noted
within the study corridor. Some characteristic mammals which are expected to frequent clear
mountain streams include masked shrew (Sorex cinereus), smoky shrew (Sorex fumeus), staz-
nosed mole (Condylura cristata), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), small-footed myotis
(Myotis leibia~, hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), woodchuck
(Marmota monax), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), beaver (Castor canadensis),
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion PaSe 8

woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat
(Fells rufus), and eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius).
Bird species that were identified during the field survey aze winter wren (Colaptes auratus),
common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon). The
streamside habitat might be expected to also support Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii~,
American woodcock (Scolopax minor), screech owl (Otus asio), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris),
golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and dazk-
eyed junco (Junco hyemalis).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study corridor. Species that
might be expected in this habitat aze American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus),
worm snake (Carphopis amoenus), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), scazlet kingsnake
(Lampropeltis triangulum), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and queen snake (Regina
septemvittata).
3. Aquatic Communities
No aquatic amphibian or reptile was observed during the field survey. Hungry River provides
suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles including spotted turtle (Clemmys gunata),
redbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and mud snake (Farancia abacura). Typical
amphibian species for this habitat type include mountain dusky salamander (Desmognathus
ochrophaeus), seal salamander (Desmognathus monticola), blackbelly salamander
(Desmognathus quadramaculatus), southern two-lined salamander (Eurycea cirrigera), spring
salamander (Gyrinophilus porphyriticus), redback salamander (Plethodon cinereus), green
salamander (Aneides aeneus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), and green frog (Rana
clamitans). No mollusks were observed, but a lazge, dead crayfish was found in the study
corridor.
No sampling was undertaken in Hungry River to determine fishery potential. Small fish were
seen during visual surveys, but no larger fish were noted. Species which may be present in
Hungry River include central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), quill
back (Carpiodes cyprinus), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), brook trout (Salvelinus
fontinalis), seagreen darter (Etheostoma thalassinum), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare).
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
a) Terrestrial Communities
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge
replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal
populations. No substantial habitat fragmentation is expected since most permanent
improvements will be restricted to or adjoining existing roadside mazgins. Construction noise
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 9

and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to be minimal.
Plant community areas are estimated based on the amount of each plant community present
within the projected cut-and-fill areas for permanent bridge replacement (and for the temporary
detour in Alternate B). A summary of potential impacts to individual plant communities at
Bridge No. 53 are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Plant communities within the study corridor at Bridge No. 53, Henderson County.
Community areas are given in acres, with hectares in parentheses.
Alternative A Alternative B
Plant Community Permanent Temporary Detour Permanent Total
Acidic Cove Forest 1.54 (0.62) 0.22 (0.09) 1.22 (0.49) 1.47 (0.59)
Montane Alluvial Forest 0.78 (0.32) 0.07 (0.03) 0.13 (0.05) 0.20 (0.08)
Urban/Disturbed Land 0.21 (0.08) 0.37 (0.15) 0.17 (0.07) 0.51(0.21)
TOTAL: 2.53 (1.02) .066 (0.27) 1.52 (0.61) 2.18 (0.88)
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road facilities are minimal. No
new fragmentation of plant communities will be created. The project may only claim narrow
strips of adjacent natural communities. Bridge replacement may require at least temporary
incursion into Montane Alluvial Forest and Acidic Cove Forest, resulting in the removal of a few
mature trees.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species into local natural
communities. An example of an undesirable invasive species utilizing roadsides is kudzu
(Pueria lobata). The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as
practicable will limit the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
b) Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitats will be avoided by bridging the systems to
maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Temporary impacts to downstream habitat from
increased sediment and turbidity during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
stringent erosion control measures. Special restrictions other than those outlined in Best
Management Practices of Surface Waters, BMP-BDRs, include those concerning trout waters
and are outlined by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) (see
Appendix). 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 will span the
adjacent floodplain and provide sufficient space for wildlife to move under the bridge. An in-
water work moratorium from October 15 to April 15 is requested by the NCWRC for this
project.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 10

E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States" Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters within the embankments of Hungry River are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR section 328.3). Hungry River can be characterized as a perennial stream system with an
unconsolidated bottom of sand and gravel over bedrock.
Wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"Waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence
of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or
neaz the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). NWI mapping
indicates that the study corridor contains no jurisdictional wetlands. No jurisdictional wetland
areas were found during the field survey.
Direct jurisdictional azea impacts are avoided by the proposed bridge replacement. The project
will only result in shading of a portion of Hungry River. The permanent bridge replacement will
shade approximately the same area (0.01 acre [0.004 hectare)) as the existing bridge.
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 (67FR 2020-2095, January 15, 2002)) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ
has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23. However,
authorization for jurisdictional azea impacts through use of this permit will require written notice
to DWQ. In the event that NWP #23 will not suffice, minor impacts attributed to bridging and
associated approach improvements aze expected to qualify under General Bridge Permit 031
issued by the Asheville COE District. Notification to the Asheville COE office is required if this
general permit is utilized.
There is no potential that components of the existing bridge may be dropped into "waters of the
United States" during demolition. If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge
other than to drop them into the water prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to
demolition procedures will need to be considered during the permitting process. A worst-case
scenario will be assumed with the understanding that if there is any other practical method
available, the bridges will not be dropped into the water. Any permit needed for bridge
construction will address issues related to bridge demolition.
3. Mitigation
Section 404 compensatory mitigation is not required for this project due to avoidance of
jurisdictional area impacts. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
impacts. Fill or alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with
15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the COE.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 11

F. Rare and Protected Species
1. Federal Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or officially Proposed 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 significant 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 significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Federally protected species listed for Henderson County (FWS list, February 24, 2003) are listed
in Table 2.
The designation Threatened (S/A) denotes species that are Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance. This species 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.
Table 2: Species name and status for federally protected species in Henderson County per the
FWS list, February 24, 2003
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened (S/A)
Appalachian elktce Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Oyster mussel Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered
Swamp pink Helonias bullata Threatened
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Bunched arrowhead Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered
Mountain sweet pitcher
lant Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii
(S. jonesii~
Endangered
White irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered
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
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 12

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.
Aside from the moist areas immediately adjacent to the stream bank, no wetlands occur within
the study corridor. No bogs or other habitat suitable for bog turtles exists within the study
corridor. NHP records do not document bog turtles within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the
study corridor, and none were observed during the site visit.
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.
Appalachian Elktoe -Appalachian elktce 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 pseudocazdinal teeth are
present, and an interdental projection is present in the left valve. Juveniles are yellowish brown,
but the periostracum (outer shell surface) is thicker and dark brown in adults. Individuals may
be variably marked with prominent to obscure greenish rays. The nacre (shell interior) is shiny,
blue to bluish white with salmon, pinkish, or brownish coloring in the central portion of the shell
and beak cavity.
Appalachian elktce 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. Anew population has recently been found in the Little River
near the Henderson-Transylvania County line. (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 elktce 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: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area
by qualified biologists on February 11, 2003. No freshwater mussel species were
located. Due to the survey results and the fact that the North Branch Hungry River
is Atlantic slope drainage, it is apparent that the Appalachian elktce does not exist
within the project footprint. In addition, NHP does not list any known population of
this species upstream or downstream of the project area. This project will not affect
Appalachian elktoe. 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 aze slightly inflated and thinner toward the posterior margin. Oyster mussels
inhabit small to medium-sized rivers chazacterized by sand to boulder substrata and moderate to
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 13

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 Project of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Other populations have probably been lost due to pollution and siltation. All known populations
are small and vulnerable to disturbance.
The study corridor contains substrates of sand, gravel, and boulder, with moderate to swift
currents. Therefore, suitable habitat for oyster mussel may exist within the study corridor.
Oyster mussels have not been documented within the Broad River basin, and NHP records
document no occurrence of oyster mussel within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor.
No shells or other indications of oyster mussel were observed within the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Mussel surveys were conducted in the project area
by qualified biologists on February 11, 2003. No freshwater mussel species were
located. Due to the survey results and the fact that the North Branch Hungry River
is Atlantic slope drainage, it is apparent that the oyster mussel does not exist within
the project footprint. In addition, NHP does not list any known population of this
species upstream or downstream of the project area. This project will not affect
oyster mussel. 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).
No swamps or bog areas occur within the study corridor. No jurisdictional wetlands were
documented during the site visit. Therefore, suitable habitat for swamp pink does not exist
within the proposed project area. Furthermore, swamp pink was not observed during a plant
survey of the proposed alternative conducted on June 12, 2001, and NHP records do not
document swamp pink within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor.
8-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 14

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Based on existing site habitats, NHP records, and a
plant survey conducted at the site, the proposed project will not affect Swamp Pink.
NO EFFECT.
Small-whorled Pogonia -The small whorled pogonia is a terrestrial orchid growing to about 10
inches (25.4 centimeters) high. Five or six drooping, pale dusty green, widely rounded leaves
with pointed tips are arranged in a whorl at the apex of the greenish or purplish, hollow stem.
Typically a single, yellowish green, neazly 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 inches (1.7 centimeters), surrounded by 3 narrow sepals up to 1 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). Although populations of small whorled pogonia are sparse, they aze widely
distributed. The species is found in open, dry deciduous or mixed pine-deciduous forest, or
along stream banks. Examples of azeas providing suitable conditions (open canopy and shrub
layer with a sparse herb layer) where small whorled pogonia has been found include old fields,
pastures, windthrow azeas, cutover forests, old orchards, and semi-permanent canopy breaks
along roads, streams, lakes, and cliffs (Massey et al. 1983). Habitat forests are generally in
second- or third-growth forests. Soils are often sandy or stony, acid, nutrient-poor soils overlain
by leaf litter. Beyond the common characteristics of soils, sparse ground cover and open canopy
with persistent breaks, myriad exceptions and local vaziations occur (FWS 1992). In the
Mountains and Piedmont of North Carolina, this species is usually found in association with
white pine (Weakley 1993), or at scattered locations in the Mountains, Piedmont and Sandhills
(Amoroso 1999), including wooded slopes and streamsides (Radford et al. 1968).
The study corridor contains habitat that may be suitable for small whorled pogonia. Along the
stream bank, the shrub and herb layers are sparse. The roadside and disturbed azeas and the
stream itself provide persistent canopy breaks. The azea is in second- or third-growth forest
(adjacent azeas have been recently logged), and soils are acidic and stony. Leaf litter provides a
continuous ground cover. The associated tree species, white pine, occurs within the study
corridor. Therefore, all areas of suitable habitat were systematically seazched during the
flowering period (on June 12, 2001), resulting in no findings of small whorled pogonia within
the proposed alternative. NHP records do not document small whorled pogonia within 5.0 miles
(8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor does contain suitable habitat
for this species; however, based on a NHP record search and a systematic survey
conducted during the flowering period, this project will not affect small whorled
pogonia. NO EFFECT.
Bunched Arrowhead -Bunched arrowhead is a perennial, emergent, aquatic herb growing to 14
inches (35 centimeters) in height with simple, basal leaves. Two leaf forms are produced:
phyllodes (blade-less) eazly in the season, and progressively longer, broader leaves later in the
season (Kral 1983). The phyllodes are lineaz, distinctively flattened, spongy-tissued, and aze 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
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 15

centimeters) and widths of 1.6 inches (4.0 centimeters). Unisexual flowers aze borne on an erect
flowering stem in two to four whorls, with each whorl subtended by three bracts fused at the
base. Fruits consist of a round aggregate of large, distinctively crested achenes. Flowering has
been reported as occurring in May and June (Kral 1983) to as late as July (Massey et al. 1983),
with fruits present from May through September (Massey et al. 1983). Vegetative portions of
the plant may emerge in April and persist through September (Massey et al. 1983). Bunched
arrowhead is found rooted in shallow water in or along shallow, sluggish streams flowing
through mountain swamps or bogs (Kral 1983). Typical substrate is reported to be siliceous and
micaceous silty muck, often with high sulfide content (Kral 1983). The current distribution is
restricted to Buncombe and Henderson Counties in the mountains of North Cazolina (Annoroso
1999) and Greenville County in the upper Piedmont of South Cazolina.
It is unlikely that suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead exists within the study corridor.
Hungry River, within the study comdor, is swift-flowing and not associated with swamps or
bogs. In addition, the substrate of Hungry River is composed of sand to cobble and boulders,
and contains silt only in isolated backwater pockets. NHP records do not document bunched
arrowhead within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study corridor, and bunched arrowhead was
not observed during a plant survey of the proposed alternative conducted on June 12, 2001.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No suitable habitat for bunched arrowhead exists
in the study corridor. No remnants were observed during systematic surveys of the
study corridor, and the NHP documents no occurrences in the vicinity. Based on
habitat studies, NHP records, and a recent plant survey conducted at the site, the
proposed project will not affect bunched arrowhead. NO EFFECT.
Mountain Sweet Pitcher Plant -Mountain sweet pitcher plant is an insectivorous, perennial,
hydrophytic herb growing to 30 inches (76 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 aze produced on erect flowering stems. Petals are dark red to mazoon on the
outside, with the inner surface often yellow-green tinged with red. Flowering has been reported
from April to June with fruits formed by August. Vegetative portions of the plant may emerge in
April and persist through August (Massey et al. 1983). Mountain sweet pitcher plant is treated
as a subspecies of the more common sweet pitcher plant (S. rubra). Mountain sweet pitcher
plant is found in mountain bogs and along streams on granite rock faces. The current
distribution is restricted to Buncombe, Henderson, and Transylvania Counties in the mountains
of North Carolina (Amoroso 1999) and Greenville and Pickens Counties in western South
Carolina.
The study con~idor contains no bogs, but granite rock faces with seepages occur within the study
corridor along Hungry River. Therefore, all areas of suitable habitat were systematically
searched during the flowering period (on June 12, 2001), resulting in no findings of mountain
sweet pitcher plant within the proposed alternative. NHP records document no occurrences of
mountain sweet pitcher plant within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) of the study site.
8-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 16

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The Hungry River study corridor does contain
suitable habitat for mountain sweet pitcher plant; however, based on a NHP record
search and a systematic search conducted within suitable habitat types of the
proposed alternative, this project will not affect mountain sweet pitcher plant. NO
EFFECT.
White Irisette -White irisette is a perennial herb in the iris family that grows to 16 inches (40
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
inch (0.36 centimeter) wide. White irisette differs from other blue-eyed grasses by having three
to five nodes with successively shorter internodes between dichotomous branches (FWS 1995).
Four to six flowers with white, recurved perianth units are borne per spathe. Flowering occurs
from late May through July. White irisette is found in dry to mesic, open oak-hickory forest on
mid-elevation mountain slopes at elevations from 1300 to 3300 feet (400 to 1000 meters) with
aspects ranging primarily from southeast to southwest (FWS 1995). White irisette grows in
shallow, circumneutral soils, especially over weathered amphibolite. White irisette is reported to
grow best on regularly disturbed sites, such as power lines, roadsides, and woodland edges,
which mimic suppressed natural disturbances and maintain open habitat (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.
Some aspects of suitable habitat for white irisette exist within the study corridor, such as
elevation, aspect, and disturbance regime. However, soil acidity precludes its continued survival
and reproduction in this area. According to NHP records, white irisette occurs along Cliffield
Mountain, approximately 2.1 miles (3.4 kilometers) northeast of the study site. White irisette
was not observed during a plant survey of the proposed alternative conducted on June 12, 2001.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The study corridor contains no suitable habitat for
white irisette. NHP records document its occurrences 2.1 miles (3.4 kilometers)
from the study corridor. Based on field observations, NHP records, and a recent
plant survey conducted at the site, the proposed project will not affect white irisette.
NO EFFECT.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern"
(FSC) in Henderson County. 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): A list of FSC species occurring in Henderson
County is given in Table 3. Information on state status was gathered from NHP on June 4, 2003
(list last updated May 2003).
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for species listed. NHP files
do not document any occurrences of FSC species within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor. However, NHP records do note the occurrence of mountain heartleaf (Hexastylis
contracta) 1.6 miles (2.6 kilometers) southwest of the study corridor.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 17

Table 3: Species name, habitat potential within the study corridor, and state status for species
federally designated as FSC within Henderson County.
Conunon Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State Status
Green salamander Aneides aeneus Yes 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 No NL
Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona holstonia No E
Diana fritillary butterfly* Speyeria diana No SR
Schweinitz's sedge Carex schweinitzii No E
Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta Yes E
French Broad heartleaf Hexastylis rhombiformis Yes SR-L
Butternut Juglans cinerea No NL
Rough rush Juncos caesariensis No E
Gray's lily Cilium grayi No T-SC
Fraser's loosestrife** Lysimachia fraseri Yes E
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons* Marshallia grandiflora No SR-T
Sweet pinesap* Monotropsis odorata No SR-T
Bog asphodel* Narthecium americanum No E
White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia No E
Divided-leaf ragwort* Senecio millefolium Yes T
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata No SR-T
Blotched chub Erimystax insignis No SR
Fort Mountain sedge Carez communis var. amplisquama No SR-T
* -Historic occurrence; last seen in county more than 50 years ago
** -Obscure record, date and/or location of observation is uncertain
State status codes:
E -Endangered
T -Threatened
SC -Special Concern
NL -Not listed in this county by NHP.
SR -Significantly Rare -T -Throughout
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 18

3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat is present in the study corridor the Appalachian elktoe and the Oyster mussel, which is
federally protected. Habitat is also present for several FSCs. Due to the limited extent of
infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not result in
substantial loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal and plant populations
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 with 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 Effect (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 December 8, 2000 the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic azchitectural resources either
listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of
the concurrence form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated February 5, 2001
stated, "There aze no recorded azchaeological sites within the proposed project area... If,
however, the replacement is to be on 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 azchaeological resources." In a memorandum dated October 25, 2002, SHPO stated "We
recommend that no azchaeological work be conducted for this project." A copy of the SHPO
memorandums 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.
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 19

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 aze expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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 azea.
There aze no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,
state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
According to NRCS, the proposed project will impact 1.02 acres of soils defined as prime and
statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 82,824 acres of
prime or important soils found in Henderson County. The impact rating determined through
completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating indicates that the site's
assessment and relative value score is 104 out of a possible 260. A score higher than 160 would
indicate that mitigation should be considered. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
The project is located in Henderson County, which has been determined to be in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standazds. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 aze 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 azea.
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
significant.
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 Cazolina 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 aze required.
An examination of records at the North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Cazolina Department
of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazazdous waste sites in the
project area. This project is not anticipated to impact USTs. If any unregulated USTs or any
potential source of contamination is discovered during right-of--way initial contacts with
B-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 20

impacted property owners, then an assessment will be conducted to determine the extent of any
contamination at that time.
Henderson County is not currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. This
crossing of North Branch of Hungry River is not located in a designated flood hazard zone.
Attached is a copy of the FEMA Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, Figure 5.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
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. Responses to the scoping letters are included in the appendix.
An informational newsletter describing the proposed project and the preferred alternative was
mailed to local residences and property owners on August 7, 2002.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
Comment: "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 jlood plain and provide
sufficient space for wildlife to move under the bridge. An in-water work moratorium from
October 1 S to April 15 is requested for this project. "
Response: The Pisgah National Forest is located in the north western part of Henderson County.
Bridge No. 53 is not within the Pisgah National Forest. NCDOT will provide adequate space for
wildlife to move under the bridge. There will be an in-water work moratorium from October 15
to April 15 for this project to avoid impacts on trout reproduction.
8-3666 Categorical Exclusion Page 21

1742
64 1726 1722 1721 1525
~- Blue ~ ~~5'
-----.. 1726 1728 Ridge PINEY`.
MTNo;
~,
1741 1734 1729 ~~, '.,
1732
1722 ~ \•-_- ~
1943 1734
1735 ~'~ 1525 ,
;:
' ~. -
' ~ ._;
'- 1736 1730 1731 ~`~
• ~ •`•.\
~•• 1737
1738 ! 19~, 1525 t, ;~1 ,'
1944 v . ~ 17~ `',, B-3666
1525 ; '~ Dana Q %
- ~ ~ ~ ~'
-- _ 1796 ~ ;' 1799
1797
-- --- - - --•~ 1795 1722 '~. ... ---•- (,~
1793 1794
1794 ~ 1798
_-_Gr eGGe 1799 1885
1791 1796 ~! Jv 1799
1790 1792 F Or K ~ ~ 1800 ~ ~ , ,, _-
;' ~ : -
oC,~r,- -,,• o ~- , • 1802 1801 = i
,,_ :~, _ `god. ';
•\ 26 ~• .~~, ~ J
1so2 %
~~~. 1783 Cana • ~~ _ i
O
s dv. Y
rer
,0V
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis
HENDERSON COUNTY
BRIDGE N0.53 ON SR 1799 OVER
THE NORTH BRANCH HUNGRY RIVER
6666
~ kilometers ~.6 kilometers 3 ~2
Q miles ~•~ miles 2.~
FIGURE 1

-~ -

M
W
a °~ W
o,
~
~~ ^ ~
~
~ aai~ Zv~p
a ~ Q x .o
p°w~ OZ~~~
... ~ -- }/ ~ o ~ LL

A p O~ O Z
a O
U
a
dU0 GCOW Z
~
~"
Z
~
i

i~ E ~.,
C,.
. 0
W
t+ O b
O ~+ {~ a Z W p ~"'
..
~~ z o a w = ~
~.
~~ ~ ~
m Z
® ~
O
~~
ti~ co
j p N 0
~_ `~'
Z
O
~
" N ~ ~ W p ~ E
p ~ ~ ~'~ W
O ~ N1 ~
~ ~ Vl
~ ~
~4
~ ~ 3
ti ~
p ~
N °p m

~ ~
M ~ Q OC W Z
~ hl
O ~
~ ~
~ p
O
~ O
~ ~ ~

w

p

~ O

H o
3
0
~i W
N tp
~
~
J
~
~ W
~ N
E
~ ~ ~ • ~
N ,~ e
~ ~
Q Q V
N

O y Q
y
O 0

`~ O
J J
4
\
N ~O ~O O
r
~ oC~CL

..
Q ~~ ~~ ~~ O
q~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U
Z Q Q Q ~
O g
~ N N N ~° ~ U
N ~
} } ..1
O
Z
~ O
N Z y a ~
V ~ p ~ u~,.

B-3666
Henderson County
Bridge No 53 on SR 1799 over N. Branch Hungry River
FIGURE 4
Looking North across Bridge No. 53.

Upstream Side of Bridge No. 53.
Downstream Side of Bridge No. 53.
FIGURE 4A
B-3666
Henderson County
Bridge No 53 on SR 1799 over N. Branch Hungry River

`r~ivtt~
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
,Henderson County NC
tS-J000
~/ ~ NATIONAL FLOOR IMSORANCE PR06NAi
„-
/ ~~ a -
u ~ ~: , :~~:>..:,.,..
i FLOODWAY
'~ ~ FLOOD BOUNDAR9 AND
air FLOODWAY MAP
_~
o ~ HENDERSON COUNTY,
'`~~ ~ NORTH CAROLINA
_ _ _ _ ~, ~ ~, / . ~ (UNRiGORPORATED AREJIS)
= ``. q
-'
PANEL 105 OF 150
~ w. woEx rw rµcu wo..wxreo,
~~
,/~~~
o
~_
i) COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
`\\1\Il ~ i~ I 3101250105
. ,~ ['~N,~ I EFFECTIVE DATE:
{/ '~/ MARCH 1,1982
U ~
II j
~-
1
II ,,
~~ a
_' `` q ~
ii \I d
n ~ 1
,,- n
o,
~ '^" ~
~ » ~~f
a
p
," B-3666
PROJECT SITE
ti II
R I
r,
..
,,
~, - -,
~` ~_
l'
.~.
FIGURE 5

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 2880t
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 accordarice
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 lmown
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 pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) occur near
this project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any fiuther
planning or orr-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, Further
consultation will be required. ,.
~~
Project B-3665. Known locations of the federally endangered bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria
fasciculata) and mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii) occur in the vicinity of this
project. We recommend surveying the project area for these species prior to any further planning
or on-the-ground activities. If these species occur in the project area, further consultation will be
required.
Projects B-3662 and B-3664. These projects occur in the general vicinity of Mud Creek, an area
with several occurrences of bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) and mountain sweet
pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii). Currently there are no known locations of these species in the
immediate-project area. However, a lack of any systematic surveys throughout the Mud Creek .
drainage may account for the apparent absence of these species. In the areas affected by these
projects, we recommend conducting habitat assessments and surveying any suitable habitat for
these species.
Projects B-3666 B-3663 and B-3857. Our records for Henderson County indicate no known
locations of listed species in the project areas. However., we recommend conducting habitat
assessments and surveying any suitable habitat in the project areas for these species prior to any
further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur.
McDowell County
Project B-3673. Our records indicate known locations for the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
near this project. Habitat assessments and surveys of suitable habitat should be conducted in the
project area for this species: If the bog turtle occurs in the project aze~, it should be protected
from impacts. .
tiVatauga 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.

r
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-O1-278.
Since e y;~-~
%j ~ G~
i
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, W~ynesviile, 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
. ~ ,- ., ~ ~ ~,so

Updated: 02/24/2003
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
HENDERSON COUNTY
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
Vertebrates
Bog turtle
Eastern "small-footed myotis
Green salamander
Hellbender
Southern Appalachian woodrat
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe
Diana fritillary butterfly
French Broad crayfish
Oyster mussel
Tennessee heelsplitter
Vascular Plants
Bog asphodel
Bunched arrowhead
Butternut
Divided-leaf ragwort
Fraser's loosestrife
French Broad heartleaf
Gray's lily
Large-flowered Barbara's buttons
Mountain catchfly
Mountain heartleaf
Mountain sweet pitcher plant
Rough rush
Schweinitz's sedge
Small-whorled pogonia
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Myotis leibii
Aneides aeneus
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
Neotoma floridana haematoreia
Alasmidonia raveneliana
Speyeria Jana
Cambarus reburrus
Epioblasma capsaeformis
Lasmigona holstonia
Narthecium americanum
Sagittaria fascieulata
Juglans cinerea
Senecio millefolium
Lysimachia fraseri
Hexastylis rhombiformis
Lilium grayi
Marshallia grandiflora
Silene ovata
Hexasrylis contracta
Sarracenia jonesii
Juncus caesariensis
Carex schweinitzii
Isotria medeoloides
T(S/A)1
FSC
FSC
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC*
FSC*
Endangered
FSC
C1*
Endangered
FSC
FSC*
FSC**
FSC
FSC
FSC*
FSC
FSC
Endangered
FSC
FSC
Threatened

http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cntylist/henderson.html 6/25/2003

V - _- _
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 signficant 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.
Cl - 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 alli ag for )--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.
***TncidentaUmigrant record -the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
****Historic record -obscure and incidental record.
lIn 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 appeazance). 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.
For additional information regarding this Web page, contact Mark Cantrell, in Asheville, NC, at
mark a [e-mail]
Visit the North Carolina ES Homena~e
Visit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page
Keywords={same keywords listed above -used for search tools}

e,,. AATr
~ ', ~`_
~,~~~.
Michael F. Easlty, Governor
Lisb~Yh C. Evans, Secretary
Jcfii•cy J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
October 25, 2002
~: ~
MEI~•fORr1ND UM
North Carolina Department of Cultural 1
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
y i
FROM: David Brook ~~ i ,,,~.~,~ 1`~1L~{(--
SUBiECT: Alignment Mapping for Replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Hungry River, B-3666,
Henderson County, ER 01-8269
Thank you for your letter of September 25, 2002. Although the letter references new alignment mappin}*
for Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 over Mud Creek (B-3664"/ER 01-8267), the attached correspondence, plat.
and aerial photograph was for Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799 over Hungry River (B-3666/ER O1-8269).
Vile have previously reviewed the Replacement of Bridge No. 53 over Hungry River (B-3666)
We recommend that no archaeological work be conducted for this project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Servicr Center, Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 7 [phone] •733-8653
restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Scrvicc Crnter, Raleigh 2 7 699-46 1 3 [phone] •715-4801
un•ey .Y Plannins S 1 S N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Scrvicc Crnter. Raleigh 276~K1-46IR [phone] •715-4801

~'
hTA ~~ 1:
ti
..~~.s'
~~ oaw ~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development an(~d~E,~nvironnmental Arlnalysis $ranch
From: David Brook ~~ 1~~~&.. f~--
Deputy State Histonc Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Replace Bridge #53 on SR 1799 over Hungry River, B-36 ,Henderson County, ER 01-8269
Thank you for your letter of December 6, 2000, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area. However, since a survey has not been conducted in over a
decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located within the planning area.
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, please send us
photographs (Polaroid type snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be keyed to a
map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no building over fifty years old on or adjacent to the
project, please notify us of this in writing.
There are no 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 Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideratipn. 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
Administration
Restoration
Survey & Planning
Location
507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC
515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].715-8653
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone].715-4801

Federal Aid #BRZ-1799(1) TIP #B-3666. County: Henderson
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No.53 on SR 1799 over HunErJ River
On December 8, 2000, representatives ofthe
(~ ~ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
~' North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
~~ photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
[~ j' there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
~.% .there are no properties less than Fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are considered not eligible for the National
/ Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
[~/ there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
~.

FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
G-~ Z7
L
Representative, SHPO
~r~~
State Historic Preservation Officer
~~
-8ov
Date
r t ~~ / ~r
Date
/2 ~ L~U`
Date
la/aLy~
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and E onme~r ta]-Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Owen F. Anderson, lGfoun gin Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 10, 2001
SUBJECT: Sco in for Bridge Replacements B3475, B3662, B-3663, B-3664, B-3665,
-3673, and B-3857, Henderson and McDowell Counties
This memorandum responds to your request for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from the subject projects. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed projects, and our 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
bufifer prior to reaching the subject surface waters. In some cases, we aze 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:

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 fdIlowing conditions are likely to be placed on the subject 404 permits:
Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and
maintained on the project site to avoid 'impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
Structures should be inspected,and maintained regularly, especially following rainfall
events. -
2. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
3. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, 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.

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
ern
NCDENR
January 5, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quali
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele CUC~Ct~1
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799
over Green River in Henderson County, T.LP. Projectib6
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated December 22, 2000, in which you
provided an improved vicinity map for the above project. `The Hungry River (9-29-30); Broad
River Basin, is classified as C Trout 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 bridges, particularly in higher quality waters
(i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be
aware that floodplain culverts are required.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. .Since the impacted water is classified as trout waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to Nurth Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications. Please be aware that trout moratoriums set by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission will apply.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative~Action Employer Sd% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

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. Ifmulti-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 bankfiall 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-
254b.
cc: Mr. Steven Lund, NCDOT Coordinator, .COE, Asheville
Ms. Stacy Hams, P.E., PD & EA Branch, NCDOT, Raleigh
Ms. Marella Buncick, Biologist, USFWS Asheville
4 ,

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
ern
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC. Division of Water Quality
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele L%(.~ul
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 53 on SR 1799
over Green River in Henderson County, T.LP. Project B-3666.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated December 6, 2000, in which you
requested Scoping comments for the above project. The water body is actually Green River (not
Hungry River) in the Broad River Basin. The DWQ index number for the stream is 9-29-(22)
and is classified as C Trout 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 bridges, particularly in higher quality waters
(i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should. be countersunk to allow
unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be
aware that floodplain culverts are required.
B.. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. ,There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts: If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. Whilq the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Since the impacted water is classified as trout waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly
adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds"
(15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project. This would
apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), SA (Shellfish Water) or Tr (Trout Water)
classifications. Please be aware that trout moratoriums set by the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission will apply.
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 memo
12/11/00
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. 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
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 streams in
excess of 1501inear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory.
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. 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.
J. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 1501inear 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.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead; siormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. 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

+ Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
1'J I t/00
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for Genera1401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in Ehe creek, to the maximum extent
practicable. _
G. 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
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 streams in
excess of 1501inear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Peimit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 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. '
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More 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.
M. 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
Mazella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files

'
HENDERSON COUNTY
E David E. Nicholson
+~".°
a~`"'}
-~;~ ~ OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER County Manager
Avaiina Merrill
100 NORTH KING STREET Administrative Assistant
HENDERSONVILLE, N.C. 28792-5097
F:; ,.: ',~ PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
~
~'"°E°``
www.henderson.lib.nc.us/county
January 10, 2001
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Enviroiunental`Analysis.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleig~i NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
I am wr;ting 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 prof ects.
Should you have any additional questions, please contact me. .
Sincere~,y,
' .'1~Jf~y /
v~-
David E. Nicholson
County Manager
DEN/abm
Attachment

Cc: Board of Commissioners
Transportation Advisory Committee Members

Henderson County Government Report on
NCDOT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS
B-3475, B-3662, B-3663, B-3665, B-3666 and B-3857
January 10, 2001 ; ,
Henderson County appreciates the opportunity to study and comment on the proposed bridge
replacement projects identified by NCDOT as B-3475, B-3662, B-3663; B-3665, B-3666 and
B-3857. The following report contains the County's comments regarding the projects.
B-3475 -Bridge No. 3~6 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 traff c that enters/exits Hendersonville via Kanuga Road.
Residents and businesses around the bridge area as well as those that use Kanuga Road to access
Hendersonville will be impacted. The detour that is shown on the NCDOT map (using Lily
Pond Drive, West Allen Street and Washington Street), is approximately 0.5 mile in length.
Erica Thompson, Program Coordinator for the Start with Your Heart program with the
Henderson County Partnership for Health,Inc., has been working on a Bicycle/Pedestrian
Assessment Project in the Henderson County. At her request, Henderson County has agreed to
ask NCDOT to consider widening the sidewalk on Bridge No. 356 when the bridge itself is
widened. According to Ms. Thompson, the current sidewalk is too narrow.
Henderson County understands that the City of Hendersonville is submitting its own comments
regarding the subject bridge project as well.
'~ B-3662= Bride No. 20 on SR 1006 (Howard Gap Road) over Featherstone Creek
The subject bridge is located on Howard Gap Road in an area that is mainly residential in
character but which also contains several churches, small businesses and an industry. The
intersection of Howard Gap Road and Brookside Camp Road is located to the northwest. Vulcan
Materials (including the P.PAC 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/from US 25 may
be made via the new road to Park Ridge Hospital, Brookside Camp Road, Clear Creek Road,
and, possibly, Balfour Road.
Residents and business owners in the area of the proposed bridge project will probably be
impacted the most. However, there may be impacts on alternative routes due to the need to
detour trucks, including those from Vulcan, around the bridge construction project.
While it is probably unlikely that NCDOT would undertake the subject project and project
B-3664 on Brookside Camp Road simultaneously, the County would like to specifically request
that the projects be scheduled at different times. If they were to occur together, the impacts on
the area would be intensified, particularly because the bridge to be replaced on Howard Gap
Road is on the detour route for the Brookside Camp Road bridge project (described below).
. __B-3663 -Bridge No. 320 on SR 1212 (Old Homestead Road) over Shaws Creek
Old Homestead Road, located off of US 64 West, has a paved surface. The subject bridge
.crosses Shaws Creek, adjacent to a Southern Railway track. One must. cross the bridge, then the
track. There is no railroad crossing signal on the road. .
There, aze a number of residences that are served by Old Homestead Road once it crosses Shaws
Creek. The azea is zoned R-30 by the County and is within a WS-1V Water Supply Watershed.
The land immediately adjacent to the bridge is undeveloped.. According to the Flood Insurance
Rate Map of the azea, Shaws Creek is shown to have a narrow area of flood zone which includes
the azea 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
Mazshal/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 consideratipn during the project.
B-3664 -Bridge No. 21 on SR 1528 Brookside Camp Road) over Mud Creek
Bridge No. 21 on Brookside Camp Road is located south of the I-26 overpass. Double Tee Golf
Center is located to the northwest and Wolverine Paintball is located to the northeast. Vacant
fields are located immediately adjacent to the bridge, along Mud Creek. The bridge is in a low
area that has been subject to flooding in the past. The area is within a flood zone, according to
the Flood Insurance Rate Map. It is also in the Mountain Home Fire District.
= Brookside Camp Road provides access from US 25 to Grimesdale, Hickory Hills and several
smaller subdivisions. It also serves to connect US 25 to Howard Gap Road and the residences
and businesses in that azea.

Henderson County Government Report January 10, 2001
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects 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=665 =Bridge No. 265 on SR 1791 (Ballenger Roads over North Branch, Bat Fort Creek
Ballenger Road is located to the east of I-26, between Tracy Grove Road and Upward Road.
Land Uses in the area azound the bridge include Lakewood RV Pazk 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 aze paved. Much of the northern end of Mc Murray Road consists of orchazds and
some single-family dwellings. As one approaches Upward Road, there aze 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 Upwazd Road and
McMurray Road. Since Ballenger Road is not a major thoroughfaze, the bridge project is more
likely to affect local traffic. The detour will probably increase the number of vehicles
entering/exiting Upward Road near the I-26 ramps.
No. 53 on SR 1799
e su sect 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,
pazticulazly 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 primazily. Hungry River LLC is listed as the owner of approximately 2073 acres at
and beyond the subject bridge.
The subject bridge is located on Ladson Road approximately 0.2 mile from its intersection with
t :_
NC 191. Land use in the area surrounding the bridge is agricultural, except that there is one
dwelling j ust 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, 20U l
NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects Page 4 ,
area. The area around the bridge is in the County's R-30 zoning district and it is also within the
WS-IV Water Supply Watershed.
The detour route shown on the map provided by NCDOT requires one to travel along Banner
Farm Road and Schoolhouse Road, which will add several rniles to the trip for those who
normally use Ladson Road. The detour route also passes by Mills River Elementary School.
There is a change in fire districts as one travels along Ladson Road. Mills River Fire and Rescue
services the portion of Ladson Road near the subject bridge while the area further south of the
bridge is serviced by Etowah-Horse Shoe Fire and Rescue. According to Rocky Hyder,
Henderson County Fire MarshaUEmergency Management Director, both departments typically
respond to all calls in the area. However, for the Mills River department to respond to the area in
its district that is south of the bridge, it will have to use the proposed detour along Schoolhouse
Road, which will probably increase its response time slightly.
Other General Comments
County staff did not have a chance to fully investigate the environmental conditions in the areas
around the bridges other than to note areas that may be subject to flooding. However, as with
any projects undertaken near waterways, the County expects that NCDOT will use erosion and
sedimentation controls and other measures to minimize negative impacts on water quality.
Also, because of ongoing projects in the County to establish safe pedestrian walkways and bike
.routes adjacent to roadways, the County suggests that, when reasonable and feasible, NCDOT
consider ways to improve the bridges for these purposes as well as for vehicle travel.
Finally, if it is not already a customary practice, Henderson County suggests that some time prior
to initiation of each bridge replacement project, it would be helpful if NCDOT forwarded
information regarding the actual detours to the Superintendent of Henderson County Public
Schools in order for County bus routes to be adjusted accordingly. In addition, such detour
information would be helpful to other County departments and agencies. Therefore, NCDOT
should also consider sending such information to the County Manager's office for distribution.
Note: Henderson County does not participate in the federal flood insurance program. Flood Insurance Rate
Maps referenced in comments for projects in the County's jurisdiction (B-3662, 8-3663, B-3665, B-3666.
and B-3857) are dated March 1, 1982. 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.
Ciry's jurisdiction (B-3475) is dated January 20, 1982.

•
~-
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: 200230310 County: Henderson
Waters of the U.S. Survey/DelineationVerification
Property owner/Authorized Agent: North Cazolina Department of Transportation
Address: Attn: William D. Gilmore, Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, Post Office Box 25201, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone Number: [phone]
Size and Location ofProperty/Project (waterbody, highway name/number, town, etc.):
Bridge #53 (B-3666), SR 1799, North Branch Hungry River, Henderson County, North
Carolina.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There aze waters of the U.S. on the above described property which have been accurately
delineated. We recommend that the delineated lines be surveyed. The surveyed lines
must be verified by our staffbefore the Corps will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
X The submitted GPS survey dated January 2001 for the above referenced project
accurately reflects the limits of waters of the U.S. on the property. Unless there is a
change in the law or our published regulations, this determination maybe relied upon for
a period not to exceed 5 years from the date of this survey.
Placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. on this property without a Department.
of the Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1311). A permit is -not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high
ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please
contact: John W. Hendrix at f828) 271-7980. Ext. 7.
Project Manager Signature ~\~ ~!'~ b~~^~+~~ Date: February 26, 2002
CF: Mr. Alexander P. Smith, Ecoscience Corporation, 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604

ARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~ ~ O
/ERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND CONVERSION IlVIPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROTECTS
i
SCS-CPA-106 ,t,
:. l To be Completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
lvlvol 4. Shcet 1 of 1
Karnes of Project
B-3666 5. Federal Agency Involved
NCDOT, FHWA
Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
Henderson, NC
RT II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date Request Received by SCS.
Z 0 y 2. Person Completing Form
Coy McKenzie
Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes
(1f no the FPPA does not apply - Do not rnmpcete additional parts of this form No 4. Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Aajor Crop(s)
~ 6. Farmable Land in Govemtnent Jurisdiction:
~ lkd 7. Amount of Farmland As De_fr~ea in FPPA
Z ~y
fame of Land Evacuation Sysum Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by SCS
RT III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor for Segment
Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
Total Acres to be Converted Directly 1.02 0.33 0.64
Cotal Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
Total Acres in Corridor 1.02 0.33 0.64
2T IV (To 6e completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information '
Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland ~• 0 2 • 3 3 . 6
Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland d
Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted 0 Dep ~ DDO 1$~ ~ 0001 3
'ereentage of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction with Same or Higher Relative Value ~' ~ ~ ~ 3S
tT V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value of
. nd to be Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points)
7 ~
7 5
J
.~ VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
:sement Criteria ese criteria are ex lained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
area in Nontuban Use 15 ) 1 s fS
'erimeter in Nonurban Use 10 ~ ~ p
'ereent of Corridor Being Farmed 20 ~ ~ ~ : p
'rotection Provided by State and Local Government 20 Q ~ Q, O
size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average IO d ~
reation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
-vailability of Farm Support Services 5
)n-Farm Investments ~ ~ 20 p• Q ~ '
'sffects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 - D
Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10 © [~ Q
'AL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 ~ Q 2
:T VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
five Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 -
1 Corridor Assessment (Form Part VI above ar a local. site
tsment) .160 ~ q
~ +
2 ~
~ .
'AL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260. ~ ~ ~~ ~O / J v
~rridor Selected: ~ 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to
be Converted by Project:
. 0 ',~ 3. Date of Selection:

)~15~/ot00 ~ 4.Was a Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No
-son for Jelecttoa:. - ~
!-~ t'it~rf-~It ~`CS ~a~.~'~a ~ ~~ptc~S ~ ~t/~Ck rrt ,
itttre of Person Completing this Part: ~ Date
E: Complete a form for cash segment with more none Alternative orridor - .